[Law] Charge down & off side

[Christy]

Red 10 kicks ball on his 10 meter line towards opposition . ( straight kick )
And does not advance forward after his kick .
Red 6 is approx 1 meter in front of kicker & approx 5 meters to kickers right side .
Red 7 is approx 2 meters in front of his kicker .

White 10 charges down kick & red 7 then catches the charge down rebound .
He then passes ball to his still off side red 6 .

Question .
1 ) do we blow whistle & penalise red 6 for off side .

Or does the charge down , put the whole team on side . Who were in front of kicker.
Or does the charge down , only put red 7 on side .

Any thoughts .

 

[OB..]

Red 10 kicks ball on his 10 meter line towards opposition . ( straight kick )
And does not advance forward after his kick .
Red 6 is approx 1 meter in front of kicker & approx 5 meters to kickers right side .
Red 7 is approx 2 meters in front of his kicker .

White 10 charges down kick & red 7 then catches the charge down rebound .
He then passes ball to his still off side red 6 .

Question .
1 ) do we blow whistle & penalise red 6 for off side .

Or does the charge down , put the whole team on side . Who were in front of kicker.
Or does the charge down , only put red 7 on side .

Any thoughts .

[LAWS]10.8 A player offside under Law 10.4c cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent,
apart from a charge down.[/LAWS]So the charge down puts both 6 and 7 on-side. (Law 10.4c is the 10-metre law.)

 

[thepercy]

[LAWS]10.8 A player offside under Law 10.4c cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent,
apart from a charge down.[/LAWS]So the charge down puts both 6 and 7 on-side. (Law 10.4c is the 10-metre law.)

Does this apply to a partial charge down that does not reverse the direction of the kick? Would an offside player 15 meters ahead of the kicker be put onside by a partial charge down and be free to play the ball?

 

[Christy]

Does this apply to a partial charge down that does not reverse the direction of the kick? Would an offside player 15 meters ahead of the kicker be put onside by a partial charge down and be free to play the ball?

Yes for me ..

• 
• Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.

 

[Dickie E]

Does this apply to a partial charge down that does not reverse the direction of the kick? Would an offside player 15 meters ahead of the kicker be put onside by a partial charge down and be free to play the ball?

this is a good question that we have dabbled with in the past.

Is a charge down a binary event (it either happens or it doesn't)? Can you have a partial charge down or is that like having a partial murder?

The 10 metre law allows for a charge down putting kicker's team mates onside but doesn't allow for "intentionally playing" putting them onside.

For me, I'd be OK with a "partial" charge down. That is, if a player attempted a charge down and provided the ball struck her/his body, then that would put all kicker's team mates onside. IMO.

 

[crossref]

Unfortunately "charge down" is not included in the definition section

The best we have is in the knock on law .. This implies that it's only a charge down the ball changes direction

[LAWS]The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:

A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).[/LAWS]

 

[Dickie E]

Unfortunately "charge down" is not included in the definition section

The best we have is in the knock on law .. This implies that it's only a charge down the ball changes direction

[LAWS]The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:

A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).[/LAWS]

I think you are incorrectly inferring the implication.

Certainly it is a "charge down" if "A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it". However, there may be other ways to undertake a charge down.

 

[crossref]

Yes, I think so as well.

It's a shame that the Law book forgot to define it.

 

[ChrisR]

I think you are incorrectly inferring the implication.

Certainly it is a "charge down" if "A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it". However, there may be other ways to undertake a charge down.

I don't think we should look to knock-on law for a definition of charge down as it wouldn't be pertinent if the ball didn't go forward and therefor wouldn't be referenced.

I think we can agree that a charge down occurs when

a. the ball is rising
b. is played deliberately by the opponents

The question then is: If the ball is deflected but continues forward (or sideways) is it a charge down? If we don't say "Yes" 10.4 situations get awful messy.

 

[crossref]

[LAWS]10.4.c Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down. [/LAWS]

So - genuine Qu - - what's the difference between 'played by an opponent' and 'charged down' ?

Scenario : Red kick, and Blue attempt a charge down, but get just a finger to the ball, deflecting the ball very slightly
- did blue touch it? Yes
- did blue play it? Yes
- did blue charge it down ?
- does the 10m Law apply?

 

[Dickie E]

So - genuine Qu - -

aren't all of your questions genuine or just the ones prefixed with genuine Qu?

 

[ChrisR]

aren't all of your questions genuine or just the ones prefixed with genuine Qu?

You forhot to say "Honestly, . . ."

 

[crossref]

aren't all of your questions genuine or just the ones prefixed with genuine Qu?

He he.
I meant , that I am not refering to the definition of charge down in the knock on law
I quite like ChrisR definition, but the Law 10.4.c seems to have something else in mind

 

[ChrisR]

[LAWS]10.4.c Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down. [/LAWS]

So - genuine Qu - - what's the difference between 'played by an opponent' and 'charged down' ?

Scenario : Red kick, and Blue attempt a charge down, but get just a finger to the ball, deflecting the ball very slightly
- did blue touch it? Yes
- did blue play it? Yes
- did blue charge it down ?
- does the 10m Law apply?

If you apply the criteria for charge-down "Was the ball on the rise?" then it shakes out the differences.

 

[Jz558]

The very name seems to suggest that a charge down should really only count if the ball is in fact 'charged down'. Surely any attempt to 'charge down' that results in the ball actually continuing upwards/laterally can't really be said to have been 'charged down', just deflected. I'm not sure we help ourselves by inventing/using terms such as partial charge down when we actually mean deflected. It would definitely help if the term was included in the definitions section however even that doesn't always help. Next thread Flying Wedge or Cavalry Charge anyone?

 

[L'irlandais]

They say a picture tells a thousand words.
Law 11 has a picture of a charge down
I would agree, a deflection is not one. In a charge down the ball is blocked and goes toward the kicker’s deadball line. Which would otherwise be a knock-on, except for this exception in Law.

[LAWS]It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward.[/LAWS]So charge down, retains this need for the ball to go forward.

 

[crossref]

so in this scenario

Scenario : Red kick, and Blue attempt a charge down, but get just a finger to the ball, deflecting the ball very slightly
- did blue touch it? Yes
- did blue play it? Yes
- did blue charge it down ?
- does the 10m Law apply?

By ChrisR definition it IS a chargedown, so 10m Law does NOT apply
By Irlandais/jz558' definition it is NOT a charge down, so the 10m Law DOES apply


This is why they need to define a 'charge down'

 

[Jz558]

L'Irlandaise's post looks pretty conclusive to me.

11.5a A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (Charge down).

If World Rugby decides that it needs to include Charge Down in the definitions section it would be hard to believe they would use any other explanation than that in 11.5a [FONT=fs_blakeregular]

[/FONT]

 

[ChrisR]

Now we enter the realm of word play.

Is it a "charge down" if the ball continues to rise after contact with the opponent but travels toward the kickers goal? I'd say "Yes" but if we get picky about the "down" part then you'd say "No".

 

[L'irlandais]

I’d agree with you. If the ball goes forward, be it sidewards, upwards or whatever I am not into picking over words. But Crossref isn’t wrong, either. WR might have provided a definition under the image, given the salaries some of those blokes take home, I’d say they were very poor value for money. I doubt they could organize a piss up in a brewery, let alone draft a useful copy of the LoTG.