Charge-down offside?

[menace]

"The player can still be offside under normal law (the excerpt here is about the 10 metre law), would that work?"

Ignore! I was arguing a different point.

Here's what I give; if a red player half charges down a kick and it flies past him to a blue player, that blue player is onside. If on the other hand, the red player has tried to play the ball, but fumbled it past to the blue player, the blue player is offside.

As a useful rule of thumb, if the red player deflects the ball as its rising from the kick, its a charge down, if he deflects it coming down, he's tried to play it.
Let the abuse begin.......

Why? You were right the first time?

What you're now saying doesn't make much sense? I'm not sure you have the colours the right way with what you're trying to explain? (Or maybe I still have mondayitis?)

No abuse, but a charge down merely means that if it goes forward from the charge down that it's not a knock on...that is the only exception, nothing more. He's still played at it and so offside in general play laws are still to be upheld ie "Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player". Crikey, a charge down is a deliberate attempt to stop the ball, you can't get more intentional played at than that!

 

[Wedgie]

[LAWS]11.4(f)
The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not 'waiting to play the ball' and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.[/LAWS]

But the laws do not say "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not if it is charged down." as I think they would need to, to support your assessor's interpretation. And, as others have said, you penalised for offside in general play - in support of this the SANCTION coda to 11.4(f) goes on to talk about offside in general play.

But not having thought of this before...as written "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down." would presumably apply to a situation where Red has kicked, Blue has attempted to charge down, only managed to get fingertips to the ball and the ball has continued on its trajectory towards the Blue try line. We would be shouting "Touched!" to avoid any "discussions" when we award any subsequent line-out to Red. But under this situation would any Red players within 10m of where the ball lands still need to actively retire 10m?

 

[crossref]

I know, he is in front of his team mate who last "played" the ball.
But, none of the offside law related to kick apply (hence the exception on the 10 metres law).
Wouldn't you be able to say that a charge down can be associated with an unintentional throw forward?
.

I think not -- catching a ball that's thrown to you is completely instinctive (I have even seen the referee do it!)

I think picking up the ball after a charge down is a more deliberate thing -- like picking up a colleague's knock on from an offside position, in fact. Players know full well they are offsid.

 

[The Fat]

Original post:
Open play.
Red player clears the ball from outside his 22 with a kick.
Blue player charges the ball down and the ball travels towards Red's try line.
2nd blue player who was ahead of the 1st, reaches the ball first and plays it.

I blow a penalty for the 2nd blue player being offside.

Then:
My assessor stated otherwise as a charge down does not constitute having played the ball.


And then:
Assessor's reasoning was from
[LAWS]11.4(f)
The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not 'waiting to play the ball' and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.[/LAWS]

with a particular emphasis on the highlighted area.
He reasoned that the ball was not played, rather it was charged.

Your assessor is on drugs.
Your decision was correct.
The 10m Law has nothing to do with your original description of what happened and the 10m law only applies the members of the kicker's team anyway.
Keep it simple. reading all of the posts in this thread will only confuse you more.
Just reread Phil's post #6.

 

[Wedgie]

....reading all of the posts in this thread will only confuse you more.

From reading this site for the last year or so, I kind of assumed that was the point of the forum? :smile:

 

[menace]

But not having thought of this before...as written "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down." would presumably apply to a situation where Red has kicked, Blue has attempted to charge down, only managed to get fingertips to the ball and the ball has continued on its trajectory towards the Blue try line. We would be shouting "Touched!" to avoid any "discussions" when we award any subsequent line-out to Red. But under this situation would any Red players within 10m of where the ball lands still need to actively retire 10m?

Not for me. Play on.
As I understand it, and apply it, the fact is blue still 'charged down' and got a touch to it, therefore it's still a charge down (just not very successful). 10m law does not apply. Furthermore any red players in front of the kicker (provided they were not moving forward in the split second after the kick and before the touched charge down...which you're not likely to see nor will it be material) have now been put on side because of the actions of blue ie 11.3 c
[LAWS]Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]

 

[Dixie]

Not for me. Play on.
As I understand it, and apply it, the fact is blue still 'charged down' and got a touch to it, therefore it's still a charge down (just not very successful). 10m law does not apply. Furthermore any red players in front of the kicker (provided they were not moving forward in the split second after the kick and before the touched charge down...which you're not likely to see nor will it be material) have now been put on side because of the actions of blue ie 11.3 c
[LAWS]Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]

Menace, I see where you are coming from, and quite like the approach. However, it relies upon a very technical definition of "charged down" which seems unlikely to achieve aver majority agreement from the world' referees without iRB guidance. The law needs to be changed. The problem is that there is the general offside law (11.3), and there is a subset of that which is the 10m law (11.4). 11.3 specifically says that 11.4 takes precedence:

[LAWS]In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.[/LAWS]

So we know that 11.4 is supposed to be covered by different rules, and that those rules take precedence. One of the key differences is that the three actions by the opposing team do not apply to put the offside player onside:

[LAWS](b) While moving away, the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.[/LAWS]

Indeed, this bit of 11.4 seems specifically to cover the situation in which an attempted charge-down gets only fingertips to the ball:

[LAWS](d) When a player who is offside under the 10-metre Law plays the ball which has been misfielded by an opponent, the offside player is penalised.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

10.4(f) is entirely unsatisfactory, and incapable of rational deconstruction. But if your view is correct, the last sentence of a paragraph dealing with charge-downs either can never, ever, apply:

[LAWS]The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.[/LAWS]

or else it doesn't deal with a charge-down. Either way, it is utterly irrational as written, and needs to be amended as soon as possible.

 

[menace]

Menace, I see where you are coming from, and quite like the approach. However, it relies upon a very technical definition of "charged down" which seems unlikely to achieve aver majority agreement from the world' referees without iRB guidance. The law needs to be changed. The problem is that there is the general offside law (11.3), and there is a subset of that which is the 10m law (11.4). 11.3 specifically says that 11.4 takes precedence:

[LAWS]In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.[/LAWS]

So we know that 11.4 is supposed to be covered by different rules, and that those rules take precedence. One of the key differences is that the three actions by the opposing team do not apply to put the offside player onside:

[LAWS](b) While moving away, the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.[/LAWS]

Indeed, this bit of 11.4 seems specifically to cover the situation in which an attempted charge-down gets only fingertips to the ball:

[LAWS](d) When a player who is offside under the 10-metre Law plays the ball which has been misfielded by an opponent, the offside player is penalised.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

10.4(f) is entirely unsatisfactory, and incapable of rational deconstruction. But if your view is correct, the last sentence of a paragraph dealing with charge-downs either can never, ever, apply:

[LAWS]The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.[/LAWS]

or else it doesn't deal with a charge-down. Either way, it is utterly irrational as written, and needs to be amended as soon as possible.

I'm not sure I agree with you Dixie. Although I agree that 'charge down' is open to interpretation and not likely to ever get unanimous agreement among refs without a decent definition. I would feel confident however that iRB might agree with me with this scenario, and that is an 'attempted' charge down that clips the fingers is still defined as 'charges down a kick', and essentially means law 11.4m does not come into play and thus law 11.3 takes over. The reason I'm confident in my interpretation of this scenario is that IRB laws (iPad and www version) of 11.3c show a video of a player charges down a kick (looks like a duck!) and the players 'offside' are permitted to move forward without PK. See here http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=11 and the video link on 11.3 c.

I think it is quite clear a player charges down the kick. Hence 11.4 is now out.

Further

[LAWS]11.4 (f)
The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not 'waiting to play the ball' and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.
[/LAWS]

I think the first sentence adequately covers the charge down, and the clipped fingers when someone charges down the kick.

I would also argue that 'misfielding' in 11.4 d is intended to deal with a player waiting or attempting to 'catch' the ball, not one who tries to charge the ball (as there is no attempt to catch it so I don't see that as a misfield). Either way I still maintain in the scenario that 11.4 is not in play, and therefore the 3 ways the oppo puts a player onside are valid.

But above all, despite all this debate on what could or could not be unclear written laws, my association have given directions to interpret it this way. So that's what i do to appease the clipboard gods!

 

[Taff]

Why is "waiting to play the ball" in quotation marks?

It's as if they're quoting another law, which would make it all slot neatly into place, but which law?

 

[Dixie]

Why is "waiting to play the ball" in quotation marks?

It's as if they're quoting another law, which would make it all slot neatly into place, but which law?

[LAWS]11.4(c) When a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law charges an opponent waiting to catch the ball, the referee blows the whistle at once and the offside player is penalised. Delay may prove dangerous to the opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Doesn't help, I'm afraid.

 

[talbazar]

Menace, Dixie, lets simplify things:
Red 15 receive the ball from a kick and kicks back while red 10 is standing a good 30 meters ahead off him (red 10 is offside at the moment of the kick, correct?)
In that split second, blue 11 attempts to charge the kick down but only manages to put his fingertips on the ball which flies straight towards red 10.
Where does/did the quick land?

Why couldn't it land on the finger tips of blue 11 when he attempted the charge down?

That's the way I interprete it. And it gives the same result as Menace's interpretation. There no 10-metres law where the ball gets to red 10.

To add to this, IMO, the exception for charge down on the 10 meters law is to avoid an entire team to have to run 10 metres back in the case the kick is actually charged down and lands at the feet of the kicker...
Doesn't that make sense?

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[crossref]

To add to this, IMO, the exception for charge down on the 10 meters law is to avoid an entire team to have to run 10 metres back in the case the kick is actually charged down and lands at the feet of the kicker...
Doesn't that make sense?

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

that's what I think the intention of the law is.
normally when a player charges down a kick it lands behind the kicker -- the Law is making it clear that the kicker's team are NOT all caught by the 10m law, and are not all required to perform a running retreat ...

 

[Blackberry]

Ignore! I was arguing a different point.

Here's what I give; if a red player half charges down a kick and it flies past him to a blue player, that blue player is onside. If on the other hand, the red player has tried to play the ball, but fumbled it past to the blue player, the blue player is offside.

As a useful rule of thumb, if the red player deflects the ball as its rising from the kick, its a charge down, if he deflects it coming down, he's tried to play it.
Let the abuse begin.......

I didn't make it clear that I am talking about an unsuccessful charge down, where red has tried to charge down a blue kick, he got a hand to it, but it still went past him. Now any lucky blue player behind the semi successful charger can play the ball.

 

[Browner]

As a useful rule of thumb, if the red player deflects the ball as its rising from the kick, its a charge down, if he deflects it coming down, he's tried to play it.
Let the abuse begin.......

"As an opponent kicks it" or " immediately after the kick" ....................... might be a better rule of thumb, otherwise a kick that is punted downwards & strikes the shin of the charge down attemptee would fall under your "tried to play it" classification, which he didn't of course.

[LAWS]
Charge down.If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward. [/LAWS]
If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward. player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.

 

[Wedgie]

...is that IRB laws (iPad and www version) of 11.3c show a video of a player charges down a kick (looks like a duck!) and the players 'offside' are permitted to move forward without PK. See here http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?law=11 and the video link on 11.3 c.

I think it is quite clear a player charges down the kick. Hence 11.4 is now out.

I do not think it is clear that the player in the video charged down the kick. I think this is the piece we disagree upon.

The blue players who are running towards the ball after the kick are not within 10m of where the ball will land - so 11.4 does not apply, so can not supercede 11.3, therefore they are free to advance as they have been played onside by the red player who got his fingertips to it (11.3(c) - put onside by an opponent intentionally touching the ball).

Further

[LAWS]11.4 (f)
The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not 'waiting to play the ball' and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.
[/LAWS]

I think the first sentence adequately covers the charge down, and the clipped fingers when someone charges down the kick.

I too think the first sentence adequately covers the charge down. But I don't think it adequately covers the clipped fingers, as I think that is covered by the final sentence. Although there are parts of the Laws that are unsatisfactorily written, if the fingertip scenario is not what "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down." is intended to apply to, then what could it be there for?

Somewhere on this forum I remember reading that the point of the 10m Law was for safety, to prevent the catcher of the ball from being flattened by someone waiting close by them. I don't see how that situation is changed by the merest fingertip.

Of course there is always going to be the grey area where the ball goes up vertically from the fingertips, or significantly balloons off them but those are the situation we get, ahem, paid to manage

 

[menace]

I do not think it is clear that the player in the video charged down the kick. I think this is the piece we disagree upon.

(Happy to agree to disagree)

The blue players who are running towards the ball after the kick are not within 10m of where the ball will land - so 11.4 does not apply, so can not supercede 11.3, therefore they are free to advance as they have been played onside by the red player who got his fingertips to it (11.3(c) - put onside by an opponent intentionally touching the ball).

I too think the first sentence adequately covers the charge down. But I don't think it adequately covers the clipped fingers, as I think that is covered by the final sentence. Although there are parts of the Laws that are unsatisfactorily written, if the fingertip scenario is not what "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down." is intended to apply to, then what could it be there for?

Somewhere on this forum I remember reading that the point of the 10m Law was for safety, to prevent the catcher of the ball from being flattened by someone waiting close by them. I don't see how that situation is changed by the merest fingertip.

Of course there is always going to be the grey area where the ball goes up vertically from the fingertips, or significantly balloons off them but those are the situation we get, ahem, paid to manage

Aaahhhh the penny has finally dropped for me and I see where you and Dixie are coming from...I didn't fully appreciate what Dixie was getting at when he first mentioned "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down." . But I get it now. You're argument is very convincing. Perhaps I've been too liberal with defining a charge down with these laws? Perhaps I've also misinterpreted what our association wanted us to apply. Maybe I need to reassess this now.

Admittedly I am still struggling to get my head around it being equity and fair that the 10m law doesn't apply to the guy that clipped the fingers (trying to charge down) for all the reasons specified by others but now moves downfield to his guy 'waiting to play/catch' the ball? Why should he be give a 10m free zone to do what he wants when it was his own player that last intentionally played at the ball? Why shouldn't the kicking team player that is fortuitously near where the ball will land (assuming he wasn't there because of loitering) be able to compete for the ball? (It can't be anymore dangerous than any other high ball or long looping 'hospital' pass).

It will be a hard sell to the players. They see the clipped fingers and all think they're onside and able to rush forward towards the looped ball and i ping one for being in front of kicker and inside 10m will surely generate an interesting discussion with the capt.

'But sir - they touched it, doesn't that mean those in front of the kicker are now onside and can move forward'
' yes, but he was offside because he was inside 10m of the guy wanting to catch it'
'But you just said he was onside'
'yes onside to move forward, but not closer than 10m to he guy waiting to catch it. Not under the 10m law, I'm afraid'
'So they touched it last and we now can't compete for the ball until a kicker/onside player runs past the guy waiting 10m, as we have to give them 10m safety zone until the ball comes down?'
'Yep - that's right'
'But once they touched it everyone's onside? Can you see where I'm going here sir?'
'Yep. But no under 10m law. Now back 10 please!'
'You're f@cked in the head, sir!. I think I'll go play marbles or soccer!'

 

[talbazar]

It is impossible to me to have a different interpretation of the law in the two scenarios ("charge downn" and "fingertips")... What would be the limit between the two scenarios?
Post attempt charge down:
1. The ball travels towards kicker's goal line --> Charge down
2. The ball travels towards opponent's goal line almost as if it wasn't touched --> Fingertips
3. The ball travels towards opponent's goal line but only 30 metres --> ???
4. The ball travels towards opponent's goal line but only 20 metres --> ???
5. The ball travels towards opponent's goal line but only 10 metres --> ???
6. The ball travels towards opponent's goal line but only 5 metres --> ???
7. The ball travels towards opponent's goal line but only 1 metre --> ???

I'm with Menace on this one:

'You're f@cked in the head, sir!. I think I'll go play marbles or soccer!'

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[Wedgie]

It will be a hard sell to the players. They see the clipped fingers and all think they're onside and able to rush forward towards the looped ball and i ping one for being in front of kicker and inside 10m will surely generate an interesting discussion with the capt.

This is what I am struggling with. I think (?) that if the down field (kicker's team) player is 9m away from where the ball lands, he has to retreat. If he were 11m away, he is free to charge in and compete for the ball

'You're f@cked in the head, sir!. I think I'll go play marbles or soccer!'

Yup!

 

[Phil E]

When you see the ball touched give a big shout of "touched!" so everyone knows what the phase of play is.

If you really wanted to (depending on the level) you could also shout "all blue onside" or such like to remove any doubt.

It is then an easy sell later if you have to.

 

[menace]

When you see the ball touched give a big shout of "touched!" so everyone knows what the phase of play is.

If you really wanted to (depending on the level) you could also shout "all blue onside" or such like to remove any doubt.

It is then an easy sell later if you have to.

Yes, Phil, I do that, but that's not what the issue is (oh do keep up! :biggrin. It's all about the interpretation of the 10m law wording when a failed charge down that clips the fingers. But I won't recite it again...it gave me a headache the first time.

But I have figured out what I'm going to do..the same as I've always done until a referee coach (tries) says i have it wrong.