Charge-down offside?

[Taff]

.... It's all about the interpretation of the 10m law wording when a failed charge down that clips the fingers.

Sorry, but I can't see the problem.

The 10m Law only applies to offside players. If the ball has been touched in flight, the opposition are no longer offside.

Once the ball is touched in flight, surely the 10m Law can't apply.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Agreed.

 

[Phil E]

I wonder if menace is thinking that a failed charge down (where the ball doesn't go back towards the kicker, but just clips the chargers fingers) isn't a charge down?

To me if it clips the would be chargers fingers, then it is still a charge down, it's just a crap one!

 

[Dixie]

Sorry, but I can't see the problem.

The 10m Law only applies to offside players. If the ball has been touched in flight, the opposition are no longer offside.

Once the ball is touched in flight, surely the 10m Law can't apply.

Law reference? Please don't use 11.3 as we are talking about 11.4.

 

[Dickie E]

Red grubber kicks the ball (nice word - grubber) and it grazes the leg of a Blue opponent. Is that a charge down?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Red grubber kicks the ball (nice word - grubber) and it grazes the leg of a Blue opponent. Is that a charge down?

The #2 video from would indicate yes it is a charge down. Not sure how this applies to question at had, other than his blue teammates ahead of his that are offside.


For another thread maybe, #1 video Mery Mexted indicates that "everyon is onside following a chargedown" Perhaps not the best audio on the lawbook website.

 

[Taff]

I wonder if menace is thinking that a failed charge down (where the ball doesn't go back towards the kicker, but just clips the chargers fingers) isn't a charge down? To me if it clips the would be chargers fingers, then it is still a charge down, it's just a crap one!

Sorry Phil, but why do you consider a finger tip touch a charge down? It's just "touched in flight" surely ie a failed charge down. :chin: Frankly, it's achieved sod all .... apart from put all the opponents onside. In fact the charger would have been better off putting his hands in his pockets.

Law reference? Please don't use 11.3 as we are talking about 11.4.

But why talk about 11.4 when it doesn't apply Dixie? The first line of 11.4 says "When a team mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game".

By touching the ball in flight, IMO the previously offside players are no longer offside as they have now been put onside by 11.3(c) ie they are put onside by an opponent "intentionally touching the ball". And if you're not offside, you can forget the 10m Law because it only applies to offside players.

I can see the problem, under the 10m Law offside players can't be put onside by an opponent. In fact I queried this very point at one of our monthly meetings about a year ago. I was told that the key point was that the ball was touched I flight on the way up - I can't remember who, but someone else has already mentioned this. What I was told was if the ball was fumbled by an opponent on its way down, then that wouldn't put offside players onside, and the 10m Law still applied to them.

 

[menace]

I wonder if menace is thinking that a failed charge down (where the ball doesn't go back towards the kicker, but just clips the chargers fingers) isn't a charge down?

To me if it clips the would be chargers fingers, then it is still a charge down, it's just a crap one!

Actually I'm not thinking that Phil, I agree with you, but Dixie and Wedgie pose another possible scenario of interpretation of that and it is quite convincing. To save going around in circles, you really should read carefully from post #26 onwards, especially those from me, Dixie and Wedgie.

 

[menace]

Sorry Phil, but why do you consider a finger tip touch a charge down? It's just "touched in flight" surely ie a failed charge down. :chin: Frankly, it's achieved sod all .... apart from put all the opponents onside. In fact the charger would have been better off putting his hands in his pockets.
.

Taff - and its this thinking/bit that puts some confusion into 11.4 still applying when the law says "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down."
That is what Dixie is saying muddies the interpretation and where your 2nd part of your post can start to unravel.
As I said above...go back to post #26 and read carefully from there.

(Ps. I'm not yet convinced to change my interpretation that clipped fingers is a charge down and therefore nullifies 11.4)

 

[Guyseep]

I had a similar question and created a bunch of diagrams to outline the different scenarios. Take a look at this thread:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?15637-Offside-confusion

 

[menace]

Taff - and its this thinking/bit that puts some confusion into 11.4 still applying when the law says "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down."
That is what Dixie is saying muddies the interpretation and where your 2nd part of your post can start to unravel.
As I said above...go back to post #26 and read carefully from there.

(Ps. I'm not yet convinced to change my interpretation that clipped fingers is a charge down and therefore nullifies 11.4)

After reading guyseep's thread (thanks), and picking up on dickie's concept of a grubber kick touching an opponent, I think I have finally thought of what the intent of "The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down." I think it is to account where an opponent doesn't try to touch the ball but rather when the ball is kicked into them. Eg they're close to the kicker and they turn their back to the kicker but the kick hits his shoulder and balloons to his team mate down field. I think you could contend that the 10m law could still apply. (Still a tough one to sell but doable)

But I'm now convinced that I was right the first time that a charge down that clips the fingers is still a charge down and so 10m law does not apply and 11.3 takes over (It's a lot easier to interpret with that in mind).

 

[Dixie]

But why talk about 11.4 when it doesn't apply Dixie? The first line of 11.4 says "When a team mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game".

I've done this at length earlier in the thread, but as it's you, Taff, I'll repeat it.

[LAWS]11.4(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land.[/LAWS]

I take it there is no doubt that at the moment the ball is kicked by Blue 15, all Blue players ahead of him are offside? And that (if the ball will come down on the half way line) all Blue players between the 10m and the half way line are covered by the 10m law? Let's start with that scenario then. Blue 15 kicks on the 22, the ball will land on the halfway and Blue 1 is ahead of his 10m line, while Red 15 waits to catch the ball.

A fraction of a second later, Red 7's fingers clip the ball as he tries to charge down. This makes very little (if any) difference to the ball's trajectory, which will continue as before. You now argue that Blue 1 is no longer offside, due to 11.3(c):

[LAWS](c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]

and so 11.4 cannot apply. This is to misunderstand 11.4, which is a subset of "offside in general play" and subject to different rules. Because of where Blue 1 was located, 11.3 does not apply, as 11.4 takes precedence:

[LAWS]11.3 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]

[LAWS]11.4(b) While moving away, the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.[/LAWS]

So we see that your thesis is manifestly incorrect. But we do get difficulties with 11.4(f) in this situation:

[LAWS](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.[/LAWS]

Blue 15 kicked; Red 7 attempted a charge down - we need to decide whether he was successful, given that the touch had no impact on the trajectory of the ball. Let's assume for a moment that this does indeed constitute a charge-down. What is the consequence?

[LAWS]The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside.[/LAWS] Extraordinary statement. "So the hell what?" is my instinctive response. We must be talking about Red 7, as Red 15 is clearly waiting (somewhat anxiously, given Blue 1's proximity) to play the ball when it come down. This "waiting to play the ball" comes from 11.4(c), which is a protective measure:

[LAWS](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]

So we see that allowing Blue 1 to hit Red 15 is dangerous - the laws say so But they also say it is OK for him to do so, as he has been put onside by the action of Red 7. How can we square that with 11.4(b) - the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team? We can't - its irreconcilable. There is a further problem with the assumption that the fingertip touch constitutes a charge-down, presented by the last sentence of 11.4(f):

[LAWS]11.4(f) ... The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down. [/LAWS] We conclude that the fingertip touch having no impact on trajectory is a charge-down. So what on Earth can possibly fall into this category? We can conclude that it might be the scenario in which the Red player was too far away to charge down, but managed to react after the kick sufficiently to player the ball, but without being able to catch it. But that is simply a restatement of the essence of 11.4(b) - no action by the opposing team can put the offside player onside.

We might then conclude that due to these irreconcilable difficulties, the fingertip touch does NOT constitute a charge down. I believe (without statistic evidence) that is the way most refs interpret it, but most will do so by gut reaction rather than analysis.

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]Law 12 Definition […] 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]That is the nearest we get to a definition of a charge down. The focus is clearly on the ball going forward.


[LAWS]Law 22.7 (e) If a defending team has put the ball into their own in-goal and a defending player kicks the ball so that is charged down in in-goal and then made dead, the attacking side is awarded a 5-metre scrum in line with where the ball is made dead and they throw in the ball. [/LAWS]Again, this makes most sense if the ball goes forward. If it doesn’t, it may still go into touch-in-goal, but is much more likely to go back into the field of play.

It seems to me that the essence of a charge down is that it reverses the direction of the ball.

So when we come to this:-
[LAWS]Law 11.4 (f) […] The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.[/LAWS]I read it as saying that the exemption does not apply if the ball merely comes into contact with an opponent. “Touches or is played by” covers both intentional and unintentional contact, and does not constitute a charge down. The 10 meter law still applies.

11.4 only applies to players who are offside at the moment of the kick, so 11.4 (f) only applies to a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of him as well as being in front of the opponent charging the ball down. Since such an opponent is almost on top of the kicker, this paragraph does have very narrow applicability.

I don’t place much weight on [LAWS]Law 1l.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.[/LAWS]This situation can arise from a chip kick being chased by an onside team mate and is not penalised as dangerous play. It can also arise from a Garryowen.

 

[menace]

[LAWS]Law 12 Definition […] 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]That is the nearest we get to a definition of a charge down. The focus is clearly on the ball going forward.

That may be so, but it is also clear that a charge down does not uniquely mean the ball must go forward? It may go forward , and therefore it may also go sideways or may go back.

I think your drawing a long bow of intent there.

 

[Browner]

[LAWS]Law 12 Definition […] 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]That is the nearest we get to a definition of a charge down. The focus is clearly on the ball going forward.


[LAWS]Law 22.7 (e) If a defending team has put the ball into their own in-goal and a defending player kicks the ball so that is charged down in in-goal and then made dead, the attacking side is awarded a 5-metre scrum in line with where the ball is made dead and they throw in the ball. [/LAWS]Again, this makes most sense if the ball goes forward. If it doesn’t, it may still go into touch-in-goal, but is much more likely to go back into the field of play.

It seems to me that the essence of a charge down is that it reverses the direction of the ball.

So when we come to this:-
[LAWS]Law 11.4 (f) […] The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.[/LAWS]I read it as saying that the exemption does not apply if the ball merely comes into contact with an opponent. “Touches or is played by” covers both intentional and unintentional contact, and does not constitute a charge down. The 10 meter law still applies.
.

that's my interpretation.
Both... charged-down forward & touched slightly... mean the kickers teammates are made onside, but in the case of a 'forward' kick the catcher gets protection of the 10m law, that a slight touch in flight doesn't remove.

 

[OB..]

That may be so, but it is also clear that a charge down does not uniquely mean the ball must go forward? It may go forward , and therefore it may also go sideways or may go back.

I think your drawing a long bow of intent there.

I don't claim that the law is clear. I am trying to make sense of what we have.

 

[menace]

Fair enough. Point taken.

 

[menace]

[LAWS]Law 12 Definition […] 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]That is the nearest we get to a definition of a charge down. The focus is clearly on the ball going forward.


[LAWS]Law 22.7 (e) If a defending team has put the ball into their own in-goal and a defending player kicks the ball so that is charged down in in-goal and then made dead, the attacking side is awarded a 5-metre scrum in line with where the ball is made dead and they throw in the ball. [/LAWS]Again, this makes most sense if the ball goes forward. If it doesn’t, it may still go into touch-in-goal, but is much more likely to go back into the field of play.

It seems to me that the essence of a charge down is that it reverses the direction of the ball.

So when we come to this:-
[LAWS]Law 11.4 (f) […] The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.[/LAWS]I read it as saying that the exemption does not apply if the ball merely comes into contact with an opponent. “Touches or is played by” covers both intentional and unintentional contact, and does not constitute a charge down. The 10 meter law still applies.

11.4 only applies to players who are offside at the moment of the kick, so 11.4 (f) only applies to a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of him as well as being in front of the opponent charging the ball down. Since such an opponent is almost on top of the kicker, this paragraph does have very narrow applicability.

I don’t place much weight on [LAWS]Law 1l.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.[/LAWS]This situation can arise from a chip kick being chased by an onside team mate and is not penalised as dangerous play. It can also arise from a Garryowen.

Deepest apologies for dragging this one up...so possibly more for OB than anyone (or for anyone who could remember the debate or could be bothered rereading the thread).

But here is an example from the S15 on the weekend at 20:19 on the game clock (22:00 on YouTube clock) of what I think you meant OB, that the 10m still applies because it wasn't a (successful) charge down and therefore the 10m offside law would still apply.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XaL9Lsm_5NE

It seems CJ believes it is a charge down (and so do I) and so 11.4 does not apply. So CJ would not agree with OBs interpretation.

I don't want to relive the debate, but thought I'd just show an example of the elite guys showing that a clipped fingers when charging down the kicker is still a charge down (ie ball does not have to go forward)

 

[Blackberry]

Yep, the ref got it right. If you partially charge down a kick which then sails on over your head, anyone behind you can field that ball. This is because YOU were the last person to play that ball and the law does not deem your opponents behind you to have been waiting for the ball.

 

[menace]

No argument from me....totally agree, but that's not what OB and some others thought.