Charge down puts oppo on side

[crossref]

correct in Law, but is the Law fair here ?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632764778123755520

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1632764778123755520

here

 

[Stu10]

By utter coincidence, I was wondering around this over the weekend while doing some refresher reading of the laws...

In situations like this we hear the ref call "touched" or "touched in flight", with the implication that all players on the kicking team are now onside wherever they are positioned. HOWEVER...

Law 10.4.c
An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
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.

Law 10.8
A player offside under Law 10.4c cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent, apart from a charge down.

Law 11.5
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).

Sadly the "charge down" is not included in the definitions section. Therefore, based on Law 11, we can define a charge down as being when "A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it". (Well, let's come back to this in the last paragraph below...)

From law 10.4.c we know that a charge down is treated differently to when the "ball touches or is played by an opponent" with regard to offside lines after a ball is kicked.

In the linked video, the LEI player is within 10m of where the ball is caught or lands. The Bath player touches the ball but does not execute a charge down. The 10-metre law still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent, therefore the LEI player is offside.

Hypothetical, if the LEI player was in front of the kicker but not within 10m of where the ball landed, then we should be looking at law 10.7. Although the LEI player would be offside at the moment of the kick, but...

Law 10.7.b.iv
Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:
An opponent of that player:
Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.

... immediately after the kick a Bath player intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it, thereby putting the LEI player onside (in my hypothetical that the LEI player is NOT within 10m of where the ball lands).

HOWEVER, despite the wording provided in Law 10, the video provided to illustrate Law 10.7.b.iv matches the incident in the OP video (totally ignoring law 10.4.c). Also, the video illustrating Law 10.8 shows an attempted charge down but the ball continues up the field (i.e. the defender does not knock the ball forward) and play continues with players from the kicker's team considered to be onside (again, apparently ignoring law 10.4.c).

Thus, the videos associated with laws 10.7 and 10.8 imply any attempt at a charge down resulting in contact with the ball is regarded as being a charge down, therefore law 10.4.c does not apply. However, I would like to know, with regard to law 10.4.c what is the difference between "ball touches or is played by an opponent" and a "charge down".... they must be different, otherwise law 10.4.c would not list them associated with different outcomes.

 

[crossref]

We definitely need WR to explain the difference between played and charged down (since charge down is playing the ball)

 

[Dickie E]

In case you're geoblocked (like me) it happens in the 73rd minute:

 

[Dickie E]

Sadly the "charge down" is not included in the definitions section. Therefore, based on Law 11, we can define a charge down as being when "A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it".

when we have debated this in the past, I think we reached consensus that an attempted charge down (ie ball goes backwards after contact by the charger-down) is the same as a completed charge down. But always worth re-visiting.

 

[crossref]

when we have debated this in the past, I think we reached consensus that an attempted charge down (ie ball goes backwards after contact by the charger-down) is the same as a completed charge down. But always worth re-visiting.

That seems right, but I still find it very hard to understand what they meant here

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.

In the OP incident, blue plays the ball (so 10m law applies) and what he did to play the ball was attempt to charge it down (so 10m law doesn't apply)

Hard to know for certain what WR were thinking when they wrote that

 

[Dickie E]

Hard to know for certain what WR were thinking when they wrote that

Makes sense to me. Any contact that isn't a charge down will invoke 10 metre law

 

[crossref]

Makes sense to me. Any contact that isn't a charge down will invoke 10 metre law

yes, but what's the definition of a charge down?

 

[Jz558]

when we have debated this in the past, I think we reached consensus that an attempted charge down (ie ball goes backwards after contact by the charger-down) is the same as a completed charge down. But always worth re-visiting.

To be honest I've only ever heard this point argued since I joined this site but I referee it this way now because that seems to be what is expected. Whilst playing/coaching if you'd asked me what a 'charge down' was I'd have said that it was only applicable if the ball went forward following a deliberate attempt to play the ball (ie charged down). Anything else was known as a failed charge down (now referred to as "touched in flight"). Whilst there is no actual definition of charged down I always thought it was obvious and, indeed the diagram in the law book seems pretty clear to me and law 11.5 also refers. Also if we only classify charge downs as a ball that goes forward all the other laws, ie 10m make sense.

What seems to have become more prevelant is players waiting in the middle of the park rather than actively retreating to an on-side position as the kick tennis takes place which increases the possibility of events like this happening. In fact if I was coaching now I would tell players not to retreat as youre closer to the receiver, it never gets penalised and there's always a chance of a touched in flight which we can take advantage of. I cant help feeling the laws or application of the laws havent kept up with tactical developments in this area.

I do think charge down should be officially defined in law now.

 

[crossref]

so in the OP you'd say not a charge down, so 10m law applied? So PK?

 

[Jz558]

so in the OP you'd say not a charge down, so 10m law applied? So PK?

Short answer, yes.

Longer answer, to be perfectly honest, if that happened in my game at the weekend I would give the same decision as KD did as that seems to be the expected interpretation regardless of whether I think its right.

 

[crossref]

I do sometimes wonder whether it's only a charge down if the ball goes, um, down.

If that is the case then the OP is an example of a player playing the ball, but NOT charging it down.

 

[Jz558]

I do sometimes wonder whether it's only a charge down if the ball goes, um, down.

If that is the case then the OP is an example of a player playing the ball, but NOT charging it down.

As I mentioned before, if we interpret a charge down as a ball that only goes down (which until recently is how I saw it anyway) then the other laws all work. Why try and make our life more difficult?

 

[Dickie E]

As I mentioned before, if we interpret a charge down as a ball that only goes down (which until recently is how I saw it anyway) then the other laws all work. Why try and make our life more difficult?

When you say down, do you mean towards the ground or towards the opposition DBL?

 

[crossref]

When you say down, do you mean towards the ground or towards the opposition DBL?

I meant toward the ground

It's a possibility that it's only a charge down if the ball goes downwards, ie toward the ground

 

[Jz558]

When you say down, do you mean towards the ground or towards the opposition DBL?

Without over thinking it, any interpretation which covers the ball going forward.

 

[didds]

well any charge "down" eventually goes down towards the ground due to gravity ;-)

its not unuusal ofr a blocked kick to go forwards form the blocker ie towards the oppo DBL but its intial flighht is up.
WADR respect to you guys I wold humbly suggest starting with nuances of it being DOWN from the vblcok rather than flat or up from the block just creates more rods for your own backs.

(Im discussing the blocking that isnt touched in flight and leads to the ball generally continuing its origainl path etc etc etc yadda yadda yadda)

 

[crossref]

well any charge "down" eventually goes down towards the ground due to gravity ;-)

its not unuusal ofr a blocked kick to go forwards form the blocker ie towards the oppo DBL but its intial flighht is up.
WADR respect to you guys I wold humbly suggest starting with nuances of it being DOWN from the vblcok rather than flat or up from the block just creates more rods for your own backs.

(Im discussing the blocking that isnt touched in flight and leads to the ball generally continuing its origainl path etc etc etc yadda yadda yadda)

in the clip in the OP -- is that a charge down, do you think ?

 

[didds]

For me - no.

But im not talking about touched in flight.

Im picking up on the suggestion (#12 and #15) that a fully blocked kick [1] "must" go DOWN immediately for it to be a charge DOWN. That's just creating more rods for you own backs - IMO FWTW

What would one call a fully blocked kick that went up initially? And if its NOT a charge DOWN - what is it for laws purposes - cos that only leaves a knock-on ?


[1] one that is kicked east-west, is blocked and then travels west-east instead.

 

[crossref]

reading all the posts.

1 in my view the touch in the OP constitutes touched-in-flight and NOT a charge down
2 so while the touch does put the Leicester players onside, it does NOT release them from the 10m rule
3 so players not caught by the 10m rule were free to move forward
4 but the players who were caught by the 10m rule should drop back
5 so PK to Bath

but I would love to see WR address this.