Charge down puts oppo on side

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,488
Solutions
1
Post Likes
447
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Yes, you are correct. The 10m law dictates that an imaginary line is drawn across the FOP 10m towards the kicker's goal line measured from where the ball lands or is caught. All green players in front of that imaginary line must actively retreat behind an onside team-mate or that imaginary line. They cannot stand still waiting for a teammate to play them onside. No action by blue puts these green players onside, so blue playing and dropping the ball is irrelevant. In this photo, 2 green players are offside, neither are actively retreating, penalty.
Except that they heard the referee call 'touched' and therefore knew that they didn't have to retire any more. Perhaps.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
Except that they heard the referee call 'touched' and therefore knew that they didn't have to retire any more. Perhaps.
Funnily enough , "touched " means that the 10m rule DOES apply, so they did have to retire

If the ref wanted to let them know that the 10m rule did not apply he should have called "charged down".
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,159
Post Likes
2,166
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
No.
But I think you knew that already and you're just playing semantics and twisting words with what you know is pretty obvious.
my apologies, not intending to play semantics. Your post made me think of a scenario where a player shapes to make a charge down but, at the last second, twists around to avoid having the ball hit his face. I've seen players do this but not actually make contact with the ball. If it did happen, I'd consider it a charge down.

Also, the term 'charge down' evokes images of charging and the ball going down. Other sports might call it 'blocking the kick' which I think is better.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,159
Post Likes
2,166
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
for anyone who thinks the OP scenario IS a charge down - give an example scenario of 'played' that is not a charge down
kicker kicks a grubber and opponent sticks his boot out as ball passes him
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,159
Post Likes
2,166
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I've been thinking about the charge down and 10m law and wonder what the law maker had in mind.

Blue kicks the ball on his own 22 and Red effect a common or garden variety charge down (ie ball ricochets off Red's body or arms towards the Blue goal line). For this to work Red would have to be positioned some 23 to 27 metres from Blue goal line at time of contact.

So the law maker is picturing a Blue team mate standing somewhat between the Blue kicker and Red charger who is adept enough to catch the ricocheted ball? Seems so unlikely as to not warrant special mention in the laws.
 

Blackberry


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,122
Post Likes
202
I don't get why you are offside if it touches the player but not offside if she charges it down. Why do the laws need to differentiate between touch and played?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
kicker kicks a grubber and opponent sticks his boot out as ball passes him
So its not a charge down if you use your feet?
I mean, I have never heard that before, but seems plausible.
What parts of the body can be used to charge down? Everything except the feet ?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
I don't get why you are offside if it touches the player but not offside if she charges it down. Why do the laws need to differentiate between touch and played?
They don't.

For offside the important thing is whether defender plays the ball (intentional, kickers team now onside ) or if the ball just hits him (not played, kickers team mates still offside)

For the 10m rule it's a different test
.. charged down .. 10m rule doesn't apply
.. touched (unintentional) or played (intentional) 10c rule applies

Tbh it doesn't make sense to me
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
my apologies, not intending to play semantics. Your post made me think of a scenario where a player shapes to make a charge down but, at the last second, twists around to avoid having the ball hit his face. I've seen players do this but not actually make contact with the ball. If it did happen, I'd consider it a charge down.

Also, the term 'charge down' evokes images of charging and the ball going down. Other sports might call it 'blocking the kick' which I think is better
that's different to what you first wrote?
so if a player turns his back and the ball hits him, is that a charge down?

Sorry - but your first wording implied there was no charging, but just turned their back and ball is kicked into them. That to me is not a charge down. Thats why it invoked my response - as surely with your experience you would also not call that a charge down?

Your second scenario and rewording of a charge down attempt and then turn back to protect his pretty backs face and hair - I could also constitute a charge down. (I'd have to see it and would make a call on that at the time)
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I've been thinking about the charge down and 10m law and wonder what the law maker had in mind.

Blue kicks the ball on his own 22 and Red effect a common or garden variety charge down (ie ball ricochets off Red's body or arms towards the Blue goal line). For this to work Red would have to be positioned some 23 to 27 metres from Blue goal line at time of contact.

So the law maker is picturing a Blue team mate standing somewhat between the Blue kicker and Red charger who is adept enough to catch the ricocheted ball? Seems so unlikely as to not warrant special mention in the laws.
wow - we are heading in a few tangents now in this thread. This might get confusing to keep up!

I thought the charge down element as an exemption to the 10m law was included to account for when a kickers team mate is say 1or 2m in front...the charge down occurs but the ball ricochets sideways towards the player offside. It would be impossible, and even ridiculous, that the "offside" player would then have to leave the ball alone and start retreating back 10m. That would just look weird and would be even worse if they were penalised for it (or PK for just standing there). #shrug.

So the charge down probably, for me, came in as an exception because in most cases of a charge down there is no time to retreat back 10m and they wanted the game to flow. Maybe they didnt think about a failed charge down that resulted in a touch only and ball still going down-town? Probably also didn't occur to them to then define what they meant by a charge down? (my recollection was that the old write laws with 10m law had "waiting to catch the ball" and that only implied it didn't then apply for "charge down" so in the new "easy to read" law rewrite they added in 'charge down' instead...and so we now have this new confusion.)

Maybe they thought the dictionary standard definition of a charge down, was sufficient? "To run towards something in an effort to stop it going forward."..you only have to have effort - you don't actually have to stop it going forward? #shrug
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,159
Post Likes
2,166
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I don't get why you are offside if it touches the player but not offside if she charges it down. Why do the laws need to differentiate between touch and played?
the charge down is given special treatment in that it doesn't result in a knock on. The offset to that special dispensation is that it negates the 10 metre law. quid pro quo. By all means attempt a charge down, but do so with care as it isn't all up side.

 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,111
Post Likes
2,372
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Going back to the OP video, I started off thinking "touched all onside", good awareness by the catching player, try scored.

I discussed this last night with a senior referee and former TMO and between us we came to the opinion the try should not have stood.

It really revolves around was the ball classed as touched/played or charged down.
If it was a charge down then the player could catch it and score the try.
If the ball was touched (not charged down) then the player had to retreat under the 10m law, and the try is disallowed. (that is covered as discussed previously in Law 10.4c).

While charge down isn't listed in the definitions we do have the picture and a description of sorts.

5. The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if :
a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).


To us that defined the charge down as having to go forward from the charge down. If it is touched but carries on in flight, then it's not defined as a charge down.

So my conclusion is that this was not a try but a penalty to Bath and that is how I will be refereeing it in future. Although I am not sure how I am going to sell it if this actually happens in one of my games. It's going to take some explaining in the bar. "touched all onside...except those within 10m of where the ball lands" is a bit of a mouthful!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
So my conclusion is that this was not a try but a penalty to Bath and that is how I will be refereeing it in future.
i agree with your analysis - it's the same as mine post #20

But it leaves us both in a tricky situation
- the leicester player who caught the ball was NOT offside (as Bath were last to play the ball)
- but nevertheless the 10m Law still applies and he has to retreat.

Which is a bit awkward as the 10m Law is 10.4.c and it starts off with these words .

10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or​
b. Moves forwards towards the ball; or​
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.​

so does it only apply to offside players, which he wasn't? So it doesn't apply ? Perhaps you and I and your senior ref are all wrong?
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
Except that they heard the referee call 'touched' and therefore knew that they didn't have to retire any more. Perhaps.
I was replying directly to the alternative scenario posed by @menace in which the Bath player did not make contact with the ball, thus I assume the ref would not call "touched".
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
883
Post Likes
478
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
my apologies, not intending to play semantics. Your post made me think of a scenario where a player shapes to make a charge down but, at the last second, twists around to avoid having the ball hit his face. I've seen players do this but not actually make contact with the ball. If it did happen, I'd consider it a charge down.

Also, the term 'charge down' evokes images of charging and the ball going down. Other sports might call it 'blocking the kick' which I think is better.
Sorry, I disagree with this... if there is no contact then I don't think you can call it a charge down. Similarly, if a player sticks a hand out to deliberately knock down a pass, you can't penalise him for intent if he didn't touch the ball.

I thought the charge down element as an exemption to the 10m law was included to account for when a kickers team mate is say 1or 2m in front...the charge down occurs but the ball ricochets sideways towards the player offside. It would be impossible, and even ridiculous, that the "offside" player would then have to leave the ball alone and start retreating back 10m. That would just look weird and would be even worse if they were penalised for it (or PK for just standing there). #shrug.

The other side of law 10.4.c, in this same situation, what about a badly kicked ball that inadvertently hits an opponent (ie touched, not charged down) and the ball ricochets sideways towards the kickers team mate who is say 1or 2m in front? Penalty?

i agree with your analysis - it's the same as mine post #20

But it leaves us both in a tricky situation
- the leicester player who caught the ball was NOT offside (as Bath were last to play the ball)
- but nevertheless the 10m Law still applies and he has to retreat.


Which is a bit awkward as the 10m Law is 10.4.c and it starts off with these words .

10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or​
b. Moves forwards towards the ball; or​
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.​

so does it only apply to offside players, which he wasn't? So it doesn't apply ? Perhaps you and I and your senior ref are all wrong?

You state that the 10m law applies and he has to retreat, therefore you do not believe a charge down happened.

Thus, we start with law 10.1, in which case the Leicester player who caught the ball WAS offside the moment the ball was kicked.

Law 10.1
A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it.


We then consider if there was any subsequent reason to then make him be not offside.
Bath were last to "play" the ball, which might put the Leicester player onside referring to law 10.7.iv; however, since the 10m law applies here, law 10.8 tells us that law 10.7.iv cannot be applied in this instance, therefore the the Leicester player who caught the ball was offside (if you are of the opinion the Bath player did NOT perform a charge 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.


In fact, law 10.7 says the same... arguably law 10.8 is redundant, and simply repeats/reinforces laws 10.4.c and 10.7 to emphasise that touching the ball is different to a charge down.

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.


See the alignment of 10.7.b.iv and 10.8 with 10.4.c:

Law 10.4c applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.
Law 10.7.b.iv, Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when an opponent Intentionally touches the ball
Law 10.8, A player is offside under Law 10.4c apart from a charge down.
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,093
Post Likes
1,809
So its not a charge down if you use your feet?
I mean, I have never heard that before, but seems plausible.
What parts of the body can be used to charge down? Everything except the feet ?
didnt itoje do a sort of hockey goal keeper block a few years ago - which various sectors tried to insist (not here) was foul play - which ended up with the ball hitting his legs/shins as he flung himself horizontal?

didds
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
didnt itoje do a sort of hockey goal keeper block a few years ago - which various sectors tried to insist (not here) was foul play - which ended up with the ball hitting his legs/shins as he flung himself horizontal?

didds
for me its perfectly legal to block with your feet - but it would be dangerous to hurl yourself legs first and striking an opponent.

(I don't recall the incident itself)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
Law 10.4c applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.
Law 10.7.b.iv, Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when an opponent Intentionally touches the ball
Law 10.8, A player is offside under Law 10.4c apart from a charge down.
they don't quite align, do they - any sort of deliberate touch plays opponents onside.
but yet even if they are onside, it seems that (apart from a charge down) the 10m rule applies? But the 10m rule it says applies to offside players.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,111
Post Likes
2,372
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
- the leicester player who caught the ball was NOT offside (as Bath were last to play the ball)
- but nevertheless the 10m Law still applies and he has to retreat.

He was offside under the 10m law.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,812
Post Likes
3,150
He was offside under the 10m law.
not quite, as 10.4c doesn't tell is who is offside - it just tells us that players who are offside, and who are nearer 10m will be penalised if they don't retire.

who is an offside player? the definition tells us in front of a team mate who was last to play the ball.

It's a head scratcher, all right
 
Top