Charge down puts oppo on side

[Phil E]

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

Who was the last "team mate" to play the ball?
The player who kicked it.
Is the catcher in front of that player? Yes he is, so he is offside.

...and he doesn't get put onside by the blue player touching the ball because he is within 10m, of where it will land.

 

[Stu10]

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.

No, 10.4.c says that the 10m law "still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down."

Your statement that "any sort of deliberate touch plays opponents onside" is not correct per Law 10.4.c.

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

Law 10.1 tells us who is offside, the subsequent laws clarify how that player might be subsequently played onside.

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.

 

[Treadmore]

I wonder if there would have been any discussion had the the original scenario been called offside

 

[Dickie E]

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.

Yes but what I was trying to suggest was that, eventhough I have never seen contact made in this way, if I did see contact, I would consider it a charge down

 

[Stu10]

I discussed this with an ex-international referee last night, and his opinion was that the charge down is included in the laws to mitigate a knock on being awarded, therefore a valid charge down results in the ball going forward off the player to the ground (or another player), the same as a knock-on.

Therefore the OP example is offside.

However, we agreed this is rarely/never refereed like this and the videos in the WR website for law 10 compound the issue. The group also felt that law 10.4.c was not generally understood in is entirely.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I discussed this with an ex-international referee last night, and his opinion was that the charge down is included in the laws to mitigate a knock on being awarded, therefore a valid charge down results in the ball going forward off the player to the ground (or another player), the same as a knock-on.

Therefore the OP example is offside.

However, we agreed this is rarely/never refereed like this and the videos in the WR website for law 10 compound the issue. The group also felt that law 10.4.c was not generally understood in is entirely.

Great

 

[crossref]

I discussed this with an ex-international referee last night, and his opinion was that the charge down is included in the laws to mitigate a knock on being awarded, therefore a valid charge down results in the ball going forward off the player to the ground (or another player), the same as a knock-on.

Therefore the OP example is offside.

the second sentence is not quite right though, as the last player to play the ball was a Bath player (it was intentional) so Leicester players are onside.

Although perhaps it's possible to be put onside, but the 10m Rule still to apply.

 

[number11]

I agree that definition given is more of a clarification of the Knock On law, i.e. if the ball goes forward in the act of blocking a kick, it is not a knock on. Although I don't see why the ball can go back and not be classed as a Charge Down.

Tangentially, I had a game last week where a kick was made at a shallow angle, say 20deg from the horizontal. It went forward about 15-20 meters when it was obstructed by a player. I have a quick definition of a charge down as the ball has to be going up. It was still going up so I called it as such and played on with no offsides.

 

[crossref]

Tangentially, I had a game last week where a kick was made at a shallow angle, say 20deg from the horizontal. It went forward about 15-20 meters when it was obstructed by a player. I have a quick definition of a charge down as the ball has to be going up. It was still going up so I called it as such and played on with no offsides.

did the player knock it forward? calling it a charge down rather than a KO souns generous if he was 15m from kicker ?
(but if communicated strongly I am sure the players would go with you)

 

[Stu10]

the second sentence is not quite right though, as the last player to play the ball was a Bath player (it was intentional) so Leicester players are onside.

Although perhaps it's possible to be put onside, but the 10m Rule still to apply.

I feel like we are going round in circles here... you keep saying the Leicester player that caught the ball was onside because a Bath player was last to play the ball, but if we agree there was no charge down then the Leicester player was not onside because the Bath player played the ball, as detailed in Law 10.4.c and 10.7 and 10.8.

Seriously, please explain, with direct reference to the Laws, how the Leicester player that caught the ball was onside, with the condition that we accept the Bath player played the ball but did not charge it down.

Although perhaps it's possible to be put onside, but the 10m Rule still to apply.

Yes, of course it is possible to be put onside and the 10m rule to apply, otherwise it would be a penalty every time. If a player from the kicker's team is within 10m of where the ball lands or is caught, provided he actively retreats until he is back onside, and doesn't interfere with play, then we play on.

 

[Stu10]

Tangentially, I had a game last week where a kick was made at a shallow angle, say 20deg from the horizontal. It went forward about 15-20 meters when it was obstructed by a player. I have a quick definition of a charge down as the ball has to be going up. It was still going up so I called it as such and played on with no offsides.

I don't think many other refs would be so generous. In my mind, one of the reasons the charge down law exists is because the blocker does not really have time to react and control where the ball with go, because it is typically kicked at him from less than a metre away... if the ball has travelled > 15 m then he has plenty of time to have sight of the ball, judge its flight and execute a catch. I would never award a charge down in that scenario!

 

[Locke]

In the Laws app, the video clip that WR rugby has provided with 10.8 seems to be materially the same as the situation in the OP.

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

- Japan kicks and a French player plays the ball during an attempted chargedown in that it makes very obvious contact with the French player’s hands immediately after the kick but the ball continues in the direction it was traveling, toward Japan’s DBL.
- there are quite a few Japanese players in front of the kicker, perhaps the entire team.
- one of the Japanese players who is clearly in front of the kicker, advancing after realizing the ball has been touched in flight by France, is very clearly within 10 meters of the ball when it lands (probably closer to 5 meters).

He doesn’t catch it and it doesn’t lead to a score so it’s not as offensive to the eyes, but, for me the very obvious interpretation of the video being applied to law 10.8 is that WR does consider this a chargedown and 10.4 is satisfied, thus the player is free to advance and do anything, including catch the ball and score a try.

I would to go so far as to say it resolves this conclusively, as far as WR’s interpretation is concerned. There is still the remaining question of what does it mean in 10.4 when the ball “touches or is played by an opponent but not when it is charged down” but I think we can easily envision some scenarios this could cover, such as:
- an already referenced scenario where an opponent of the kicker turns away from the kick and the ball ricochets off of him
- a more horizontal kick (such as described by number11) where, a bit further down the field, not “immediately” after the kick (11.5.a), an opponent of the kicker intentionally touches or otherwise plays the ball, with or without successfully catching it.

Again, I feel the video associated with 10.8 in the laws app resolves this conclusively. Am I missing anything?

 

[crossref]

I feel like we are going round in circles here... you keep saying the Leicester player that caught the ball was onside because a Bath player was last to play the ball, but if we agree there was no charge down then the Leicester player was not onside because the Bath player played the ball, as detailed in Law 10.4.c and 10.7 and 10.8.

Seriously, please explain, with direct reference to the Laws, how the Leicester player that caught the ball was onside, with the condition that we accept the Bath player played the ball but did not charge it down.

Actually maybe I was wrong in one of those post above. It's such a confusingly worded Law!

I think that

- technically speaking my post #20 and Phil's post #52 (which says the same thing) is the correct answer. So PK

- BUT in practice almost always the ref will do what is in the clip, and play on.

So perhaps the 'best' decision, or the 'expected' decision is actually to play on.

In my mind I can imagine myself in two scenarios

A - saying "ball was touched, everyone onside" and 30 players thinking for a moment and nodding and happy
B - saying "ah, well you see because it wasn't a charge down, but touched. so while mostly onside, blah blah that player ,10m rule blah blah PK" and - while 15 players are happy and 15 players unhappy -- all 30 are thinking 'what is he on about, he's making it up as he goes along'

A is a nicer scenario !

 

[crossref]

Again, I feel the video associated with 10.8 in the laws app resolves this conclusively. Am I missing anything?

what makes it a bit inconclusive is that while the japanese playe was OK to advance to withink 10m, if he had started off within 10m, would he have had to retire?

so that video doesn't quite settle it conclusively IMO

 

[Stu10]

In the Laws app, the video clip that WR rugby has provided with 10.8 seems to be materially the same as the situation in the OP.

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

- Japan kicks and a French player plays the ball during an attempted chargedown in that it makes very obvious contact with the French player’s hands immediately after the kick but the ball continues in the direction it was traveling, toward Japan’s DBL.
- there are quite a few Japanese players in front of the kicker, perhaps the entire team.
- one of the Japanese players who is clearly in front of the kicker, advancing after realizing the ball has been touched in flight by France, is very clearly within 10 meters of the ball when it lands (probably closer to 5 meters).

He doesn’t catch it and it doesn’t lead to a score so it’s not as offensive to the eyes, but, for me the very obvious interpretation of the video being applied to law 10.8 is that WR does consider this a chargedown and 10.4 is satisfied, thus the player is free to advance and do anything, including catch the ball and score a try.

I would to go so far as to say it resolves this conclusively, as far as WR’s interpretation is concerned. There is still the remaining question of what does it mean in 10.4 when the ball “touches or is played by an opponent but not when it is charged down” but I think we can easily envision some scenarios this could cover, such as:
- an already referenced scenario where an opponent of the kicker turns away from the kick and the ball ricochets off of him
- a more horizontal kick (such as described by number11) where, a bit further down the field, not “immediately” after the kick (11.5.a), an opponent of the kicker intentionally touches or otherwise plays the ball, with or without successfully catching it.

Again, I feel the video associated with 10.8 in the laws app resolves this conclusively. Am I missing anything?

We are totally lacking clear differentiation between played and charged down... This is the heart of the issue.

 

[Locke]

We are totally lacking clear differentiation between played and charged down... This is the heart of the issue.

I normally find myself agreeing with you and did until I came across the video in the laws with 10.8. To me, the video communicates that WR consider that a charge down, even though the ball continued backward. Certainly, an actual definition or real clarity in the law would be preferred but we can only dream about an outcome like that.
For me, I don’t know to interpret the video other than to indicate that WR consider it a charge down.

 

[Stu10]

I normally find myself agreeing with you and did until I came across the video in the laws with 10.8. To me, the video communicates that WR consider that a charge down, even though the ball continued backward. Certainly, an actual definition or real clarity in the law would be preferred but we can only dream about an outcome like that.
For me, I don’t know to interpret the video other than to indicate that WR consider it a charge down.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm not saying that isn't a charge down, but if it is a charge down then please show me an example of "played" within the context of 10.4.c.

In my earlier post I was sharing the opinion of an ex-international ref, but I remain still unsure largely because of the videos you mention.

Based on the language throughout law 10 I feel there is a difference between played and charged down, but I don't know what it is.

 

[Dickie E]

Based on the language throughout law 10 I feel there is a difference between played and charged down, but I don't know what it is.

Its like pornography ... I can't define it but I know it when I see it

 

[Stu10]

Actually maybe I was wrong in one of those post above. It's such a confusingly worded Law!

I think that

- technically speaking my post #20 and Phil's post #52 (which says the same thing) is the correct answer. So PK

I discussed this with an ex-international referee last night, and his opinion was that the charge down is included in the laws to mitigate a knock on being awarded, therefore a valid charge down results in the ball going forward off the player to the ground (or another player), the same as a knock-on.

Therefore the OP example is offside.

If we believe it wasn't a charge down then we are saying the same thing!

- BUT in practice almost always the ref will do what is in the clip, and play on.

So perhaps the 'best' decision, or the 'expected' decision is actually to play on.

However, we agreed this is rarely/never refereed like this and the videos in the WR website for law 10 compound the issue. The group also felt that law 10.4.c was not generally understood in is entirely.

Similar opinion.

In my mind I can imagine myself in two scenarios

A - saying "ball was touched, everyone onside" and 30 players thinking for a moment and nodding and happy
B - saying "ah, well you see because it wasn't a charge down, but touched. so while mostly onside, blah blah that player ,10m rule blah blah PK" and - while 15 players are happy and 15 players unhappy -- all 30 are thinking 'what is he on about, he's making it up as he goes along'

A is a nicer scenario !

Again assuming this isn't actually a charge down (which I'm still unsure about), I think it's fine to say "ball touched", but not "ball was touched, everyone onside".

Having recently become a Society member I've been bombarded with advice the past few weeks. One of those was to confidently sell your decision and move forward...

"Touched"... "Offside, 10 metre rule"
No more discussion or "I'll discuss it in the clubhouse".

Honestly, at lower levels I think mention of the 10m law will leave most players unsure anyway, but that doesn't mean we simply ignore that law... As others have said elsewhere, picking and choosing which laws to ignore can be a slippery slope.

 

[Stu10]

I normally find myself agreeing with you and did until I came across the video in the laws with 10.8. To me, the video communicates that WR consider that a charge down, even though the ball continued backward. Certainly, an actual definition or real clarity in the law would be preferred but we can only dream about an outcome like that.
For me, I don’t know to interpret the video other than to indicate that WR consider it a charge down.

For consideration, check the video for law 18.23.b. The text says "Sanction: Option of lineout or scrum." What does the video show?

(To be fair, I don't think that video matches 18.23.b at all.)