[In-goal] Choice?

[ChrisR]

There are several occasions where we offer the non-offending team a choice. Most recently when a side commits multiple infringements.

How about this:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into goal. Blue defender immediately grounds it. You're just about to whistle for the 22DO when you see your AR signalling that a Red player was off-sides at the kick.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

 

[Taff]

Personally, I would give them the choice.

 

[Phil E]

You can only give the choice if you are playing multiple advantages.

Doesn't apply in this case so you go back for the penalty (which should be more advantageous than a 22DO anyway).

 

[SimonSmith]

There are several occasions where we offer the non-offending team a choice. Most recently when a side commits multiple infringements.

How about this:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into goal. Blue defender immediately grounds it. You're just about to whistle for the 22DO when you see your AR signalling that a Red player was off-sides at the kick.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

Depends if the offside is material to the outcome of what happened to the ball in-goal.

If it had an impact, we're going for the penalty; if not, it's a 22m and a word with the offside player.

There's no way, in law, to justify offering a choice.

 

[didds]

what sim,on said. If the chip happened near the left wing and the offside winger was the right wing - immaterial.

if the chip was on the left wing and it was the lpeft winger bearing down from offisde on the defender - material.

in between those two points you have differing materialites...

didds

 

[Blackberry]

How about this
It wasn't material because they didn't score the try?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I won't have an AR signalling offside so 22DO for me

 

[ChrisR]

Agree with the materiality factor.

I was thinking that this choice is akin to the knock-on into touch, just a bit more complex.

 

[Phil E]

Agree with the materiality factor.

I was thinking that this choice is akin to the knock-on into touch, just a bit more complex.

No it isn't, the knock on into touch is specifically referenced in law, as is the choice for multiple advantages. The one you have described isn't.

 

[DocY]

TBH, I think arguing about materiality is missing the point - of course we're not going to penalise if it's not material.

To focus on the point: I'd be unlikely to offer the choice, simply because I'd expect the penalty (most of the time) to be more advantageous, but I wouldn't see anything wrong with offering the choice and if a player asked (assuming it was done quickly) for the DO I'd let them have it.

 

[Balones]

Interesting one. You generally only award a penalty for offside if it is material. Assuming that the offside is material in this case. Where would you give the penalty if 1) - The materiality occurred before the try line. 2) - The materiality occurred in-goal.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm not sure that I've seen a PK offence waved off by a referee because of materiality.

 

[ChrisR]

If you were playing scrum advantage to the defenders for an attacking offence 10m out and the attackers had put the ball into goal where it was grounded by the defenders would it make a difference?

 

[Treadmore]

Depends if the offside is material to the outcome of what happened to the ball in-goal.

It's an AR - don't they flag only material infringements?
Put another way, I wouldn't be expecting an AR to flag something immaterial.

 

[Dickie E]

Interesting one. You generally only award a penalty for offside if it is material. Assuming that the offside is material in this case. Where would you give the penalty if 1) - The materiality occurred before the try line. 2) - The materiality occurred in-goal.

there is another option: scrum where the kicker was.

If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.

 

[Ian_Cook]

How about this
It wasn't material because they didn't score the try?

Not necessarily. The if the defending team were under pressure, i.e. not able to play the ball as they wish, because of the offside player, that is material.

 

[Dickie E]

There are several occasions where we offer the non-offending team a choice. Most recently when a side commits multiple infringements.

How about this:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into goal. Blue defender immediately grounds it. You're just about to whistle for the 22DO when you see your AR signalling that a Red player was off-sides at the kick.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

the OP is a good question but I think there are some red herrings (ARs, materiality) muddying the water. Can I change the question thus:

Red, close to Blue's goal, chip the ball into in-goal. Ref observes Red chaser in front of the kicker and calls "advantage". Red kicker has over-cooked the kick and ball goes over DBL.

Do you . . .

a. Ignore the off-sides and award the 22DO.

b. Ignore the 22DO and award the PK?

c. Offer the choice to Blue?

For me, I would award the penalty with no 22 option. But what would I do if the captain asked me if they could take 22DO instead?

 

[Balones]

I won't have an AR signalling offside so 22DO for me

If you don’t see the offside then it has to be the 22DO.

What you do with ARs depends on whether the team of three have comms or not. At society level when ARs are required it is not unusual for there not to be any comms.

 

[Balones]

[If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.[/QUOTE]

Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.

 

[Balones]

[If the offside was material, the PK is where the chaser was when the kick happened. If that is in goal, the kick is 5 metres out.

Is that standard practice in your part of the world Dickie? I am under the impression that here we tend to mark it at the place it becomes material and not just where the player was when the ball was kicked.
I am not saying you are wrong but merely that we may have a difference in interpretation here.[/QUOTE]

Of course it may well be the same place most of the time, but not always. Retiring players etc.