Definition of a Charge Down? Highlanders v Crusaders

[chalksta]

There was a situation during the Highlanders v Crusaders match where I just want to clarify whether it was right/wrong. Which led me to wonder what the definition of a charge down is? The law book doesn't give a definitive answer from what I can tell.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUAZQ39sPBE&t=1m42s

From what I understand from a kick in general play, all the players from the kicking team can not be put onside if they are within the 10m law.

[LAWS]Law 10.4: An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
C: Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately to 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. [/LAWS]

This is the only part in law that I can find that mentions charge down.
[LAWS]Law 11.5: 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).[/LAWS]

So had the red player charged it down, then from what I can tell it is play on. But does a deflection from a leg count as a charge down? If not then the Highlanders player that bumped the Crusaders #10 is still offside due to the 10m law.

 

[menace]

Under the old laws I would say that the crusader made a deliberate effort to charge/play the ball and that touch put all the offside highlanders back onside. I had no issue with the call.

BUT on the new simplified laws I dont think I could justify that decision in law now?? Only to say that the intent of the simplified laws dont change what was to apply in 2017???

One could quite equally argue though that the crusader did charge the ball and although ball came of his legs he still charged it down (but just ball didnt go forward) and so he has put all highlanders onside (those that weren't moving forward between the kick and the touch!)

 

[damo]

Interesting. Question. I remember the incident and at the time it never occurred to me (or frankly anyone else) that the player was offside if the ball had come off the red players leg. I know it went to the TMO but that was really to just make sure it actually did touch the leg and to make sure there was no obstruction.

That leads me to think that the law you have quoted does not mean what it appears to say. I suspect that the law is getting at a situation where the ball lands and then is subsequently played. In that scenario anyone within the 10m off where the ball lands or is caught is still offside and must retreat . I agree that is not what the law actually says but that is how I always understood the law - and I believe that is how the vast majority also understand it.

 

[crossref]

Does everything make sense if
Charge Down = When the ball goes forward (from the perspective of the charger )

If, on the other hand, the ball carries on its way then you have failed to charge it down, and merely played or touched it

After all, when we say charge down in ordinary conversation that is normally what we mean

 

[ChuckieB]

Back to the detail of the attached, making note of the description of the act of a charge down:

Clarification 3 2011

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Clarification[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]3-2011[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Union / HP Ref Manager[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]ARU[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Law Reference[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]11[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Date[/FONT]​

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]6 December 2011[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Request[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Request for clarification from the ARU the correspondence is reproduced below.

“Law 11.4(f) states: “…The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.”

This section of Law does not appear to have been applied in any professional or international competition since it was introduced in 2009. It is current practice that if the ball is kicked and touched in flight by an opponent, we have seen refereed rule that any teammate of the kicker who is in front is now deemed onside.

ARU requests clarification on how this Law is to be applied. ARU has several concerns:

1. This Law says “touches or is played”. Under the Definitions of the Game, ‘touched’ and ‘played’ mean exactly the same thing.

2. The definition of “Charge Down” in Law 12 clearly indicates that the ball does NOT have to travel forwardfrom the player charging down to be considered a charge down (stating that charge down “is not a knock-on even though the ball may go forward”). We question how Law 11.4 (f) can distinguish between the ball being touched in flight after being kicked and the ball being charged down if there is no such difference between the two.

3. Even assuming it was argued that a charge down must travel forward (not supported in Law) this Law seems difficult to apply. If a ball ricochets off a player charging down an travels, for example, either in a perpendicular direction to the player charging down, or bobbles into the air and lands merely 2 metres behind the player charging down, the 10m Law would presumably apply and offside players (potentially an entire team) must retire 10m from where the ball lands or behind the kicker. This seems impractical to enforce and vastly at odds with current practice.

A good example of unworkability of this Law is RWC Game 1 NZ v Tonga, at 12.45 first half. The ball is kicked by black 9, touched in flight by red 11, then played by red 5. Then black 2, who is within the 10m of where the ball was played by red 5, attempts to dive on the ball. Since a player inside the 10m cannot be put onside by the action of an opponent as per Law 11.5 (b), according to current Law this should be a PK to red.

Can the IRB clarify in which scenarios this Law is to be applied? If it is agreed that this sentence of Law is unworkable, we suggest simply removing it, as the remainder of Law 11.4 (f) covers the fact that the teammates of the kicker who are in front of the kicker are not offside when a charge occurs.”

[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Clarification of the designated members of the Rugby Committee[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]1. The act of a charge down is one where an opposition player not in possession of the ball approaches a kicker at close quarters and makes an attempt to block the kick. In such circumstances players in front of the kicker who are within 10 metres of the kick are not liable to penalty wherever the ball lands.
2. If the ball is not charged down but is played or touches an opposition player and a player from the kicker’s side is within the 10 metre area in front of the kick that player is liable to penalty in accordance with Law 11.4(f).

The deletion of 11.4(f) would require a Law amendment.[/FONT]

 

[crossref]

So it wasn't a charge down, they all were caught by the 10m law and should have retired , and been pinged

 

[menace]

It wasnt the best tv angle but doesnt the crusaders player do exactly that and 'charges' towards the kicker and throws his leg and arm out to try and block the kick??

 

[ChuckieB]

It wasnt the best tv angle but doesnt the crusaders player do exactly that and 'charges' towards the kicker and throws his leg and arm out to try and block the kick??

he certainly did. Whether it touched him or was the bounce of the ball is not absolutely obvious

This clarification also has relevance to the Scotland incident.

And then perhaps also the Maro Itoje sticking his leg out incident a while back?

 

[didds]

It wasnt the best tv angle but doesnt the crusaders player do exactly that and 'charges' towards the kicker and throws his leg and arm out to try and block the kick??

CF Itoje's "block" against Samoa.

didds

 

[menace]

CF Itoje's "block" against Samoa.

didds

Yes...but IIRC, my issue with that was that he did so dangerously.

 

[didds]

Yes...but IIRC, my issue with that was that he did so dangerously.

indeed.

but as dangerous as an unpunished head butt/clash?

didds

 

[menace]

Well they both went unpunished...so they must have not been dangerous afterall!!!....that's assuming you think the ref got it right. Dont think that was the universal agreement though.