Definition of an attacking/defending side

[smudgie49]

Hope this is the correct place to post this? I'm doing some revision ahead of my Level 2 Referee's Course and I'm confused about the definitions of attacking and defending sides.

The World Rugby (Officiating) website states "The team is in attack when it has possession of the ball" it goes on to say " The team is in defence when it doesn't have the ball".

Here is the link:
http://officiating.worldrugby.org/index.php?module=1&section=16

Page 4 of the World Rugby Definitions (2015) says this:

Attacking Team - the opponents of the defending team whose half of the ground play is taking place
Defending Team - the team in whose half of the ground play is taking place. Their opponents are the attacking team.

It seems one definition is based purely on possession of the ball whilst the other is based purely on where play is taking place.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Rushforth]

Normally, the ball in possession either gets or doesn't get the ball again after the whistle blows. Being in possession is the way we normally talk about being on the attack.

Sometimes, there will be a stoppage where it is unclear who is in possession, or some other confusion. In Law, when having to restart after such an incident, it will be in the favour of the attacking side as per the half of field being played in (the definitions).

 

[smudgie49]

That helps me, thanks.

So if there were, say, multiple knocks on and it wasn't clear which side last had proper 'possession' then you could award the scrum to the side in the oppositions' half?

 

[Pegleg]

THe attackins team is the one in the other side's half of the pitch. That is what the laws of the game say


Whoever posted on the web page you quote is talking nonsense.

 

[Rushforth]

That helps me, thanks.

So if there were, say, multiple knocks on and it wasn't clear which side last had proper 'possession' then you could award the scrum to the side in the oppositions' half?

Yes, but your assessor wouldn't appreciate you forgetting who knocked on first unless, for example, you decided stoppage for an injury was important.

The definition should not be used to make up for ones lack of observation, but rather that there is a final back-up plan if one simply doesn't know what to do otherwise.

I only came across this interpretation on my own level 2 course "officially" last year, but I don't think it is that confusing in a game situation. If you know who has possession, then with the exception of mauls (and first knock-ons), they keep possession. If you haven't a clue about who had possession, as may well be the case in the situation of a restart after serious injury, you just nod and say "attacking team", based on half of the field. I believe I did so automatically before I "knew" I should.

But above all, welcome to the forums here!

 

[ChrisR]

smudgie, in your example of multiple knockons the "attacking" side isn't relevant as the referee would simply go back to the first KO.

The purpose of defining "attacking side" is to resolve who has possession at the restart, usually (if not always) a scrum.

This may vary as to the cause for a scrum restart and attacking side is often the last deciding factor. Therefore it is best to rely on the directions contained in each part of the law dealing with the stoppage.

As a last resort use the definition of attacking side as the team playing in the opponents half.

 

[crossref]

When the Law book uses the word "attacking team" it means the team in the opponents half, so in a Law exam that's the definition you need.

But in everyday speech people often use the phrase to refer to the team in possession

 

[smudgie49]

THe attackins team is the one in the other side's half of the pitch. That is what the laws of the game say


Whoever posted on the web page you quote is talking nonsense.

It's direct from the World Rugby referee training module!

 

[OB..]

When the Law book uses the word "attacking team" it means the team in the opponents half, so in a Law exam that's the definition you need.

Probably, but read the question carefully.

But in everyday speech people often use the phrase to refer to the team in possession

I would say it is normal usage

It's direct from the World Rugby referee training module!

Which simply illustrates the well-known fact that even the laws contain gaps, ambiguities, and contradictions. My gut feeling is that it is more often used in this everyday sense than according to the formal definition (which can seem unnatural).


Welcome, BTW.

 

[Pegleg]

It's direct from the World Rugby referee training module!

Indeed. WR are not always reliable with regard to law information.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Indeed. WR are not always reliable with regard to law information.

WR or the iRB drafted their recent clarification on how to manage the "maul" that doesn't form at the line-out using the attacking team as the team in possession rather than the law definition of the attacking team. Arse elbow elbow arse.

 

[Ian_Cook]

THe attackins team is the one in the other side's half of the pitch. That is what the laws of the game say


Whoever posted on the web page you quote is talking nonsense.

100%

The side in their own half = "the defending team"

The side in the opposition half = "the attacking team"

The side with the ball = "the team in possession"

Side without the ball = "the team not in possession"


Stick with these descriptions and you can't go wrong

 

[ChrisR]

..... and the "team going forward" is not always the "team in possession".

 

[smudgie49]

I guess the only thing I can rely on is...if it looks like an attacking side then it probably is! Thanks guys for some useful responses to my first post.

 

[L'irlandais]

Hello smudgie49,
Thanks for posting. The word possession occurs 23 times in the LoTG generally in relation to Tackle, ruck, maul, scrum laws : [laws]Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.[/laws]

Attacking and defending each occur 27 times. Used alot in Law 22 In-goal Each time in opposition to one another

 

[Browner]

Sometimes the best kind of defence is

...le ATTACK

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XlQpVUWq2gw

 

[Pegleg]

WR or the iRB drafted their recent clarification on how to manage the "maul" that doesn't form at the line-out using the attacking team as the team in possession rather than the law definition of the attacking team. Arse elbow elbow arse.

No wonder we have all the urban myths and the rest when the law maker, itself, can't be consistent.

 

[Dixie]

Sadly, World Rugby seems very unfamiliar with its own laws. I suggest you alert them to their error - because it is an error. If WR wants us to call the team in possession the attacking team, then it must say so in the laws. Having defined the attacking team, the Laws then give 20 instances when that team benefits in one way or the other. You must give the benefit to the team in the opponents' half. If you do otherwise, you have made a mistake in law and open yourself to criticism.

 

[smudgie49]

Sadly, World Rugby seems very unfamiliar with its own laws. I suggest you alert them to their error - because it is an error. If WR wants us to call the team in possession the attacking team, then it must say so in the laws. Having defined the attacking team, the Laws then give 20 instances when that team benefits in one way or the other. You must give the benefit to the team in the opponents' half. If you do otherwise, you have made a mistake in law and open yourself to criticism.

Having not even done my level 2 course yet I'm not sure World Rugby would appreciate me pointing out 'errors'. Perhaps I'll raise it with my RFU educators at the weekend and take it from there!

 

[Dixie]

Having not even done my level 2 course yet I'm not sure World Rugby would appreciate me pointing out 'errors'. Perhaps I'll raise it with my RFU educators at the weekend and take it from there!

Your route to certainty must be the one that makes you comfortable. But WR's ref education pack is aimed at people just starting out. The more experienced ref is unlikely to be taking the course - so by all means refer it to your training officer and ask him/her to take it up with WR. If all trainee refs who spot the error clap duck the issue, WR will never learn of its mistake.