Fdk, deliberate pass into an opponent (?)

[kudu314]

My understanding is the tackler is supposed to get out East - West not North - South? In other words, he's supposed to roll away to the side of the ruck and make his way back to his line. I think FdK had a go for the penaltya s it would have been easier than a drop attempt. And I don't buy the argument that blue 4 wasn't in the passing lane. The image in the first post shows a clear line between FdK and Pollard with blue 4 in the way. However, FdK's pass would have been on Pollard's toes at that range if blue 4 wasn't in the way. Plus I feel the Boks were on the front foot, in the red zone and blue 4 put himself in a poor position, he could've lay flat until the ball was released as we see so many others do when caught on the wrong side.

 

[crossref]

A lot of people putting the burden on the SH to adjust his play to take account of the offside player, and his exact position in relation to moving team mates.

The offside player should lie flat on the floor. The reason he doesn't is in order to get in the way, even if just a little bit

 

[didds]

agree with the above.
I just find it intriguing that an attempt to milk a penalty by dummying a pass form the base is outlawed with a PK penalty, but deliberately passing into a offside opponent who would otherwise NOT be interfering in play isn't.

hey ho.

 

[crossref]

agree with the above.
I just find it intriguing that an attempt to milk a penalty by dummying a pass form the base is outlawed with a PK penalty, but deliberately passing into a offside opponent who would otherwise NOT be interfering in play isn't.

hey ho.

in the first you are tricking opponents into making themselves offside
in the second the opponents are offside already and in your way

seems pretty different to me.

 

[Dickie E]

A lot of people putting the burden on the SH to adjust his play to take account of the offside player, and his exact position in relation to moving team mates.

The offside player should lie flat on the floor. The reason he doesn't is in order to get in the way, even if just a little bit

Have you seen the incident? De Klerk clearly throws a rubbish pass into the prone French player

 

[crossref]

Have you seen the incident? De Klerk clearly throws a rubbish pass into the prone French player

i haven't bothered to find and rewatch it - do you have a clip? Clips are hard to find with WR aggressively removing all clips from social media.

my memory of watching it live was that the French player was not trying to get onside, but was staying where he was, and not flat on the ground, as he should be, but remained more on his hands and knees ... in order to get in the way a bit. I thought he was offside and interfering with play.

But happy to watch a clip and find out that I have remembered it wrong.

But my general point is ;
- if an opponent is offside and in the way, he should be sanctioned.
- if the SH throws the ball at him, quick word with the SH to say 'I can ref it without your help, thanks, please don't do that again' but it's still a PK against the offside player, who is in the way.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

This scenario came up in my society at grassroots level, and the consensus after the fact was to PK the defender - this wouldn't happen if the defender adhered to what is required by law, which is to fully retreat.

Don't like it. That is rewarding the cheat and penalize the player who is stuck. Just the same as a "tap and go" where the player intentionally runs straight into a retreating player.

Reward positive play not negative play

 

[crossref]

Don't like it. That is rewarding the cheat and penalize the player who is stuck. Just the same as a "tap and go" where the player intentionally runs straight into a retreating player.

those are different, in those you have an opponent is NOT committing an offence, and you are trying to deceive the referee into thinking that he was.

as opposed to this instance where the opponent IS committing an offence (remaining offside and in the way) and you are pointing it out.

 

[didds]

in the first you are tricking opponents into making themselves offside
in the second the opponents are offside already and in your way

seems pretty different to me.

and in both occasions you are trying to milk/buy a PK.

seems pretty similar to me.

 

[didds]

- if the SH throws the ball at him, quick word with the SH to say 'I can ref it without your help, thanks, please don't do that again' but it's still a PK against the offside player, who is in the way.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree where the offside player is nowhere in anyway at all and is just picked out to buy a PK.

As IIRC OB says, players cant just disappear

 

[didds]

those are different, in those you have an opponent is NOT committing an offence, and you are trying to deceive the referee into thinking that he was.

as opposed to this instance where the opponent IS committing an offence (remaining offside and in the way) and you are pointing it out.

well its a moot point that blue #4 WAS in the way.

 

[crossref]

As IIRC OB says, players cant just disappear

No, but they can lie flat

well its a moot point that blue #4 WAS in the way.

It's a pretty important point isn't it?
If he was lying flat he's not in the way
If he is on his hands and knees making himself big, then he is in the way

 

[Phil E]

FgK does indeed pass the ball away, straight into the semi prone French player and appeals for a (presumably PK).. Whilst we cannot know for sure obviously it looks like a deliberate act ie passing into the player.

There's your penalty (in bold).
Too many players have been allowed to appeal (doesn't have to be verbal) and whinge at the ref in this competition.

 

[didds]

i do agree about lying flat - and you are daft if not to etc. Then again, if there is nobody in the line of the pass you wouldnt need to of course.
If you do get to see it (ITVX has the game, check out 76:04 match time) and look back a minute or so earlier you'll see two french players are similarly offside following legal tackles etc and both are standing directly behind the ruck, watching, but not in the way at all.

 

[crossref]

and in both occasions you are trying to milk/buy a PK.

seems pretty similar to me.

for me there are three distinct flavours

1 - Red try and trick blue into committing an offence (dummying from ruck to tempt them offside, calling 'six' at a lineout, and putting in five)

In this circumstance you never penalise Blue, who were tricked. Sometimes you might penalise Red, eg for the dummy, (but often just have a word - eg the numbers)

2 - Red try and trick the referee into thinking Blue have committed an offence when they haven't (trapping blue in a ruck, diving out of a lineout as if they were poleaxed, diving generally)

In this circumstance think serioosly about penalising Red, as it's you they are trying to fool. But perhaps just have a word first time

3 - Blue ARE committing an offence, and Red draw your attention to it.

In this circumstance penalise blue, but also have a word with red and tell them you can ref without their help.


(don't @ me with exceptions, of course there are exceptions, but those are the general approaches)

 

[didds]

nope. Blue are only committing an offense if it interferes with play. I have no issue with PKs when that is the case.
Just by being in an offside position doesn't mean you should be liable to sanction because the oppo choose to target you in an otherwise non interfering position.

 

[crossref]

nope. Blue are only committing an offense if it interferes with play. I have no issue with PKs when that is the case.
Just by being in an offside position doesn't mean you should be liable to sanction because the oppo choose to target you in an otherwise non interfering position.

Blue IS NOT interfering = we are in scenario 2 (see above)
Blue IS interfering = we are in scenario 3 (see above)

 

[BikingBud]

Faff would've launched the pass at the retiring French player what ever happened, laid on the floor or trying to retire through any channel. Probably even where there were no passing lines to SF players.

He clearly has that mindset to milk as much as he can, it's not new and we have seen him do similar before, that's his game.

 

[crossref]

Faff would've launched the pass at the retiring French player what ever happened, laid on the floor or trying to retire through any channel. Probably even where there were no passing lines to SF players.

He clearly has that mindset to milk as much as he can, it's not new and we have seen him do similar before, that's his game.

he should do his best to just work around any offside opponents?

 

[Pedro]

I think the wording of Law 7 is interesting here:

A player must not:

1. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
2. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.
3. Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed an infringement.
4. Sanction: Penalty.

It doesn't say that this needs to be disingenuous, simply that players mustn't lead the officials to consider it....

(Before anyone says anything - yes yes, I know it's never enforced or most half-backs wouldn't be on the pitch for more than 5 minutes a match, just adding fuel to the discussion).