Fdk, deliberate pass into an opponent (?)

[Locke]

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

When I saw it in real time on the screen, FDK’s body language and movement made it clear he was not attempting a pass to a teammate. He gave himself away. His only intention was to hit the French player in hopes of a penalty.

As mentioned previously in this thread, it’s the same as when a player quick taps after a penalty and deliberately runs into an opponent who is not back ten meters. As long as that player not in possession doesn’t then take an action to interfere, I yell “play on” because it’s the player in possession who created that situation.

If FDK had his eyes on a teammate and threw a legitimate pass and it hit the French player, penalty every time, whether the French player was sprinting back onside or laying on the ground or anything else. But it was deliberate negative play by FDK and I have no desire to see it rewarded.

 

[crossref]

But @Locke I am not sure if you consider this particular incident was an example of Scenario 2 or Scenario 3 in post #35.

As I think that makes a lot of difference

 

[Jz558]

Neither 2 nor 3 cover it for me. He is potentially offside but only actually offside if the ref deems he has interfered with play. In this case that doesnt seem to include having the ball thrown at him. Which is also the decision i would have come to.

 

[crossref]

Neither 2 nor 3 cover it for me. He is potentially offside but only actually offside if the ref deems he has interfered with play. In this case that doesnt seem to include having the ball thrown at him. Which is also the decision i would have come to.

that sounds like 2 then - blue4 was not committing an offence because (I assume) you don't think he is interfering
I thought it was 3 - ie blue4 was offside and interfering by being in the way - ie blocking some of Faf's options.

 

[BikingBud]

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

You do know who Faff de Klerk is?

Don't you

 

[BikingBud]

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)

None of the above!

France player is trying to keep out of the way, no offence.

FDK takes his time to ensure he hits him, and then bleats!

 

[crossref]

None of the above!

France player is trying to keep out of the way, no offence.

FDK takes his time to ensure he hits him, and then bleats!

that would be scenario 2 -- Blue is not committing an offence, and Faf tries to trick the referee into believing he was.

 

[kudu314]

A lot of the comments here seem to miss the fact that Woki was in an offside position and then try and adjudicate the incident based solely on what FdK's intentions were and not what Woki's intentions were. Did FdK deliberately pass into Woki? Highly probable, but would have to assume intention on the part of FdK. Was Pollard a viable option to pass to? ABSOLUTELY! Refer to picture posted at #1. Could Woki have remained flat and not in a "crouched" position? Of course. It seems Ben O'Keefe was contemplating a Springbok accidental offside as per Law 10.5 or whether Woki is in an offside position as per Law 10.11.b? In my opinion, on the balance of probability I would likely rely on Law 10.11.b as it is rather clear that there was a chance for a Dropgoal attempt, even though it seems unlikely. And I would assume a penalty infringement outweighs an accidental infringement? It seems to me a clear that this one should be Scenario 3 as crossref pointed out.

 

[Dickie E]

A lot of the comments here seem to miss the fact that Woki was in an offside position and then try and adjudicate the incident based solely on what FdK's intentions were and not what Woki's intentions were. Did FdK deliberately pass into Woki? Highly probable, but would have to assume intention on the part of FdK. Was Pollard a viable option to pass to? ABSOLUTELY! Refer to picture posted at #1. Could Woki have remained flat and not in a "crouched" position? Of course. It seems Ben O'Keefe was contemplating a Springbok accidental offside as per Law 10.5 or whether Woki is in an offside position as per Law 10.11.b? In my opinion, on the balance of probability I would likely rely on Law 10.11.b as it is rather clear that there was a chance for a Dropgoal attempt, even though it seems unlikely. And I would assume a penalty infringement outweighs an accidental infringement? It seems to me a clear that this one should be Scenario 3 as crossref pointed out.

Next thing you know we'll have SHs hunting for retiring players to throw the ball into

 

[crossref]

Next thing you know we'll have SHs hunting for retiring players to throw the ball into

If we are in scenario two (the player is not interfering with play, and not committing an offence) that would be foolish

If we are in scenario three (the player is interfering with play) then that is sensible. why should the SH have to work round them?

 

[kudu314]

This angle from World Rugby shows there might be some justification. Even if he was trying to milk a penalty, there was a real opportunity squandered by an offside French player.

 

[crossref]

This angle from World Rugby shows there might be some justification. Even if he was trying to milk a penalty, there was a real opportunity squandered by an offside French player.

Well looks like scenario 3 to me

 

[Dickie E]

If we are in scenario two (the player is not interfering with play, and not committing an offence) that would be foolish

If we are in scenario three (the player is interfering with play) then that is sensible. why should the SH have to work round them?

You could then argue that any player in an offside position should be penalised by simply cutting down the SHs options irrespective of ball hitting him

 

[crossref]

You could then argue that any player in an offside position should be penalised by simply cutting down the SHs options irrespective of ball hitting him

Is he hanging around, standing there or crouching there in the way? (Interfering with play)

Or is he lying down, or is he busily trying to get back onside as quick as possible (not interfering with play)

It makes a difference (IMO)

 

[Dickie E]

Or is he lying down, or is he busily trying to get back onside as quick as possible (not interfering with play)

If the SH decides to target him, it is not possible for him to not interfere with play

 

[crossref]

If the SH decides to target him, it is not possible for him to not interfere with play

But before he was targeted, was he getting in the way , was he interfering with play?

I think you are focused too much on the targeting, not enough on what the offside player was doing before he was targeted

 

[Dickie E]

But before he was targeted, was he getting in the way , was he interfering with play?

I think you are focused too much on the targeting, not enough on what the offside player was doing

I think I'll stick with Ben O'Keefe on this one

 

[crossref]

I think I'll stick with Ben O'Keefe on this one

Ah, Are we talking about that specific incident ? Or the general rules to apply ?


On that specific incident, I do like the picture in post #51. Blue should be getting flat on the floor. Instead he is remaining on one knee, making himself big .. in order to get in the way.

He was definitely trying to interfere with play, wasn't he ?
I thought he was , at the time.
I don't think it's incumbent on FdK to work around him

(In my framework above is scenario 3)

 

[didds]

I think I'll stick with Ben O'Keefe on this one

well... Im sort of in the same boat... other than to say BOK seemed to just "not see " the blue 4 incident at all.

because its either offside against blue 4, or surely some sanction against Faf for deliberately hitting him with the ball. Im pretty bl00dy sure if I threw a ball at an opponent whether they were off side or not I really couldn't expect "play on" - or can I ?

You know that old chestnut "if it looks wrong" ... etc?

Its just odd.

 

[didds]

He was definitely trying to interfere with play, wasn't he ?

well, I cant say cos im not in his head. Though I woluld say he was a pillock noty to have laid prone (or even supine!) to minimise his risk etc.
As it is, as he he didnt get PKd for it whatever he did he "got away with it". Only BNOK can explain why. Presumably the TMO/whatever didnt call in it in either 9eif that is in their remit but who knows frankly as they seem to make it up etc etc)