Fdk, deliberate pass into an opponent (?)

[crossref]

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)

If FdK passes it somewhere else, we don't penalise blue because it was immateriail
If FdK passes it at blue we don't penalise blue because FdK threw it at him

So blue is offside, in the way,and immune from sanction

 

[chbg]

60 posts to say the same as in the first 15!

 

[Dickie E]

I've now had another look at the incident. I originally thought the French player was further to the side. I now agree he is interfering with play and should have been penalised

 

[crossref]

As it is, as he he didnt get PKd for it whatever he did he "got away with it". Only BOK can explain why.

I think we can guess why from this thread (and similar discussions elsewhere - people just don't like it that FdK highlighted the offence by throwing the ball at him.

@Dickie E kudos for changing your mind on a thread (not many people ever do that!)

 

[didds]

I just think thats its a dangerous precedent to be seen to be allowing players to deliberately throw the ball into another without some sort of clear explanation to the players of both sides on field - thats true of whether its Fra v SA or Old Twattbaggians 3rd XV v Snotnose Colleg4e 2nd XV.

And then we still dont know why BOK totally ignored it!

 

[didds]

andf for clarity - for me its EITHER

- PK against Blue 4
- PK against FdK
(notwithstanding advantage which wasn't occurring).
How both were ignored by BOK and he ended up with a subsequent accidental offside, scrum to France is escaping me.

 

[crossref]

andf for clarity - for me its EITHER

- PK against Blue 4
- PK against FdK
(notwithstanding advantage which wasn't occurring).
How both were ignored by BOK and he ended up with a subsequent accidental offside, scrum to France is escaping me.

For me
- in an ideal world I already have my arm out for offside adv, even before the SH throws it
- peep PK, Blue 4 offside
- peep again - "no, no tap -- listen, you had the advantage, no need to throw the ball at him like that, let me ref it"

 

[didds]

bt presumably only have an arm out IF you think the player is interefering. in the faf example if hed passed left or right to a pod instead of back to Pollard youd now have called advantage for an offside that didnt exist in alw

 

[Phil E]

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.View attachment 4681

If FDK is passing the ball to Pollard there's no way he would be passing it low enough to hit the blue player, it would have arrived at Pollards shins.

 

[crossref]

bt presumably only have an arm out IF you think the player is interefering. in the faf example if hed passed left or right to a pod instead of back to Pollard youd now have called advantage for an offside that didnt exist in alw

if someone is standing right between the 9 and 10, not moving, then they are interfering. Offside.

otherwise we are saying he successfuly has forced the SH to go blind?

 

[didds]

so in effect then any offside player is always interfering because an opponent they are standing between MIGHT get the ball. Or MIGHT run INTO a position to receive the ball. So all you have to do as an attacker is make sure one player always moves in a line from the base of the ruck and through any oppo offside payer to win a PK (with advantage obvs).

Gotcha.

 

[crossref]

so in effect then any offside player is always interfering because an opponent they are standing between MIGHT get the ball. Or MIGHT run INTO a position to receive the ball. So all you have to do as an attacker is make sure one player always moves in a line from the base of the ruck and through any oppo offside payer to win a PK (with advantage obvs).

Gotcha.

no.

I am SH at the base of the ruck.
if an oppo offside player is 30m away, way behind my backline perhaps, he's not interfering with play
if he is standing in the 9-10 channel he is interfering with play.
if he lying flat on the ground in the 9-10 channel is not interfering

 

[didds]

Ill grant you 30m.
And Ive already agreed laying flat is a sensible idea.

Pollard was what -15m. So basically anyone in an arc of 15-20m is up for receiving the ball.

 

[Locke]

The image is quite helpful and Woki is more in the way than I thought, but my opinion and desired result are unchanged. For me, FDK created the situation. As we see in the image, Woki is kneeling a meter away from FDK and Pollard is far back in the pocket. A “real” pass to Pollard would not travel at a height to hit Woki. FDK’s eyes and body language make it clear what he is doing.
I agree Woki should be making more of an effort to either lay down or retreat back to an onside position. I would guess he’s not expecting the ball to travel in his direction, but that isn’t an excuse IF he’s offside and materially affecting play. But between the two players, it’s FDK’s play that is more negative, bordering on cynical, for me.
If FDK’s eyes are on Pollard and a genuine pass hits Woki, easy penalty to SA for the offside for me. Am I refereeing intent? Definitely. Refereeing intent appears throughout the law book, including anytime the word “cynical” or “deliberately” appears. I’m comfortable with that idea.

 

[crossref]

I am reffing intent here as well

My reading ..

Woki's intent is to interfere with play, by being in the way. He is succeeding
FdKs intent is to bring this to the intention of the ref

For me only one player is committing an offence and that is Woki

(it's not actually an offence to throw the ball at the oppo)

 

[Locke]

On my initial viewing, I didn’t perceive Woki as being deliberately in the way (or even actually in the way). I’ll have to watch it again.

 

[Rich_NL]

I only saw it live, and I thought it was a good call.

FdK could pass to Pollard, as he would have had to have passed over Woki anyway. Woki was only 'interfering' because he threw it too low. In that case, I'd call play on, as no-one has committed an offence (this is as I saw it real time, I could be wrong).

When it's happened in my games (not very often) I've had a word with the SH after. Trying to draw penalties is not far removed from appealing for a card for me, and in any case lowers the standard of play and the continuity.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't know how you all ref things these days, but back in the day, if I saw a SH looking to clear in a particular direction, and when he goes to pass, there is an offside lazy runner in the way, so the SH changes his mind and goes the other way, I would call and signal PK advantage. IMO, that lazy runner has already affected play merely by his presence.

 

[Phil E]

I don't know how you all ref things these days, but back in the day, if I saw a SH looking to clear in a particular direction, and when he goes to pass, there is an offside lazy runner in the way, so the SH changes his mind and goes the other way, I would call and signal PK advantage. IMO, that lazy runner has already affected play merely by his presence.

But that's not what happened here, almost the opposite.
He goes to pass into space, sees the blue player and changes his mind to pass into the blue player.

 

[Balones]

Regardless of the rights and wrongs in law it is something I personally don’t want to see in the game. Will it influence other (younger) players and we end up with several examples in every game we officiate in? More and more players looking to milk penalties instead of simply getting on with the game? I think individual officials have to decide for themselves whether they want to see it or allow it in their games. Whatever you decide can probably be defended in law so you are on fairly safe ground.