Fdk, deliberate pass into an opponent (?)

[didds]

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.

absolutely. Although we see plenty of times where that isnt given, but I hafve no issue with that.
WRT the FdK incident FdK didnt change his mind, and Blue 4 wasbnt a lazxy runner. Following a legal clearout he ended up on the wrong side and stayed still. He should have done more to make himself "out of the way" eg laying on the ground instead of crouching.

 

[didds]

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.

I think its this really, for me. Its the message it sends - BOK did nothing about it at all. It had to be a PK against blue or some sanction against FdK for deliberately playing the ball INTO another player. Im pretty darned sure if UI had thrown the ball at an oppnent Id have been PKd albeit that is now fading into a disatant memory when i pulled my boots on!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'd like to see the video. The still tells us nothing. How did the French man end up there? Could he possibly have got back on side? Etc.

That said, aside of the strictly leagal view. I agree with Balones point. Do we really want this in our game?

 

[tim White]

The strictly legal view is that the French player was not materially interfering with play -until FdK chose to pass the ball into him. The pass was clearly available to his 10 but he decided to try and get a PK. Good refereeing, and confirmed by no calls from the AR or Bunker.

 

[crossref]

The strictly legal view is that the French player was not materially interfering with play -until FdK chose to pass the ball into him. The pass was clearly available to his 10 but he decided to try and get a PK. Good refereeing, and confirmed by no calls from the AR or Bunker.

that's not a legal view - it's a judgement of fact : was he materially interfering ?

looking the photo in #51 - and at the clip, in my view (1) he was in the way and (2) he was trying to be in the way.
but I accept that you see it differently, and that's fine

no AR or TMO would ever intervene to overrule a simple judgement call like that, whether they agreed with it or not.

Fdk, deliberate pass into an opponent (?)

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...

forum.rugbyrefs.com

 

[Balones]

We’ll never know if the French player was in the way because FdK never attempted to pass the ball to his own player. What we do know is that he almost certainly threw the ball deliberately at the French player.

 

[crossref]

We’ll never know if the French player was in the way because FdK never attempted to pass the ball to his own player. What we do know is that he almost certainly threw the ball deliberately at the French player.

for me: being anywhere that cuts down the meaningful options available to the SH is interfering with the play.

 

[Balones]

for me: being anywhere that cuts down the meaningful options available to the SH is interfering with the play.

What meaningful option did he cut down? FdK had the option to pass left or right or run with it or even kick it. As we know being offside is not an offence; only if you interfere with play. We can’t say definitely that he was interfering with play because there was no attempt to pass to the SA player. From the video all I can see is FdK picking the ball up and throwing the ball at the French player. He didn’t look as if he was looking for any other option. Fair enough if he was cutting down an option but I can’t see it myself in this instance.

 

[Balones]

I’d have more sympathy and support FdK if he had been passing off his right hand but he used his left so had to alter what would have been the obvious flight of the ball.

 

[crossref]

i think a lot of this boils down into people's instinctive view on the action of throwing the ball at an oppo.

for some people it's intrinsically a very bad thing, whatever the circumstance, that makes them want to reach for whistle, and even their cards, and cancels out whatever happened before it.
It's just ... It's just.... it's just so unsporting.

for others (me!) the throw is not in itself that remarkable or important, I'm not that bothered by the throw itself, I'm more concerned with what was happening before that? what caused the throw? And so I'd be applying my framework in #35 and acting accordingly.

 

[BikingBud]

for me: being anywhere that cuts down the meaningful options available to the SH is interfering with the play.

No!

You may wish to reconsider the phrase as that's the contest of the game.

 

[crossref]

You may wish to reconsider the phrase as that's the contest of the game.

I have no idea what that means?

 

[BikingBud]

i think a lot of this boils down into people's instinctive view on the action of throwing the ball at an oppo.

for some people it's intrinsically a very bad thing, whatever the circumstance, that makes them want to reach for whistle, and even their cards, and cancels out whatever happened before it.
It's just ... It's just.... it's just so unsporting.

for others (me!) the throw is not in itself that remarkable or important, I'm not that bothered by the throw itself, I'm more concerned with what was happening before that? what caused the throw? And so I'd be applying my framework in #35 and acting accordingly.

What caused the throw was a SH who though he could milk a penalty, so it's all about the throw.

Look at the broader context, SA ahead by one point.

SA2 is "hanging" throws squint into line out @73:11, no call from BOK!​

​

SA2 has ball at back of maul and collapses with the ball at the bottom,​

​

FDK had already overrun the ball and fallen over before regaining feet.​

​

SA2 looks up folornly at the referee.​

​

FDK not able to recover, Kolbe comes in picks and attempts drop goal @73:40. Misses.​

​

@74:11 SA2 despite no offence or head shot goes off for HIA which allows PSDT to come back on. Dubious?​

​

Poor clearance from 22DO, ball into touch, gives SA scrum on 22m​

​

SA delay formation of scrum, @74:15 so BOK calls time off.​

​

After the scrum SA have 7 phases all with clear shot for the drop goal, they progressed to France 5m line and slightly left of posts, where was the DG attempt here?​

​

Aggressive defence push SA back.​

​

At the breakdown France all defending in their RH half of the pitch. SA have players with gas and space.​

​

@76:02 FDK has hands on ball at breakdown, looks and looks again, there are big runners looking to hit up but FDK decides to throw the ball at the French player, @76:05, who appears to be knelt over a SA player that has just been rucked.​

​

Was he able to retire?​

​

Did the SA player hold the French defender?​

​

What I do know is that as SA go into bleat mode, in the replay you can see FDK change his view onto the French player and his pass is deliberately redirected where he is now looking.​

​

With 3mins 20 remaining I think BOK bottled giving what may be considered a controversial penalty, so it was easier to give accidentally offside.​

​

The scrum didn't occur within the next 60 secs and he blew, called fee kick and then time off, and then the scrum reformed! And the same again!​

​

About 2 mins 20 to go and Rassie is having apoplexy shouting into his hand!​

​

France take the scrum and attack, lazy runners are not targeted as France try to play rugby.​

​

Breakdown infield and SA hands in ruck knock ball out of the side, SA could run clock down but bizarrely FDK kicks ball back to France!​

​

BOK continues to warn SA to leave the ball rather than pinging them. For once I agree with Sexton.​

​

So still think FDK was looking to milk but BOK allowed the game to drift and could/should have made a few judgments, potentially controversial, rather than let it all go, but apparently as the response to the French video shows he did ok!

 

[BikingBud]

I have no idea what that means?

I feel you missed out "illegally" as I would consider your phrase to be the whole purpose of the game:

The team in possession aims to maintain continuity by denying the opposition the ball and, by skilful means, to advance and score points. Failure to do this will mean the surrendering of possession to the opposition either as a result of shortcomings on the part of the team in possession or because of the quality of the opposition defence; contest and continuity, profit and loss.

As one team attempts to maintain continuity of possession, the opposing team strives to contest for possession. This provides the essential balance between continuity of play and continuity of possession. This balance of contestability and continuity applies to both set piece and open play.

From the Charter if you're not sure:

Charter | World Rugby Laws

The Charter of the game of rugby union.

www.world.rugby

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

I'm aware of that Phil, but it was more or less my point. If you call and signal advantage when the presence of an offside player (a lazy runner) limits their opponent's choices, you have a better chance of nipping that behaviour in the bud. off at the pass. André Watson (who IIRC coined the term "lazy runner", and All Black lock Norm Maxwell was his first victim) used to do.

 

[crossref]

.​

​

With 3mins 20 remaining I think BOK bottled giving what may be considered a controversial penalty, so it was easier to give accidentally offside.​

​

​

Bottled a PK to who, though ?

So still think FDK was looking to milk but BOK allowed the game to drift and could/should have made a few judgments, potentially controversial, rather than let it all go, but apparently as the response to the French video shows he did ok!

I think you are right about BOK allowing the game to drift

 

[crossref]

As we know being offside is not an offence; only if you interfere with play. We can’t say definitely that he was interfering with play because there was no attempt to pass to the SA player. .

You are edging toward a position whereby an offside player like that is only interfering with play if the ball hits him

And then again when the ball does hit him (which indeed it did) then only if you judge that the SH attempted to pass over or round him, and the ball hit him accidentally

Whereas my view, like Ian, is that a player in the 9/10 channel is interfering with play just by being there

 

[Jarrod Burton]

From memory FdK has history of doing this. I remember an international where an Australian prop was on the floor directly behind a ruck near the sideline after a failed clear out. He started to stand, realised that he might be in the way and dropped back to the floor, but not before the ball was passed into him on the ground and being penalised for it, even though there was no attacking players who would have reasonably been targets of the pass.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

My main concern with calling this a PK is whether the player intentionally interfered with play. I would have thought that the relevant section here is 10.9 10.10 & 10.11 which refer to retiring after a TRM etc, not the offside in general play. The examples WR show in that section of the law both show deliberate interference or actions undertaken by the player which prevents the attacking side to use the ball as they wish, not a player regaining their feet. The law even states that a player needs to immediately retire to an onside position, meaning that the laws intend players to attempt to regain an onside position, not just wait for the game to move away. If, as some believe, a player who is retiring is offside if they get hit with a ball regardless of their actions, then we won't see more than a couple of phases in a good field position until the attackers get a defender into an offside position and a ball gets thrown into them and they go for three points.

For mine it's not in the spirit of the laws and certainly feels like a gotcha rather than a highly dynamic and exciting sport.

 

[crossref]

If he was trying not to interfere with play, he would he lying down, and all would be OK