Intercepting a pass 'from behind'... 'Offside'?

[FlipFlop]

Its only the team that didn't take the ball into contact who would want to do this. The team that took it in will be trying to create a ruck to generate an offside line to keep the opposition back.

The only way I can see this working is for the tackler to "roll away and stay away", and/or to not get to his feet in the tackle area (ping) and/or for there to be no tackle assist, and therefore no-one for a team-mate of the tackled player to come into contact with while on his feet. This is not going to happen very often.

I agree the ball carrying team want to create the ruck. It is to their advantage.

Easy to create - tackler just needs to release and not prevent the ball being played (not material affect on play - so play on). Or roll away out of the way (such that when they get to feet they cannot be "bound in").

The risk is the Referee decides (incorrectly) it is a ruck, when it is not. Also risk is the ball is so quick, your defence isn't properly aligned. Plus risk the front of the tackle is not properly defended - leaving a pick and go option risk. But if done properly - the ability to shut the attack down quickly, and behind the gain line is huge.

The team that I saw do it, had a clear call for it, and were very effective at cutting out the #9 to #10 channel, preventing quick wide ball, so allowing the defence to concentrate on the close attack, giving more time for the wide defence to get in place.

 

[Browner]

If they did either of those things they would be rightfully penalised.

15.6(d) and 15.6(g)

Exactly, which means a daft 'state' exists... that you cant go and get the ball that way ( yet you can stand 10 m further into the backfield cutting off the receiver pass , its contrary to all game logic

 

[Browner]

But if done properly - the ability to shut the attack down quickly, and behind the gain line is huge.

And that m'lud is the case for the introduction of an offside line at each tackle !

 

[Taff]

And that m'lud is the case for the introduction of an offside line at each tackle !

Which I understood they had introduced once, but ditched when it became unworkable.

 

[Browner]

But if the receiver either side of the tackle is routinely cut off ..V style...., what sort of game will we have?!?! .......errr a narrow one me thinks ?

 

[OB..]

Which I understood they had introduced once, but ditched when it became unworkable.

Precisely.

 

[Dixie]

Exactly, which means a daft 'state' exists... that you cant go and get the ball that way ( yet you can stand 10 m further into the backfield cutting off the receiver pass , its contrary to all game logic

I disagree. It's a thinking man's game. All that the team in possession needs to do is to create an offside line, thereby catching significant sections of the oppo so far offside they are effectively out of the game. If they are too stupid to realise that, they don't deserve the benefit of a dimwit's law change.

 

[Browner]

I disagree. It's a thinking man's game. All that the team in possession needs to do is to create an offside line, thereby catching significant sections of the oppo so far offside they are effectively out of the game. If they are too stupid to realise that, they don't deserve the benefit of a dimwit's law change.

I'm not commenting on what BC team should do to force/ create an offside line, ( how can they ever do this IF the opposition never engage beyond merely tackling?)

I'm merely pointing out that an opposition routinely standing (legally) betwixt 9 &10 &12 will mess up the flow/expansivity of this code. We'll just get narrow attack off the tackle just like ....... Crucifix unboxing commences ...
..... If anyone can't see that, then they should aspire to climb to a wit dimmer level. :shrug:

 

[OB..]

Box kick. Pick and drive. Surely the defenders are in a weaker position by their actions? It's a gamble which may or may not pay off.

 

[Dixie]

I'm not commenting on what BC team should do to force/ create an offside line, ( how can they ever do this IF the opposition never engage beyond merely tackling?)

I'm merely pointing out that an opposition routinely standing (legally) betwixt 9 &10 &12 will mess up the flow/expansivity of this code. We'll just get narrow attack off the tackle just like ....... Crucifix unboxing commences ...
..... If anyone can't see that, then they should aspire to climb to a wit dimmer level. :shrug:

It is the defender's entire objective to mess up the flow/expansivity (is that even a word?) of the attack, and it is the attack's objective to circumvent those efforts. That's what we call the contest for the ball - one of rugby's key principles. Check out page 17 of the LoTG:

It is the aim of the team in possession 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 general play.

 

[Taff]

But if the receiver either side of the tackle is routinely cut off ..V style...., what sort of game will we have?!?! .......errr a narrow one me thinks ?

I disagree. It's a thinking man's game. All that the team in possession needs to do is to create an offside line, thereby catching significant sections of the oppo so far offside they are effectively out of the game. If they are too stupid to realise that, they don't deserve the benefit of a dimwit's law change.

Exactly. Turn the tackle into a ruck (it only needs physical contact) and hey presto ... you now have an offside line and the opponents who were being clever in standing between the No 9 and No 10 now have to retire behind the offside line. Or .... Pick and go down the middle as the opponents are effectively 2 or 3 players down because they are now out of position.

I don't think it will become a common tactic though. Players seem to instinctively treat tackles like rucks and stand on or behind an imaginary offside line.

 

[Ronald]

I don't think it will become a common tactic though. Players seem to instinctively treat tackles like rucks and stand on or behind an imaginary offside line.[/QUOTE]

Agree, players usually fall back to a defensive line even if just a tackle...I have, however, had a few law-savvy players that played the tackle law beautifully...they are rather the exception, than the rule, though.

 

[Browner]

Exactly. Turn the tackle into a ruck (it only needs physical contact) and hey presto ... you now have an offside line and the opponents who were being clever in standing between the No 9 and No 10 now have to retire behind the offside line. Or .... Pick and go down the middle as the opponents are effectively 2 or 3 players down because they are now out of position.

I don't think it will become a common tactic though. Players seem to instinctively treat tackles like rucks and stand on or behind an imaginary offside line.

Which is why I said "IF" & "ROUTINE" in the same sentence.

If someone had suggested teams would decide to not contest/ruck 10 years ago, many on here might equally have scoffed , but gradually they have evolved , and the lack of engagement after a tackle is gaining popularity .... Watch this space