Ire vs fra - offside in general play when touched?

[menace]

Watching the ire vs fra rwc2015 and early in NO PKs France for offside when in front of last person who played the ball. On first sighting I had no issue (and still don't really) so I don't have an issue with the decision NO made at what he saw but it did make me wonder at what point is the offside line created and maintained when a player touched the ball but does not hold it and the player that last touched it has moved. So is it where the ball is touched or the player (that does not have possession of the ball). Ie does the offside player need to behind the point of contact with the ball or behind the player (even though they don't have the ball) before they are put back onside and can play at the ball.
Law says
[LAWS](a) Action by the player. When the offside player runs behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball, the player is put onside.[/LAWS]
In this case
Picture 1 shows the point at where a fra player last touched the ball
View attachment 3319
Picture 2 shows the point where the offside player plays at the ball and the player that last touched it lying on his back (some metres further from where he last touched)
View attachment 3320

If you use the mown grass strip as the line of reference (hopefully you can see it) just behind where the offside player picks up the ball, it is pretty clear he picks up the ball some metres 'behind' where it was last touched (but still in front of the player that touched it).

I know the law says be behind player, but is that what is intended when they don't have possession and when both the ball and player have moved?

(God damn iPad always posts my photos upside down - frigged if I know why )

 

[TheBFG]

I know you're in Aus, but that's taking the pi$$ :wink:

Can't change them in Menace's post, but have managed to add them here. Mod

 

[menace]

Hoping a mod can fix the offending pi$$! :wink:

 

[TheBFG]

currently trying to do a head stand on my desk!

I remember this is the game, but didn't see a replay, I thought NO got it wrong at the time as I thought the FRA player lost the ball towards his own goal line, but because they were retreating it looked wrong :chin:

Looking for a replay (up the right way!) now........

 

[menace]

currently trying to do a head stand on my desk!

I remember this is the game, but didn't see a replay, I thought NO got it wrong at the time as I thought the FRA player lost the ball towards his own goal line, but because they were retreating it looked wrong :chin:

Looking for a replay (up the right way!) now........

Game Time was at ESOl!

I mean 10:53!:biggrin:

 

[TheBFG]

just watched, again I don't think he loses it forwards at all :shrug:

Retiring FRA player gets hand in front of IRE player after kick and knocks it towards his own posts, but it goes down and bounces up, the FRA player then goes beyond the ball and a FRA player from behind plays it.

 

[Dixie]

currently trying to do a head stand on my desk!

I remember this is the game, but didn't see a replay, I thought NO got it wrong at the time as I thought the FRA player lost the ball towards his own goal line, but because they were retreating it looked wrong :chin:

Looking for a replay (up the right way!) now........

I also saw it in real time, and I think NO got it right. Bastareaud was the offside player IIRC, and he and his colleague were retreating towards their own line - Bastareaud being behind his team mate (i.e. closer to the Ireland line), as befits a prop playing in the centre. Team-mate fumbles backwards, and B picks up. B was by definition on the Irish side of his team mate after the latter last played the ball, and so was offside. However, he played the ball BEHIND the point at which the ball was first played. The question is whether that puts him back onside.

Relevant law is 11.1 and the definitions to law 11. The latter says:

[LAWS]In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.[/LAWS]

So B was offside. He is liable to sanction under 11.1:

[LAWS](a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or ...[/LAWS]

By picking up the ball, he interfered with play.

[LAWS]11.1(b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.[/LAWS]

But was he put back onside by moving behind where the offside line was created? Having been offside in general play, 11.2 and 11.3 deals with becoming onside again:

[LAWS]11.2 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY THE ACTION OF A TEAM-MATE
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by actions of that player or of team mates:
(a) Action by the player. When the offside player runs behind the team-mate who last kicked, touched or carried the ball, the player is put onside.[/LAWS] So even though the ball was behind where it was first touched, the team mate was even further towards the FR goal line, and B had not reached him. He remained offside with regard to his own actions and those of his team mates. What of Ireland?

Under 11.3, B would have been put onside if a Green player had touched the ball, kicked/passed or run 5m with the ball. None of these happened. So NO was spot on.

 

[menace]

Thanks Dixie...so to paraphrase 11.2 a, you're saying that it is at writ and should be interpreted as always going behind the player (the point of touching it) is moot.

 

[Dixie]

Thanks Dixie...so to paraphrase 11.2 a, you're saying that it is at writ and should be interpreted as always going behind the player (the point of touching it) is moot.

I suspect there may be some words missing from your post. However, you seem to be asking whether we should apply what the law says, or some other rule which might (or might not) be closer to what was intended. While I agree that you could easily make a case for B being put back onside by retreating behind the point at which the ball was touched, that is not the rule that WR has elected to put into its law book. We all have to struggle to make sense of some laws when they are badly written so that the meaning does not shine through. It seems to be a pointless exercise working hard to overturn a clear meaning when it exists.

 

[didds]

However, he played the ball BEHIND the point at which the ball was first played. The question is whether that puts him back onside.


If it doesn't then - using that latin phrase aboput being absurd - If France had knocked the ball back from 1 cm outside of Irelands' try line and the ball travelled all the way to within a cm of their own dead ball line, Had Basteraud been in the Irish in-goal he could now never actually play that ball (without giving away a 5m scrum maybe!)

didds

 

[OB..]

The offside line does not run through the player who last played the ball. It runs through the point where the ball was played. If an offside player runs back behind the offside line, it is surely axiomatic that he is no longer offside.

 

[Dixie]

The offside line does not run through the player who last played the ball. It runs through the point where the ball was played. If an offside player runs back behind the offside line, it is surely axiomatic that he is no longer offside

Well, I hear your axiom, and I see your assertion. Now all we need is some justification! The law says he has to run behind the player who last touched the ball.

 

[Camquin]

I am surprised nobody from the momentum camp has asserted that in knocking the ball back slower than he was running he has in fact knocked the ball on and that should be the first offence.

Camquin

 

[OB..]

Well, I hear your axiom, and I see your assertion. Now all we need is some justification! The law says he has to run behind the player who last touched the ball.

If you choose to take that interpretation it means that if the last player to touch the ball runs back to his own dead ball line, nobody in his team can be onside. That is a reductio ad absurdum which demonstrates the interpretation is bad.

I am using common sense. I prefer it to badly worded laws.

 

[OB..]

I am surprised nobody from the momentum camp has asserted that in knocking the ball back slower than he was running he has in fact knocked the ball on and that should be the first offence.

Camquin

Momentum does not apply to a knock-on because the ball does not start with the same velocity as the player.

 

[menace]

I suspect there may be some words missing from your post. However, you seem to be asking whether we should apply what the law says, or some other rule which might (or might not) be closer to what was intended. While I agree that you could easily make a case for B being put back onside by retreating behind the point at which the ball was touched, that is not the rule that WR has elected to put into its law book. We all have to struggle to make sense of some laws when they are badly written so that the meaning does not shine through. It seems to be a pointless exercise working hard to overturn a clear meaning when it exists.

Correct. Apologies for poor wording it was late night down under when I wrote it and mind was in sleep mode!

Let me make it clear, im not trying to change the wording nor am I suggesting NO got it wrong. I believe I would have called it the same way. I was wondering if I was interpreting the law correctly or not or whether we actually apply some common sense to something that could be absurd....but like allowing the 9 to dig for the ball in a ruck as not 'hands in the ruck'. Ie how technical are we to be on that law.

However, he played the ball BEHIND the point at which the ball was first played. The question is whether that puts him back onside.


If it doesn't then - using that latin phrase aboput being absurd - If France had knocked the ball back from 1 cm outside of Irelands' try line and the ball travelled all the way to within a cm of their own dead ball line, Had Basteraud been in the Irish in-goal he could now never actually play that ball (without giving away a 5m scrum maybe!)

didds

Agree.

Well, I hear your axiom, and I see your assertion. Now all we need is some justification! The law says he has to run behind the player who last touched the ball.

I agree that's what the law says....now for the interpretation without making a mockery of the law.

If you choose to take that interpretation it means that if the last player to touch the ball runs back to his own dead ball line, nobody in his team can be onside. That is a reductio ad absurdum which demonstrates the interpretation is bad.

I am using common sense. I prefer it to badly worded laws.

Yep....exactly what I'm trying to figure out what could be absurd can't surely be the intention of that law?

I'm not all that stressed about but more wondered what others applied.

Just imagine a player overruns the BC, but the BC doesn't realise it but still passes the ball backwards behind the runner in front (who's now offside) and so the ball goes to ground, the player that overruns it does a quick U turn to retrieve the ball, all the while the BC who was the fullback and hastily retreats back into position. As such the overrun player get to the ball but never got behind the Fullback who has gone back deep. Are you really going to PK the player that overran the play and gone back for the ball? Christ it would look daft if you did, but he's technically offside and had not been put back onside.