Knock-on offside scenario

[DocY]

If it's "deliberate" then how can it be a scrum?

A scrum is the sanction for accidental offside. I don't think it can be a scrum and deliberate.

I've had this situation before and it's not nice.

I can see Shelflife's argument - it's a very soft penalty to give away and isn't material - but if you don't give it, it can be hard to justify.

My advice: blow for the knock on ASAP, before the man in front plays the ball!

 

[ChrisR]

Shelflife, read post 14.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

2017 laws 11.7. Sanction is PK.

Indeed 11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick

The Law makers in the re-write have removed this (I hope no one is going to suggest that the law has changed and this is no longer offside). Why did they remove it. Well I guess it is because Offside (in open play) - Whih this is is already dealt with under Law 10 OFFSIDE AND ONSIDE IN OPEN PLAY.

So Does this law (10) help us at all?

How about 10.5 A player is accidentally offside if the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate who is carrying the ball. Only if the offending team gains an advantage should play stop. Sanction: Scrum.

I would put the case that if the player could not avoid being touched by the ball. The fact he caught it was only because the ball came at him so quickly he had not time to react except for the "auto" reaction to a ball coming at you at speed from close quarters. The call of scrum seems right - from the description by the OP.

 

[crossref]

2018 Book seems to me to be pretty clear

If the offside player plays the ball it's a PK
If he is touched by the ball it's a scrum

So on that basis i would change my mind from my post above and say the scenario in the OP describes a PK

 

[Taff]

Sometimes I reckon it's best to give the players what they are expecting.

I am convinced that if we gave a scrum and said something like "He had no chance to react there gents. Accidental offside. No advantage. Scrum down - orange ball". Nobody would bat an eyelid - and everyone's happy.

 

[crossref]

Sometimes I reckon it's best to give the players what they are expecting.
.

As a rule I agree with that.
Of course sometimes half the players are expecting one thing and half something else

 

[Taff]

As a rule I agree with that.
Of course sometimes half the players are expecting one thing and half something else

Sometimes yes, but in this case I bet even Orange were only expecting a scrum.

 

[crossref]

Except that while we don't know what damo did we do know that the decision was questioned

I dunno .. my instinct is the same as you , sell a scrum
But law seems clear , he played it so it is a PK

 

[chbg]

Except that while we don't know what damo did we do know that the decision was questioned

Read Post #10.

 

[crossref]

Sometimes yes, but in this case I bet even Orange were only expecting a scrum.

Read Post #10

:biggrin:

 

[SimonSmith]

Sometimes I reckon it's best to give the players what they are expecting.

I am convinced that if we gave a scrum and said something like "He had no chance to react there gents. Accidental offside. No advantage. Scrum down - orange ball". Nobody would bat an eyelid - and everyone's happy.

Except, as OP says, that isn't what happened. Admittedly you shouldn't generalize from a data point of 1, but...

 

[Dickie E]

If it's "deliberate" then how can it be a scrum?

A scrum is the sanction for accidental offside. I don't think it can be a scrum and deliberate.

[LAWS]11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.[/LAWS]

Taff, in Shelflife's scenario Blue 15 could/would have retrieved ball after his knock on well before Red got to the ball so Blue 14 hasn't prevented Red from gaining an advantage.

 

[damo]

Sometimes yes, but in this case I bet even Orange were only expecting a scrum.

Actually I genuinely think they were expecting a PK. I don't think there Orange captain was being argumentative. He really thought I was wrong in law.

I wasn't sure if I got it right, hence this thread.

Perhaps kiwis are just hyper-aware of this scenario after last year??

 

[damo]

[LAWS]11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.[/LAWS]

Taff, in Shelflife's scenario Blue 15 could/would have retrieved ball after his knock on well before Red got to the ball so Blue 14 hasn't prevented Red from gaining an advantage.

At the risk of being shouted dow; that was in the 2017 lawbook but the underlined part is absent from 2018 laws.

 

[crossref]

For me the criteria is whether or not the player in front denies the opposition the chance to play the ball. If they do its a pen, if they dont its a scrum.

Eg A ball is kicked deep, blue 15 ko and blue 14 deliberately picks it up, Red player is 30m away. They havent denied red the chance to play the ball so its a scrum.

.

What if blue 15 had trapped the ball with his feet, kicking it forward to Blue 14 who picks it up ... oppo 30m away ... Your logic says scrum again ... But ...

 

[Marc Wakeham]

At the risk of being shouted dow; that was in the 2017 lawbook but the underlined part is absent from 2018 laws.

Does this not cover it. albeit in different wording?

A player is accidentally offside if the player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate who is carrying the ball. Only if the offending team gains an advantage should play stop. Sanction: Scrum

FOr me one of the positives of the old law bok was that often there is reference to the same scenario under two laws. Now they have tended to puting it only under one area so you can easily miss that the event is still there just in a hard to find place. Well hard to find untill either we get used t oit or that change it again.

 

[crossref]

On this one, perhaps surprisingly , I am in agreement with Marc. It seems to me that the 2018 Law Book amounts to the same thing as the 2017 .

 

[damo]

Does this not cover it. albeit in different wording?



FOr me one of the positives of the old law bok was that often there is reference to the same scenario under two laws. Now they have tended to puting it only under one area so you can easily miss that the event is still there just in a hard to find place. Well hard to find untill either we get used t oit or that change it again.

No I don't think so at all.

That deals with a situation where you have to decide whether there is an accidental offside or it's just play on.

Here we are dealing with the situation where you have to decide between offside (PK) and accidental offside (scrum). The quoted law doesn't help us answer that question.

 

[ChuckieB]

Lest we forget this high profile controversy just a year ago, and debated on this forum.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/controversial-lions-penalty-u-turn-13301779 (no such thing as an accidental offside?)

i suspect the law hasn't been clarified any?

 

[crossref]

The key issue that article discusses is the scenario where a player doesn't know if he is offside or not, as he didn't see who played it last .
Is that important or relevant ?
That possibility is not covered in the Laws