Lions Series - Accidental Offsite?

[_antipodean_]

An excellent article.

I disagree. They're attempting to frame the narrative to suit their outcome and ignoring Law 11.1

Ultimately the appropriate sanction for Owens (if we all agree that he is offside) depends on whether he intentionally/deliberately/avoidably played/touched/was touched by the ball.

I'm not sure how the laws can be changed to eliminate that judgement unless you remove any reference to "accidental". I don't think I'd want that.

Perhaps the answer would be to differentiate between "accidental" and "deliberate" so that there is a definition in the laws. Does a reflex catch count as "unavoidable"?

It does differentiate, hence why it has Law 11.6 Accidental offside

There are two factors that should be considered: Does the offending player move toward the ball (or change direction toward it)? Does the action of the offending player deny the opponents access to the ball?

The answer to these questions is no and no.

Those are not the factors. The only two questions are; did he play the ball and was he offside? The answer to these questions is yes and yes. Sanction is a penalty.

 

[Balones]

I have read everything.
There was doubt about foul play.
There was doubt about whether it was a knock on by both Williams and Reed. (I didn't think it was by Williams when I saw it live and with the slo-mo replays via TMO.)
There was doubt as to who touched the ball first.
There was a little bit of doubt as to whether Owens was in front of Williams when he caught the ball because Williams had been knocked back by Reed.
All this happened in a split second. Difficult for a referee and a player to assess in such a short period of time.
Quite possibly after several pages of analysis with slo-mos, stills and a considerable period of time to give the scenario some thought, the referee will have made a mistake, but I can't help thinking that within the nature of the split second involved (okay call it a full second for the more pedantic amongst us) and the considerable doubt about what exactly happened I can only think it was a fair decision for Owens. How the hell he could have analysed the situation faster than forum members have done I don't know. He was quick enough to realise after absorbing all the possible data that entered his head to release the ball which was fast thinking in itself. Which only needed an extra split second.

 

[Rushforth]

There's a lot of debate about Owens and whether or not he could have avoided playing the ball in the way he did. He had much more time (I think 3X) to make a decision about what to do with the ball than the tackler last Saturday on Sinckler. Now, consensus there was "too bad, tackler's responsibility". If that is the standard that is to be applied, Owens is surely therefore culpable as he had far more time and made a similar positive action to the ball.

If the tackle is a penalty, then this is a stonewall.

Another point that Ian made is that if it were just a FK offence in such a case it might have been fairer all round.

Balones in post #102 has just made an excellent point that perhaps we are missing the forest for the trees, and crossref in #98 makes a good point that materiality also has a role to play.

My personal decision, in real time, would probably be to whistle fast (player knocked over for one thing), and then realise that there is no C&O penalty either way. First knock on black, second knock on red, restart scrum red for the initial knock on. But I don't have video replay or a TMO, and as a referee it isn't my game, in the sense of caring about who wins or loses.

My initial reaction at this level was that it was a penalty to red for a reckless challenge by black #8, and as I've said before the quick whistle only confirmed that, particularly with a black player carrying the ball at the time.

The video evidence strongly suggests that the ball continued to travel from the kick-off continuously in the direction of the red DBL, which means there was no possibility of being genuinely offside. In the time Owens has to react, he is already moving backwards. If he had 3X the time to make a decision, so around 0.7 seconds, and was moving backwards at a very leisurely 3 metres per second (33.3 seconds for a hundred metres) then that still works out at 2.1 metres behind his initial position.

Perhaps Ian_Cook could edit the video of the panning camera to a static view of the appropriate area of the pitch, using the painted advertising on it to align the frames. It would take me at least a couple hours to do myself "by hand", using the likes of VirtualDub to grab frames and GIMP to put them in the exact right place. It should take a seasoned professional less than an hour, and considering that YouTube manages to steady video taken from much worse recordings suprisingly well, there is no doubt software that exists to do just what we need.

 

[ChrisR]

It does differentiate, hence why it has Law 11.6 Accidental offside

My point was that there needs to be, within Definitions, those factors that indicate 'accidental' or 'deliberate'. Such as whether the player changed direction, moved toward the ball or reached out to play it by hand. In Owens case he did none of those so I would deem it 'accidental'.

Those are not the factors. The only two questions are; did he play the ball and was he offside? The answer to these questions is yes and yes. Sanction is a penalty.

There is still the question of 'materiality'. Did Owens deny the ABs the ball? Advantage should have been played and this site would be short a thread.

 

[DocY]

My point was that there needs to be, within Definitions, those factors that indicate 'accidental' or 'deliberate'. Such as whether the player changed direction, moved toward the ball or reached out to play it by hand. In Owens case he did none of those so I would deem it 'accidental'.

TBH, I think this is the crux of the argument, but this wasn't a clear cut incident. A line between deliberately playing the ball or having it hit you (or being unable to get out of the way of it) is sensible for 99% of this type of incident, but I've said long before this incident that there's a grey area of the player realising what he's doing and dropping the ball, and this was one of those times.

The infringement was certainly less severe than if he'd held on to the ball and, to my mind, it's hard to say that his catching and dropping the ball, particularly as it went to an All Black, was much different to it bouncing off his chest.

 

[Camquin]

Why should we have clear definitions for accidental when we cannot even include a definition of forwards that does not cause arguments.

 

[Pegleg]

Why should we have clear definitions for accidental when we cannot even include a definition of forwards that does not cause arguments.

Sorry but that is missing the point. We should have a better written law book. You can't say just because this law is poorly written why should that one be any better. You improve the poor to become better not the other way round.

 

[Camquin]

Apologies I was being ironic perhaps I should have included a smiley
I thought most people here knew my views on the law book.

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

After reading all the posts on this thread, I'm still confused. Exactly where and when are we having this "Offsite" ?
And when we get there, how are we going to ensure it's "accidental".

 

[Pegleg]

Apologies I was being ironic perhaps I should have included a smiley
I thought most people here knew my views on the law book.

My Apologies.

 

[Rushforth]

And when we get there, how are we going to ensure it's "accidental".

Surely Ireland, even the northern bits, are about as "occidental" as you can get at Best?

 

[TigerCraig]

Went to a society meeting last night. Guest speaker was a current Super Rugby referee and test AR. He said that the word from WR was that the decision was wrong. Firstly advantage should have been played and then if no advantage it and should have been a PK under 11.7 (their opinion is that it was a knock on).

He also shared the translation of what JC said to RP - doesn't really put either of them in a great light

 

[Dickie E]

first offence was KR not behind ball at restart

 

[Rushforth]

first offence was KR not behind ball at restart

View attachment 3576

I'm not actually convinced of that one, and it is something that pretty much all pro teams are guilty of regularly, but here it is potentially material. The image certainly isn't good enough to build any kind of case around, though.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm not actually convinced of that one, and it is something that pretty much all pro teams are guilty of regularly, but here it is potentially material. The image certainly isn't good enough to build any kind of case around, though.

maybe Ian can get his 49 incher onto it.

 

[SimonSmith]

Went to a society meeting last night. Guest speaker was a current Super Rugby referee and test AR. He said that the word from WR was that the decision was wrong. Firstly advantage should have been played and then if no advantage it and should have been a PK under 11.7 (their opinion is that it was a knock on).

He also shared the translation of what JC said to RP - doesn't really put either of them in a great light

Can I reference this?

 

[TigerCraig]

Well it was in an open forum not a private chat at the bar (also little typo - should have been "JG" not "JC")

 

[_antipodean_]

My point was that there needs to be, within Definitions, those factors that indicate 'accidental' or 'deliberate'. Such as whether the player changed direction, moved toward the ball or reached out to play it by hand. In Owens case he did none of those so I would deem it 'accidental'.

Then you're ignoring the law as well as the footage. He clearly caught it. If you're having difficulty seeing that from the footage, discussing the relevant law is pointless.

There is still the question of 'materiality'. Did Owens deny the ABs the ball?

There isn't a question of materiality. The relevant law is clear. It has two tests and "materiality" isn't one of them.

But for the sake of argument, Owens did deny the All Blacks the ball because he caught it and carried it back towards his DBL.

 

[The Fat]

Well it was in an open forum not a private chat at the bar (also little typo - should have been "JG" not "JC")

However,
Not consistent with info I've had from those in higher places

 

[_antipodean_]

first offence was KR not behind ball at restart

View attachment 3576

Do you have footage from before the ball is kicked?