Lions Series - Accidental Offsite?

[crossref]

Watching the video again, I think it all went wrong for Poite because he blew the whistle too fast

After Owens dropped the ball the All Blacks regained possession
Poite should have played advantage.

Poite knows he has made a mistake , and now he is rushing his decision

Plus he can't realistically give a scrum now, if you stop play when black have the ball and give a scrum black you look silly

He give the PK (which is actually the correct call) but becauae of the circumstances he doesn't feel entirely confident in his decision..

 

[Rushforth]

Read is clearly making a play for the ball. The lifter is between Read and where the ball the ball comes down. Isn't that obstruction?

Stills never tell the whole story, but note where Read is and the blurring of his face compared to that of the other players. Also note which face cannot be seen at all - that of the lifter! And remember that the camera is back at the half way line, so the tiny sliver of face that you do see is due to parallax error.

"Clearly" making a play? I've seen cricketers take stunning single-handed catches running and then jumping in desperation, as well as tapping the ball back into play in the air over the boundary rope before they land outside it, but for every one l've seen there've been a dozen that failed, never mind a few much easier catches dropped because of two players trying to go for the same ball. I'm sure baseball has similar feats of athleticism and also of mix-ups.



The fact that you believe the lifter is in front of the jumper is probably because of the inevitable result of what happens when a 110 kg (240 lb) athlete running at full pace jumps into another player with his feet up in the ground - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation may be of interest.

 

[ChrisR]

Just getting to see the hi-lights thanx to PlanetRugby.

Rushforth, if KR isn't "clearly" making a play for the ball then what is he doing?

I didn't say that the lifter is in front of the jumper. I said that the lifter was between KR and where the ball was coming down, and I think that is obstruction.

Crossref makes the crucial point: advantage should have been played. After that I don't have a huge beef with the "accidental" call although I think he cocked it up.

I do have a beef with these two:

https://youtu.be/npZA7iijqPg?t=129

KR could easily been taking ten for this.

. . . and this:

https://youtu.be/npZA7iijqPg?t=222

to PK this collapse when the ball is at the #8s feet and the scrum is at a standoff is my biggest gripe. Is the collapse a material gain for the BILs?

 

[Gracie]

Whatever the decision, one thing is evident; under the current laws and interpretation there is a problem with the way a kick chaser can behave, the question is does jumping upwards and forwards, normally with one hand to pat the ball back, while running into what will commonly be a static defender dangerous? I think it is. Russell v Biggar (if you go back you will see I made this case then) was plain wrong to me - and so is this latest episode and all similar ones.

I get that currently the law supports this stance but i for one would be happy to see this changed; at the very least the kick chasers attempt should always be an obviously two-handed attempt, which would change the their positioning.

This is a change I would see being made for the better, for player safety and the game, Now back to this decision - under the current laws PK to AB, but it wasn't and as others have said, including Reid (well done him) it should not have been the game deciding issue anyway.

 

[SimonSmith]

Whatever the decision, one thing is evident; under the current laws and interpretation there is a problem with the way a kick chaser can behave, the question is does jumping upwards and forwards, normally with one hand to pat the ball back, while running into what will commonly be a static defender dangerous? I think it is. Russell v Biggar (if you go back you will see I made this case then) was plain wrong to me - and so is this latest episode and all similar ones.

I get that currently the law supports this stance but i for one would be happy to see this changed; at the very least the kick chasers attempt should always be an obviously two-handed attempt, which would change the their positioning.

This is a change I would see being made for the better, for player safety and the game, Now back to this decision - under the current laws PK to AB, but it wasn't and as others have said, including Reid (well done him) it should not have been the game deciding issue anyway.

It appears dangerous because the jumper is normally lifted. THAT'S the risk exacerbator. Anyone jumping has to do so by him or herself and can't be supported by anyone else. As well as being safer, it creates a fairer competition for the ball.

 

[Rushforth]

Rushforth, if KR isn't "clearly" making a play for the ball then what is he doing?

In my opinion, he is intentionally disrupting. I should add that there is nothing illegal about doing so, in and of itself (https://christensenhymas.com/legal-glossary/per-se/); creating bad ball for the opponents is a better alternative than letting them have clean ball.

To me, fair contest doesn't mean an equal chance for every ball, but the throw-in for both lineouts and scrums is expected to be down the middle, according to law at least. A kick-off in XVs has to travel forwards 10 metres - it is the only reason for the existence of that particular line - and part of the reason that the law is changed as to who kicks off after a score for Sevens is that the advantage gained by the receiving team has to cover the same space with less than half as many players.

By reaching out with a single arm in desperation, creating the look of contesting for the ball, there is perhaps a reasonable doubt about intent, but KR seems to be a bit of a rules lawyer, and knows that he can probably get away with it - and given his level of athleticism and his build, perhaps he can succeed more than most could. But in a contest where one jumper is able to jump straight up and be lifted, and use both hands, and happens to be one of the 23 best players four top-tier rugby nations have to offer on the day, and the other has had to cover about 20 metres to even have a chance of contesting, I know which way I'm betting every time on who wins the ball.

As to the other KO you link to, I can't see what KR might get a YK for. It does show that the Black kicker is not pinpoint accurate, since it is accepted by Red a yard in front of the 10 m line. Agreed to a degree about the scrum PK, but at this level not abnormal.

My first impression was that it was a dangerous challenge, but he may well have got a hand to it in which case it was a fair contest I suppose - but more angles and better resolution would be needed. This impression was reinforced at the time by the quick blast on the whistle, which meant that any potential advantage to Black was taken away.

I personally don't think there was even an accidental off-side, with Red #16 catching the ball behind the point where it was touched in the air by the two jumpers; the ball moves to the left of the screen even as the camera is panning in the same direction.

On reviewing endlessly just a single angle, the best decision would have been a scrum to Red for knock-on by Black #8, although there may even be a case for PK for a deliberate knock-on by him - had this been an attempted interception of a pass while flying like Superman, it surely would have been!

 

[Rushforth]

It appears dangerous because the jumper is normally lifted. THAT'S the risk exacerbator. Anyone jumping has to do so by him or herself and can't be supported by anyone else. As well as being safer, it creates a fairer competition for the ball.

World Rugby disagrees:

 

[ChuckieB]

Just wondering whether a bit of indifferent form by BB in the series wasn't a factor for AB's not coming out in top?

A guaranteed 3 pointer for someone half decent at kicking to slot from back in the pocket to win the series, you think the AB's have missed a trick there. Supreme belief that you can run in a try with movement from one side of the pitch to the other is not always going to pay off, as we saw yesterday.

In that sense it shows you where buttoning down on the fine margins is what differentiates the great from just the good.

 

[OB..]

After 7 pages, we have still not agreed on what actually happened, despite poring over the video in minute forensic detail. To me that says the incident was anything but C&O, so it would be harsh to condemn the officials on the day.

The question of what constitutes "playing the ball" if the ball comes to you in an offside position has caused discussion in the past. If a forward turns round just as the fly half miskicks it at his stomach, it is hard to argue that in that split second he must cancel his instinct to grab it, but if he immediately releases it, is that enough to make it accidental offside? Unfortunately the situation is not common enough for there to be clear precedents (but lots of forceful opinions!).

In this case the All Blacks got the throw-in at a scrum plus a significant gain in territory from a complex, messy set of borderline incidents.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Can some one who is a real tech head here please eliminate the possibility that Read knocked the ball on?
If he didn't, we can then move on to the next culprit in the argument.

I've done my best with that one, frame by frame using my 49" Viera flat screen TV as an extended monitor. I can't say yes or no, so that alone tells us that its not clear and obvious. That Williams touches the ball is obvious, as is the fact that Owens first touches the ball when he is still a metre offside. You can ignore earlier remarks about lining up with letters on the ground etc. The knock on is high off the ground, the camera view is at an angle so lining up the ball with those marks proves nothing. Aligning 3D world with 2D representation is not the simple task Dickie makes it out to be. Even with the software I use (Pinnacle Studio 20) its still not easy.

Did RP review the video to look at possible foul play by Read? I don't think Read was guilty of any foul play but if the referee asks the TMO to review possible foul play and then sees something else to make him change his decision, does that contravene the TMO protocol?

No, he didn't (and IMO Read was fairly competing for the ball. The fact that we are looking at whether or not he touched it eliminates the unfair contest argument).

As to your second question, even if he did go to the TMO for foul play, he can only look at other possible acts of foul play. The only way he can look at a knock on, or offsides etc is a TMO review related to scoring, so if he had played on, and the All Blacks had scored in the before the next two phases, he then could go back and look at this play to determine if, say, Read knocked the ball on. This is clearly laid down in Section 2 Paras 2.1 - 2.3 of the TMO protocol.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Whatever the decision, one thing is evident; under the current laws and interpretation there is a problem with the way a kick chaser can behave, the question is does jumping upwards and forwards, normally with one hand to pat the ball back, while running into what will commonly be a static defender dangerous? I think it is. Russell v Biggar (if you go back you will see I made this case then) was plain wrong to me - and so is this latest episode and all similar ones.

Unfortunately, the Russel v Biggar example has set the benchmark, and a dangerous one at that. Since then, it has been acceptable to launch yourself into the air with utter and reckless disregard for you own safety, as well as the safety of others, and if you end up getting upended for your stupidity, whoever you clattered will pay the price for your recklessness.

It isn't right, but its what we have ended up with thanks to the idiots at 35-38 St Stephen's Green, Dublin.

 

[The Fat]

Cheers

 

[Camquin]

11.6 When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

11.7 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

As black recovered the ball, red gained no advantage - so had he taken time he could have called play on.
But we have all been there - fortunately most of us only have 30 or so people spot our mistakes and they are generally forgotten after the first post-match beer.


Actually it was not the only incident where I thought he stopped the game too fast.
When the red kicker ran into Olivier Dag (I think it was Farrell) - the red chaser forced black into touch and was trying to take a quick throw - but sir stopped him to check for foul play on the big screen.

I know advantage cannot carry on after the ball is dead - so if it is a penalty you cannot take the qti.
Which is fine if it is C&O, but in this case it was not C&O so the TMO should check and make the ref aware, just as they would for anything they spot but the ref doesn't.

Given we have the precedent that you can now take a line out following a knock on into touch, I would like a law trial which allows a side to play on, provided the restart (QTI, drop-out etc) is correct. But if you take the restart, you cannot then go back for the penalty.

I actually thought there was a case for a penalty against black for not releasing the ball - which would have been in roughly the same place as the penalty for a late tackle.

While this is probably the best informed debate on the web - do not risk reading the comments on youtube - I am sure there will be much more informed and much more critical debate on all these points in the officials post match debrief.

 

[Dickie E]

I've done my best with that one, frame by frame using my 49" Viera flat screen TV as an extended monitor. I can't say yes or no, so that alone tells us that its not clear and obvious. That Williams touches the ball is obvious, as is the fact that Owens first touches the ball when he is still a metre offside. You can ignore earlier remarks about lining up with letters on the ground etc. The knock on is high off the ground, the camera view is at an angle so lining up the ball with those marks proves nothing. Aligning 3D world with 2D representation is not the simple task Dickie makes it out to be. Even with the software I use (Pinnacle Studio 20) its still not easy.

So you can't say yes/no to Read so it is not C&O.

And you say that I can't clearly determine yes/no to Owens offside but somehow that is C&O.

Talk about logic disconnects :holysheep:

 

[Rushforth]

That Williams touches the ball is obvious, as is the fact that Owens first touches the ball when he is still a metre offside. You can ignore earlier remarks about lining up with letters on the ground etc. The knock on is high off the ground, the camera view is at an angle so lining up the ball with those marks proves nothing.

It is quite remarkable that with a 49" screen you mention the (putative, I will give you that) potential knock on by Black #8 as being impossible to judge, yet from the exact same camera angles you are completely and utterly certain that Red #16 is offside.

But you called it a knock on, high off the ground. Scrum advantage Red in that case. If there was a second offence by Red #16 catching the ball (at a point closer to his own dead ball line than the ball was touched by either jumper!) then advantage is over, and Red has the put-in at the scrum.

And you seem to agree with my viewpoint that the challange was dodgy in the first place, so there is that.

 

[Rushforth]

Talk about logic disconnects :holysheep:

FFS Dickie E, how often do you need to be told not to post sheepish images to your friends on the other side of the Tasman sea.

 

[_antipodean_]

I contend that he is only offside if he is in front of where the team mate was when he played the ball.

Owens wasn't put onside by the actions of an All Black, so he can only be put onside by a team-mate (11.2), which didn't happen.

Whatever the decision, one thing is evident; under the current laws and interpretation there is a problem with the way a kick chaser can behave, the question is does jumping upwards and forwards, normally with one hand to pat the ball back, while running into what will commonly be a static defender dangerous? I think it is. Russell v Biggar (if you go back you will see I made this case then) was plain wrong to me - and so is this latest episode and all similar ones.

I get that currently the law supports this stance but i for one would be happy to see this changed; at the very least the kick chasers attempt should always be an obviously two-handed attempt, which would change the their positioning.

They'd still be jumping upwards and forwards.

Here's a thought I have that does take away a bit from the offside discussion... it is my (possible) opinion that when Read launches himself for the ball, and before he is in position to compete for the ball and definitely before he makes contact with Williams, he makes contact with the player (Stander?) who has lifted Williams. It is this hit that probably unsettles Williams before Read also hits Williams (Read being then higher and arguably then competing for the ball). Isn't the act of hitting the standing player foul play in its own right?

No. Nothing in the laws says you can't make a genuine attempt to catch the ball. If anything, Stander is obstructing by lifting between Read and Williams.

I don't think he has muddied the waters at all Ian. I think he just bottled it.
Like he did the Kainu YC - because there clearly WAS "force". He was just setting his stall out that he was NOT going to follow Garces.
Note I am not saying Kainu "deserved" a RC. But under the protocol it was a nailed on RC. We've discussed "protocols" like this before of course!

didds

As per the O'Brien precedent; Kaino's tackle has definitely not met the RC threshold.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So you can't say yes/no to Read so it is not C&O.

And you say that I can't clearly determine yes/no to Owens offside but somehow that is C&O.

Talk about logic disconnects :holysheep:

There is no logic disconnect Dickie. The requirements are different for the two things I'm looking for

If Read touched the ball, it had to have been before Williams touched it. I cannot tell if Read did or did not touch the ball because there wasn't enough distance between Read's hand and Williams' hand to see if there was a change in flight or rotation, or anything else that might indicate a touch in flight.

However, in the Owens offside I am looking for relative positioning of two objects in a sequence of video frames. This is not as easy as just looking at letters on an advertisement on the ground.

These are two entirely different tasks with two different methodologies. If you think that its a logical disconnect because I can get an answer for one and not the other, that tells me you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm pretty damn good good at this video editing stuff; I have to be because I make part of my living doing it.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm pretty damn good good at this video editing stuff; I have to be because I make part of my living doing it.

I have no reason to think you are not good good at this. I certainly don't have anyone to contradict you.

Imagine then the camera moved to the left in a Google Earth way such that it was looking across the field parallel to the goal line and therby remove parallax. The Red player in the air would then be more in line with the capital L making the Red player who caught the ball even less offside.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As per the O'Brien precedent; Kaino's tackle has definitely not met the RC threshold.

Agree with this.

If Kaino was RC, then so was O'Brien

- Swinging Arm
- Strikes head with force
- Intent is irrelevant