Odd one

[crossref]

I had an odd one on Saturday. After a confusing passage of very broken play, with some back and forth...

- blue 11 ends up on a run with only red 15 to beat.
- red 15 makes the tackle, both players hit the floor
- blue 11 rolls the ball backwards along the ground towards his supporting players

- but first to arrive, just, to the loose ball is a red player (ie running toward his own try-line) who scoops the ball one handed backwards (ie - in reality forwards) to a team mate behind him (ie - in front of him) who catches it.

I think the scooper was disoriented more than anything, but I gave a PK to blue, figuring it was a deliberate knock forward or - -- or if it you charitably decided it was accidental knock forward - the second player is offside anyway when he caught it and ran..


I explained what I had given, obviously, as it was a bit odd, and players from both team bought the PK no problem.


but then when they took the PK I was thinking that if you count it as an accidental forward pass, then it's not a PK offence to catch one of those, so perhaps I should have given a scrum. They'd have bought that as well. hmm..

 

[didds]

its all down to whether you think the scoop was deliberate or accidental-by-confusion at the end of the day.

the level of game may have a bearing on that!

didds

 

[crossref]

he deliberately scooped it to his team mate, so in that sense it was a deliberate foward pass.
It's possible he had confused himself as to which direction was forwards!

 

[Phil E]

he deliberately scooped it to his team mate, so in that sense it was a deliberate foward pass.
It's possible he had confused himself as to which direction was forwards!

So it was a deliberate pass, but not necessarily a deliberate "forward" pass?

 

[crossref]

So it was a deliberate pass, but not necessarily a deliberate "forward" pass?

exactly. difficult to make anything of that -- as we have often observed we're not mind readers -- meanwhile the clear and obvious thing was that he scooped it to a team mate who was clearly and obviously in front of him.

 

[Dixie]

I suspect that anyone in that scenario knows which goal line they are facing. "Am I a defender or an attacker here?" If Red had genuinely thought he was facing Blue's goal line, surely he'd have picked it up and scored, with no-one between him and the line!

 

[ChrisR]

If he had scooped it up then passed to his teammate in front of him?

I think scrum would have been a fairer result.

 

[Decorily]

Maybe I am not understanding the scenario correctly...but was the first offence not the player who scooped and passed doing so from the wrong side of the tackle?

 

[OB..]

Maybe I am not understanding the scenario correctly...but was the first offence not the player who scooped and passed doing so from the wrong side of the tackle?

No offside line at a tackle. The ball was no longer in the tackle area ("rolled back").

 

[didds]

yup - I am with OB. If the tackled player had just placed it at arms length (say) from his body the arriving opponent would have had to have come through the gate.

didds

 

[Decorily]

No offside line at a tackle. The ball was no longer in the tackle area ("rolled back").

Well I suppose it depends how far it was "rolled back"! If it was still 'near' the tackle then there is an offside line to play the ball.

 

[OB..]

Well I suppose it depends how far it was "rolled back"! If it was still 'near' the tackle then there is an offside line to play the ball.

There is never an offside line at a tackle. If the ball is still in the tackle zone, players have to enter through the gate, but that is NOT an offside line.

 

[Decorily]

Yes.. I understand what you are saying. That is why I said "...to play the ball".

There is effectively an offside line in the tackle zone but not beyond.

 

[Dixie]

Yes.. I understand what you are saying. That is why I said "...to play the ball".

There is effectively an offside line in the tackle zone but not beyond.

it's one way to think of it, but not a useful one. it leads referees to say things like "offside at the tackle", giving the impression they don't know their arse from their elbow and losing the confidence of both teams. Better to see it for what it is - a requirement to enter the tackle zone from directly behind it.

 

[crossref]

the ball carrier (foolishly IMO) rolled the ball back along the ground - the ball was def clear of the tackle area so loose ball, no gates, no offside lines and anyone free to play the ball from any direction.

 

[OB..]

Yes.. I understand what you are saying. That is why I said "...to play the ball".

There is effectively an offside line in the tackle zone but not beyond.

It is much better to avoid the term "offside line" in reference to a tackle. It is misleading, and the distinction is crucial. The IRB once tried to introduce an ELV that created an offside line at a tackle. Almost immediately it proved disastrous and had to be rescinded.

 

[Decorily]

Dixie/OB, point taken. We all understand the principle but my way of describing it needs to be updated.

 

[Browner]

it's one way to think of it, but not a useful one. it leads referees to say things like "offside at the tackle", giving the impression they don't know their arse from their elbow and losing the confidence of both teams. Better to see it for what it is - a requirement to enter the tackle zone from directly behind it.

Exactly, which is why "side entry" is a better explanation

 

[Dixie]

Crossref, was this the game with AR's? How did that go?

 

[crossref]

Crossref, was this the game with AR's? How did that go?

No that's coming soon .. I will let you know!