Offside at Ruck SArefs discussion

C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,813
Post Likes
3,152
well, it's a close one, but I don't think he's behind the ruck acting as a scrum half -- I think he's more part of the ruck, and from within the ruck he picks up the ball and dives out of it...
 
T

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
crossref said:
well, it's a close one, but I don't think he's behind the ruck acting as a scrum half -- I think he's more part of the ruck, and from within the ruck he picks up the ball and dives out of it...
Click to expand...

I know it's a tight call but I'm more interested in SArefs' reasoning/law reference and application.
 
Ian_Cook

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,684
Post Likes
1,771
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
OffsideTry.png


I don't think its a tight call at all, I think this is about as offside as it gets. The player who eventuially dived over the line (arrowed white) has his right foot well ahead of the offside line (marked in blue) and his left foot probably is as well.

SA Referees are simply wrong on this one, because its a Joseph Heller special!!

1. If he's not part of the ruck he's offside - PK against Blue

2. If he is part of the ruck, he has handled the ball in the ruck - PK against Blue
 
Last edited:
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,813
Post Likes
3,152
well, the reason I sad it was close is that in a sprawly, messy ruck with people on the ground we don't mind if a bona-fide scrum half has one foot in front of the offside line when he pulls the ball out of the ruck...

so the question of whether a player is bona-fide scrum-half digging, or a member of the ruck erupting from inside it is sometimes not completely clear cut.
 
T

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
Ian_Cook said:
OffsideTry.png


I don't think its a tight call at all, I think this is about as offside as it gets. The player who eventuially dived over the line (arrowed white) has his right foot well ahead of the offside line (marked in blue) and his left foot probably is as well.

SA Referees are simply wrong on this one, because its a Joseph Heller special!!

1. If he's not part of the ruck he's offside - PK against Blue

2. If he is part of the ruck, he has handled the ball in the ruck - PK against Blue
Click to expand...

I do agree with you Ian. My comment to crossref that it is a tight one is based on how often we see players pick the ball up from that position when there is a ruck right at the goal line and elite referees award a try.

The issue I have with the article is the reasoning for saying he is not offside and is specifically this part;

(d) Players not joining the ruck. If a player is in front of the offside line and does not join the ruck, the player must retire behind the offside line at once. If a player who is behind the offside line oversteps it and does not join the ruck the player is offside.

That is all that the law says about offside at a ruck.

The one that applies here is (d).

in front off the offside line

Law Definitions
Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.

Jones does not put both feet in front of the ball or Rhodes's hindmost foot.

It would seem that the try should have been awarded. The sad part that the muddled thinking gives the impression that an excuse is being found not to award the try whereas there seems no reason not to award it. A referee's greatest joy is to award a try.



Your thoughts would be appreciated
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,813
Post Likes
3,152
I think SA refs are quite wrong on that.

the Defintion means the opposite of what SA refs suggest : it means that a person has to have both feet BEHIND the offside line..

(The well known exception being the attacking scrum half at the scrum, where he has a specific exception in the Law)
 
T

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
crossref said:
I think SA refs are quite wrong on that.

the Defintion means the opposite of what SA refs suggest : it means that a person has to have both feet BEHIND the offside line..

(The well known exception being the attacking scrum half at the scrum, where he has a specific exception in the Law)
Click to expand...

Good work crossref, you're getting warmer. There is something very specific in the LoTG that I believe SArefs have disregarded as well as the interpretation of BEHIND regarding offsides. You are on track.
Awaiting more people to join the discussion.
 
Dixie

Dixie


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
12,773
Post Likes
338
The Fat said:
Good work crossref, you're getting warmer. There is something very specific in the LoTG that I believe SArefs have disregarded as well as the interpretation of BEHIND regarding offsides. You are on track.
Awaiting more people to join the discussion.
Click to expand...

Definitions: "Oversteps: A player steps across a line with one or both feet; the line may be real (for example, goal-line) or imaginary (for example, offside line)."
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
The Fat said:
(quoting SArefs)
in front off the offside line

Law Definitions
Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.

Jones does not put both feet in front of the ball or Rhodes's hindmost foot.

It would seem that the try should have been awarded.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the Definition in Law 11 uses the term "in front of". However "behind" is used several times in the body of the law: 11.4 (a), 11.5 (a), 11.5 (b), 11.8.

Another example of the dangers of trying to be too literal in interpreting the laws?

It is commonplace for players to be penalised for offside when putting one foot across the offside line. I have never before come across the argument that you are only offside if both feet are across the line.

In any case I agree with Ian that both feet are in fact offside.
 
C

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,813
Post Likes
3,152
it certainly doesn't help the optics that right behind him, in the traditional SH position is, indeed, the scrum half!
 
T

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
dixie said:
definitions: "oversteps: A player steps across a line with one or both feet; the line may be real (for example, goal-line) or imaginary (for example, offside line)."
Click to expand...

bingo
 
beckett50

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
Agree that it's a wrong call by SARefs.

Although in a real game scenarion without the benefit of a TMO how many of us would award the try?
 
O

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Dixie said:
Definitions: "Oversteps: A player steps across a line with one or both feet; the line may be real (for example, goal-line) or imaginary (for example, offside line)."
Click to expand...
Good spot. [LAWS]16.5 (d) Players not joining the ruck. If a player is in front of the offside line and does not join theruck, the player must retire behind the offside line at once. If a player who is behind the
offside line oversteps it and does not join the ruck the player is offside.[/LAWS]
 
Ian_Cook

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,684
Post Likes
1,771
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Fat

I've sent a question to SA Referees via the Duty Ref link

I want to ask a question about the article 'Law Discussion: any excuse?' published 8th April on your website.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-any-excuse/2830393/

In that article SA Referees reaches the conclusion that referee Rohan Hoffmann and the TMO in the match Hurricanes (Gold) v Stormers ( Blue) was incorrect to disallow a try by Blue 13 because he was offside at the ruck. They justify this position by quoting the Law Definition regarding 'Beyond'

Law Definitions
Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.

...and then going on to say...

Jones does not put both feet in front of the ball or Rhodes's hindmost foot.

It would seem that the try should have been awarded. The sad part that the muddled thinking gives the impression that an excuse is being found not to award the try whereas there seems no reason not to award it.

However, I think SA Referees has used the wrong definition here. While the Offside at a Ruck Law does talk about 'beyond' or 'in front of', it also talks about 'overstepping', and there is a Law definition on that too.

Law Definitions
Oversteps: A player steps across a line with one or both feet; the line may be real (for example, goal-line) or imaginary (for example, offside line).

Law 16.5 Offside at the Ruck
(d) Players not joining the ruck. If a player is in front of the offside line and does not join the ruck, the player must retire behind the offside line at once. If a player who is behind the offside line oversteps it and does not join the ruck the player is offside.

In my opinion what this Law is stating is that it is OK to overstep the offside line provided that the player joins the ruck. Blue 13 did not join the ruck, and even if he only overstepped with one foot, he was still offside so the try was correctly disallowed.

A situation like this is what I describe as a Joseph Heller Special (Heller was the author of the book 'Catch 22')

1. If Blue 13 is not part of the ruck he's offside - penalty kick against Blue

2. If Blue 13 is part of the ruck, he has handled the ball in the ruck - penalty kick against Blue

What do you think?


It will be interesting to see if they acknowledge and publish this.
 
Last edited:
T

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
Ian,

I actually sent an email to SArefs, a couple of days ago, pointing out what I believed was incorrect in the article and suggested that the article be amended to be correct in law.

I received an email from who I believe is the author of the article, thanking me for my interest but not offering further clarification of their/his interpretation regarding the offside line.

I replied with an email containing more information supporting my view and suggested he should discuss my interpretation with his colleagues at SArefs.

I have not received a response to my follow up email at this time. I have noticed that several more items and another Law Discussion have been posted on their website however, the article in question remains unchanged. They may be still in the process of discussing it.

My email was via a different channel to yours so it will be interesting to hear what response you get from the Duty Ref.

Cheers
 
T

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
UPDATE:

Well SArefs must be reviewing the article as it has been removed from their web site.
 
Ian_Cook

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,684
Post Likes
1,771
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
The Fat said:
UPDATE:

Well SArefs must be reviewing the article as it has been removed from their web site.
Click to expand...


Nope, its back up again, with a clip added, and they still have it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top