Offside at Ruck SArefs discussion

[The Fat]

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

Well this is really strange.
If I click on my original link from post#1 or the link you have provided, they both take me to the article. However, if I simply go to SArefs web site, the article does not appear with the other news items (i.e. where it would normally be) even if I search "all news items" and go to say page 3 which is way before it was originally posted.

Are you just copying my original link Ian, or can you see the article on their home page?

Confused.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well this is really strange.
If I click on my original link from post#1 or the link you have provided, they both take me to the article. However, if I simply go to SArefs web site, the article does not appear with the other news items (i.e. where it would normally be) even if I search "all news items" and go to say page 3 which is way before it was originally posted.

Are you just copying my original link Ian, or can you see the article on their home page?

Confused.

Aha! I see what they have done.

If you use the search box on the Newspage and type the title of the missing article "Law Discussion: any excuse?" the News page comes up blank, but if you type in the name of any other article, e.g. "Joey moves - in, up and out" it will take you directly to that article.

What they have done is remove the internal link to that page from the website index. The original page is still there IF you have a direct hyperlink to it but you can't get to it from anywhere within the publicly visible part of the website.


I'd say that means they have pulled it until they get one of their referees to look at it.

 

[The Fat]

I'm not going mad then.
Thanks

 

[Ian_Cook]

Fat

I have discovered the identical article here

http://www.rugby365.com/article/65514-law-discussion-any-excuse

Note that the writer, Paul Dobson, is the same person who writes the articles for SA referees , and who receives the questions for the Duty Ref.

A couple of days ago, I wrote in the comments section of that article basically outlining the same as what I have said here and at SAReferees. He hasn't approved them for publication, so I have called him on it, by emailing him at R365 to ask for an explanation. Here is what I said...

Paul Dobson
Under the username "smartcooky", I wrote a refutation in the comments section of the article "Law Discussion: any excuse?". I am writing to ask why you have chosen not to approve those comments for publication. Surely you don't suppress or censor contrary views?

I know that you write for both R365 and SAReferees (you have emailed me before from SAReferees regarding questions to the Duty Ref) and that the article here is identical to the one at SAReferees. Yet the article at SAReferees has been pulled from the April 8th News listing, therefore I presume that you do accept there is a problem with the Law interpretation in that article, so why are you not accepting that there is a problem with that same article here at R365.

I belong to rugbyrefs.com; a global collection of referees with a range of experience levels from rookies to to National Panel level in their various countries. We even have some WR international panel referees as members.. Many of us regular readers at SAReferees, often asking questions in the "Duty Ref" section, especially when we see articles such as the one in question, that clearly have the Law interpretation wrong.

I ask that you either pull the article from your Law discussion section here at R365, or print a revised/corrected version including the publication of my comments.
Regards
Ian Cook

 

[ChrisR]

After viewing Ian's post with the still from the video clip I agree with y'all that 13 was offside, he's not in the ruck and the ball isn't out (he's digging for it). Not C & O to me that both feet were overstepping but I agree, again, that it's a moot point. But with this thought: Convention, not law, has the SH digging for the ball and not infrequently he'll have one foot in the ruck and not get PK'd. We all agree to allow this to keep the game going.

If, and it's a big IF, he has only the one foot offside how is this so different than what we see in less critical circumstances?

SARefs are wrong in law but are they so wrong in practice?

 

[The Fat]

What is really disappointing on the R365 site is the lead in for the article which says in part "....takes a view into the muddled thinking of Australian referee Rohan Hoffman".

The Hoff got it 100% correct.
I think they owe the ref the courtesy of a correction and an apology.

 

[The Fat]

Would you allow an attacking team pillar to turn, pick the ball out of the ruck and dive over for a try?
I think not.

 

[Ian_Cook]

After viewing Ian's post with the still from the video clip I agree with y'all that 13 was offside, he's not in the ruck and the ball isn't out (he's digging for it). Not C & O to me that both feet were overstepping but I agree, again, that it's a moot point. But with this thought: Convention, not law, has the SH digging for the ball and not infrequently he'll have one foot in the ruck and not get PK'd. We all agree to allow this to keep the game going.

If, and it's a big IF, he has only the one foot offside how is this so different than what we see in less critical circumstances?

SARefs are wrong in law but are they so wrong in practice?

Well, he isn't acting as SH because the actual SH (Blue 9) is right there, and Blue 13 comes in in front of him. Even in practice, that rules Blue 13 out as acting SH and makes him firmly either a ruck joiner or offside. In both cases, he cannot just pick up the ball and dive over... its a PK for either offside or hands in the ruck.

Like The Fat, I think RH's decision was right on the money, and I think SAReferees owes him an apology for the undue criticism.

 

[irishref]

I agree with the original decision made by the ref and TMO. I think the presence of the "real" ScrumHalf in this breakdown situation is key to the issue: Stormers #13 strolls into the breakdown from behind his ScrumHalf and takes a position in front of him and the ball. He's bascially acting as a pillar.

The Hurricanes see that the ruck is lost and set themselves up to defend the next phase. This creates the gap. Reaching back to pick up a ball seems to suggest you're in front of it.

 

[Dickie E]

A referee's greatest joy is to award a try.

A referee's greatest joy is to make an accurate decision.

FTF Them

 

[Browner]

The 'licence' afforded to the '9' to go dig it out ( for the benefit of the game ) isn't also given to ruck joiners/pillars, they are required to be either part of the ruck ( bound correctly) or be onside outside of it.

Good decision that referee.

 

[TheBFG]

and then to top it off (one of my bugbears) the ref walks out to the 5m to give the PK :shrug:

 

[Browner]

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830844/

The article concludes with,

The laws of the game have a definition which is appropriate: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).
Jones overstepped the offside line with one foot. He was offside and so penalisable.


One wonders (1) if this will be applied to every ruck when a scrumhalf fetches the ball and clears it.


One wonders (2) if Jones would have been penalised if he had passed the ball to Duane Vermeulen who then scored.

Wonder #1.
IMO.... a Scrums half 'licence' to dig extends provided he passes/clears it. This exemption from ruck handling law does apply if he nudges forward 30cm within the back of the ruck, because he's still getting ' referee protection' from being tackled, however if SH9 genuinely extracts the ball so that it is now removed from the ruck AND he is now tackleable again, then he can dive forward and score.

Wonder #2.
A more interesting question ! ...IMO ..Vermeulen was definately onside, so if Jones had helped dig the ball out and then passed it beyond the 9 to Vermeulen (#8) then Vermulen would also be tackleable and therefore it would have been 'permitted digging', as the action of 'permitted digging' doesn't convey a requirement to hand it only to a SH9.

 

[The Fat]

http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830844/

The article concludes with,


Wonder #1.
IMO.... a Scrums half 'licence' to dig extends provided he passes/clears it. This exemption from ruck handling law does apply if he nudges forward 30cm within the back of the ruck, because he's still getting ' referee protection' from being tackled, however if SH9 genuinely extracts the ball so that it is now removed from the ruck AND he is now tackleable again, then he can dive forward and score.

Wonder #2.
A more interesting question ! ...IMO ..Vermeulen was definately onside, so if Jones had helped dig the ball out and then passed it beyond the 9 to Vermeulen (#8) then Vermulen would also be tackleable and therefore it would have been 'permitted digging', as the action of 'permitted digging' doesn't convey a requirement to hand it only to a SH9.

The licence to go digging for the ball is given to the player in the SH's position at the back of the ruck and not to a player in Jones' position.
The only relevant part of the whole article is this,
Jones overstepped the offside line with one foot. He was offside and so penalisable.

 

[Browner]

The licence to go digging for the ball is given to the player in the SH's position at the back of the ruck

Of course,

Would you allow a 9 to dig out the ball , and then drive/dive himself forwards (to ground the ball over the goal line) either
a) betwixt the outer perimeter of the ruck ahead of him.
B) over the players in front of him ( in a similar style to the player in the subject video)

?

 

[The Fat]

Convention says the SH is doing so from an onside position.
I wouldn't allow a SH to start digging at the back of a ruck and then while digging move his position to one similar to Jones' position, extract the ball and then dive over for a try. For me, the player in the SH position must be at the back of the ruck. If he lifts the ball clear from that position and the attempts to dive over the bodies, the ball is out, the ruck is over, and he is fair game.
Let's be clear here. Jones wasn't just a little offside, he was way ahead of last feet.
The article that accompanies the video in your post is a half arsed retraction of the original Law Discussion article in that the author is still trying to justify that the try should have been awarded. That view is quite simply wrong.

 

[Taff]

The 'licence' afforded to the '9' to go dig it out ( for the benefit of the game ) isn't also given to ruck joiners/pillars, they are required to be either part of the ruck ( bound correctly) or be onside outside of it. Good decision that referee.

I think so. I wouldn't have given that one either.

and then to top it off (one of my bugbears) the ref walks out to the 5m to give the PK :shrug:

Exactly. I was just about to mention it myself.

There was a time I would have taken the mark out to the 5m line too, but I've been persuaded on this site that taking the mark out only applies to the attacking side - not the defending side.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Convention says the SH is doing so from an onside position.
I wouldn't allow a SH to start digging at the back of a ruck and then while digging move his position to one similar to Jones' position, extract the ball and then dive over for a try. For me, the player in the SH position must be at the back of the ruck. If he lifts the ball clear from that position and the attempts to dive over the bodies, the ball is out, the ruck is over, and he is fair game.
Let's be clear here. Jones wasn't just a little offside, he was way ahead of last feet.
The article that accompanies the video in your post is a half arsed retraction of the original Law Discussion article in that the author is still trying to justify that the try should have been awarded. That view is quite simply wrong.

Well they have clearly responded to our correspondence Fat. The entire article is simply a word for word duplicate of the original article you linked (which has now been withdrawn from the news page) and all they have really done is added the bit we pointed out to them about "overstepping".

But then they had added this extra bit to imply that they grudgingly admit they had it wrong, but still making it obvious they think the decision was wrong.

One wonders if this will be applied to every ruck when a scrumhalf fetches the ball and clears it.[/quote One wonders if Jones would have been penalised if he had passed the ball to Duane Vermeulen who then scored.

Well my reply to those bits is an unequivocal YES. If the SH climbs right into the ruck to get the ball, then he'll be pinged for offside. We give the SH a licence to stand IN AN ONSIDE POSITION and lift the ball out of the ruck. This licence does not extend to him overstepping the offside line to get to the ball, otherwise, what is to stop him from climbing right in and getting the ball from the opponent's side of the ruck.

 

[Taff]

... SARefs are wrong in law but are they so wrong in practice?

I suppose a Ref could be forgiven for turning a blind eye if the infringement was immaterial.

But grabbing the ball from an offside position and diving over the ruck is about as "material" as you can get surely.