Offside at the tackle

[Womble]

did he have hair?

 

[Taff]

Assessors can have a very big influence on a lot of referees. Isn't it worrying that they can get something this basic so wrong?

How many inexperienced refs in that area now think that there is an offside line at tackle? :frown:

 

[didds]

That's frankly appalling.

Glad to know it is;t only coaches that occassionally allegedly get thing so blatantly wrong.

Real Q: at these juncturrs don't you just ask them if they can show you in the law book where it says what they claim?

didds

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

How many inexperienced refs in that area now think that there is an offside line at tackle? :frown:

Hopefully by the time they get to the verge of Group - none.

 

[Davet]

Speechless.

Raise it at the next society meeting - name and shame.

 

[Dickie E]

No offsides at a tackle, just entry through the gate.

That isn't true.

[LAWS]In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is
carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.[/LAWS]

still applies at a tackle.

So the tackler's team mates aren't constrained by this but the ball carrier's team mates are. Maybe that is what the assessors are referring to.

 

[Davet]

That would be a very oblique way of expressing it - you are right the tackle doesn't change the general offside law, but nor does it create it's own offside lines - and whichever, the BALL is irrelevant, anyway; it's the ball carrier who matters.

 

[Dixie]

The jumper was not pushing off her opponents, but her own player. I spoke to him after the game and he was adamant that this was a violation, but I am yet to find where in law this is not allowed?!

He's a few seasons out of date. This was changed fairly recently (2010? OB will remember). Certainly back in 2006, 19.9 (f) had the following:

[LAWS]19.9(c) Levering on an opponent. A lineout player must not use an opponent as a support when jumping.
Penalty: Penalty Kick on the 15-metre line
19.9(f) Levering on a team mate. A jumping lineout player must not use a team mate as a support to jump.
Penalty: Free Kick on the 15-metre line[/LAWS]

The reason you can't find it is because it is no longer there.

 

[OB..]

There is no offside line until a ruck forms. I think an ELV back in the day stated that there was an offside at the tackle and that line was the ball, but it was never adopted into a permanent law.

Just think why this wouldn't be practical. Red #12 makes a break from deep in his half past the entire Blue team, but is tackled just inside the Blue 22 by the Blue fullback. Red#9 arrives in support and before anyone else, picks up the ball and starts to run(no ruck had formed). Any retreating Blue player is offside and would have to run PAST the Red player just to tackle him.

There was indeed an ELV trialled in South Africa. The argument was that through the gate looks just like a ruck offside, so why not make it offside?

However the situation you theorised actually occurred in the first couple of games where it was tried, and the ELV was immediately dropped without any further trialling.

 

[Womble]

OB, we did trial it at county campionship for one season as well. must have been about 5 years ago. Bloody hard to referee but made some sense after about 3 games!

 

[OB..]

OB, we did trial it at county campionship for one season as well. must have been about 5 years ago. Bloody hard to referee but made some sense after about 3 games!

Yes, I know, but I never saw any reports from the County Championship games. The general view in Gloucestershire seemed to be that there was too little evidence overall so it was not a valuable exercise.

Sarefs showed the evidence about offside at a tackle and as predicted it clearly generated a ridiculous situation.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I'm confused so at a tackle there is no gate and defenders can come in from anywhere but attackers can't??

 

[Taff]

I'm confused so at a tackle there is no gate and defenders can come in from anywhere but attackers can't??

Everybody has to come in through their respective gate.

And team mates of the ball carrier are offside if they're in front of the ball carrier.

 

[OB..]

I'm confused so at a tackle there is no gate and defenders can come in from anywhere but attackers can't??

An offside line goes right across the field. At a tackle, the gate applies to the area round the tackle only.

 

[Dickie E]

Everybody has to come in through their respective gate.

except the tackled player and tackler/s

 

[Taff]

except the tackled player and tackler/s

Because they form the gate.

 

[Dixie]

I'm confused so at a tackle there is no gate and defenders can come in from anywhere but attackers can't??

I'm not quite sure how you get to that inference from the conversation so far. But you know it to be incorrect, or you wouldn't be reffing at L.7.

The business with the gate is rather confused from the technical perspective. There is legitimate debate aboout exactly how wide it is, and specifically whether it is the same width for both Blue and Red teams following any specific tackle. There is also the technical point (which everyone ignores for very good practical reasons) that anyone arriving at the tackle zone with the intent of clearing out rather than going for the ball can legally enter that zone from absolutely any direction. To anyone below L.7 reading this, if you enjoy getting to grips with the laws you might appreciate the challenge of figuring out exactly why this is the case; but once you've done it, take care to consign that knowledge to the "stuff never to take onto the pitch" bucket, along with hangovers and a nagging preference for one team over the other.

 

[Guyseep]

There is also the technical point (which everyone ignores for very good practical reasons) that anyone arriving at the tackle zone with the intent of clearing out rather than going for the ball can legally enter that zone from absolutely any direction.

Can you elaborate about what you mean here?

 

[OB..]

Can you elaborate about what you mean here?

It waa a challenge to you to look at the precise wording of Law 15.6.

So that you can (sensibly) ignore the implications.

If you can't be bothered, you have missed nothing.

 

[Guyseep]

It waa a challenge to you to look at the precise wording of Law 15.6.

So that you can (sensibly) ignore the implications.

If you can't be bothered, you have missed nothing.

I've read the law, just curious what you were implying. Thanks for the crabby response though!