Offside in-goal

[Davet]

a & b yes
c no

surely the advantage is that the innocent get a similar position to that which they would enjoy if you had blown the offence. Otherwise we wouldn't call "advantage", we would call "parity".

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree with a. and b. but not c.


I tell a player to stop in those circumstances, and he doesn't... ping. Its not worth playing advantage.

 

[Dickie E]

Kick goes into touch.

PK on 5m line based on "we'd rather a PK on 5m line than a lineout throw on 1/2 way"

???

 

[Simon Thomas]

agree a & b inline with IRB directive

c- definitely not, a total waste of time

I understand Dixie's comparison of a) and c) and that the same outcome may have occurred, but it is also likely it may not have been the same outcome.

From a management and control point of view the referee needs to blow early after a loud "stop" or "hold" to the prop, using colour and number.

 

[Taff]

Tricky, when that is not what the law requires. And they tell us there are no new laws!

Did you see Ian McGeechans interview on Total Rugby last night?

He reckoned all offside players were now obliged to retire - not just the ones covered by the 10m Law. :chin: I don't reckon they are, but you're average rugby player is more likely to see that interview than the RFU directive surely.

 

[Simon Thomas]

He reckoned all offside players were now obliged to retire - not just the ones covered by the 10m Law. :chin: I don't reckon they are, but you're average rugby player is more likely to see that interview than the RFU directive surely.

ssssssshhhhhh - don't tell anyone. Even better if they all retire backwards and not just stand still and be put onside if not within 10m !

 

[chopper15]

So, to summarise.

a) is to be recognised as fair and accepted practice and the ref's decision in scenario #1 , altho' technically spot on, was a bit hasty?