Offside in-goal

[damo]

I am very surprised no-one has raised this one yet.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTxxGAEH5J4&feature=g-u-u


While we wait for SAReferees to sort out what they think of it, what do we think of it?

I always thought that if the ball was over the goal line, no tackle, ruck or maul could be formed, and any that had been formed prior was ended. Given this, and assuming the ball was over the line, I reckon Daniel Braid was hard done by.

 

[Dickie E]

I think ref should have blown it up as unplayable earlier

 

[crossref]

I tend to agree, or is the fact that the back feet of the ruck were still in the field of play that matters, creating a line he can't cross?

Also - if he is giving a PK, shouldn't the PK have been moved out to the 5m line?

 

[Taff]

Where was the mark for that PK then? It seemed to be 1m into the field of play.

 

[crossref]

Where was the mark for that PK then? It seemed to be 1m into the field of play.

I think he gave it in line with back foot of the ruck -- which is where I guess he considered the offence was.

 

[Davet]

16.1.a says a ruck cannot take place in-goal
22.4.c says that the ball is what matters

If the ball is in-goal the ruck is over, and the player can come round if he wants to.

I think the decision is wrong.

If the ref says the ruck was not over then I can see why he awarded the penalty level with the offside line, and so didn't have to go 5m - but... that's not the point.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I tend to agree, or is the fact that the back feet of the ruck were still in the field of play that matters, creating a line he can't cross?

Also - if he is giving a PK, shouldn't the PK have been moved out to the 5m line?

Nope. The hindmost feet of the blue team only count if the ball is in the field of play. Once the ball is in in-goal, the ruck ceases to exist, and the Blue players were entitled to go for the ball from any direction.

[LAWS]16.6 SUCCESSFUL END TO A RUCK
A ruck ends successfully when the ball leaves the ruck, or when the ball is on or over the goal line.[/LAWS]

The blanket statement by the commentators that "there is no offside in-goal" is untrue; you can still be offside in general play, e.g. playing the ball ahead of the last teammate who played the ball, but there are no ruck, maul or scrum offside lines in-goal because those phases do not exist in-goal.

As a side note, there is no tackle gate either, for the same reason; a tackle cannot take place in-goal.

 

[irishref]

forgive my ignorance but...... I didn't know any (bone fide) penalty for the attacking team could be given between the 5m line and try line?!

but for a defending team it is possible?

 

[Taff]

forgive my ignorance but...... I didn't know any (bone fide) penalty for the attacking team could be given between the 5m line and try line?! but for a defending team it is possible?

Attacking PKs are brought back to the 5m line.

Defending PKs are given at the place of infringement - although I have seen world class refs take those out to the 5m line as well.

 

[Simon Thomas]

He got it wrong. Ball over goal line, so ruck is over and hence no offside line. I am in full agreement with DaveT & Ian on 16.1.a says a ruck cannot take place in-goal and 22.4.c says that the ball is what matters. Lots of sympathy for Blues #7.

Wrong again under 21.2 WHERE PENALTY AND FREE KICKS ARE TAKEN -
(a) If the place for a penalty or free kick is within 5 metres of the opponents’
goal line, the mark for the kick is 5 metres from the goal line, opposite the place of infringement.
(b) When a penalty or free kick is awarded in in-goal, the mark for the kick is in the field of
play, 5 metres from the goal line, in line with the place of infringement.

The law applies to both attacking and defensive PKs. Even for a mark (18.2 KICK AWARDED) The kick is awarded at the place of the mark. If the mark is made in the in-goal, the kick is awarded 5 metres from the goal line in line with where the mark was made.

 

[didds]

which would rather suggest a defending side PK 1m into the FoP would be taken out to the 5m line... otherwise they are better off having a PK inside the goal area!

didds

 

[Taff]

which would rather suggest a defending side PK 1m into the FoP would be taken out to the 5m line... otherwise they are better off having a PK inside the goal area!

That's what I think the IRB meant to say; the trouble is it isn't what they wrote.

And when we saw AR clearly take a defensive PK out to the 5m line at the RWC, my best guess is he was going by what he thought the IRB wanted.

 

[irishref]

but if there was an offence by the attacking team between the 5m and try line, without the ball ever having been out of that channel, it's OK to award a PK on the place of infringement to the defending team...

 

[Davet]

but if there was an offence by the attacking team between the 5m and try line, without the ball ever having been out of that channel, it's OK to award a PK on the place of infringement to the defending team...

Yes, that's exactly what the Law says.

 

[Pinky]

So, if the referee thought that the ruck was not over, then he awarded the penalty at the right place, 1m out. Had the offence happened in goal then he should have brought the penalty 5m out. I know that this was a change by the IRB, but I never saw a problem with the old arrangements where the defence got the penalty where it was committed, but the attack never got one closer than 5m to the goal line.

 

[Taff]

... I know that this was a change by the IRB, but I never saw a problem with the old arrangements where the defence got the penalty where it was committed, but the attack never got one closer than 5m to the goal line.

My guess is that the IRB tried to simplify the law - ie no mark for a FK or PK can be within 5m of a goal line regardless of whether it is to the defensive or attacking side.

The wording used though clearly confuses a lot of refs, so I dread to think what players and spectators make of it.

 

[Davet]

The wording used though clearly confuses a lot of refs,

Don't see why, it's pretty clear.

Attacking PK Mark is never closer than 5m to Goal Line.
Defending PK, at place of offence - unless that was in-goal in which case 5m out.

 

[Pinky]

I agree with Davet that the wording is quite clear. However, I don't follow the logic of awarding a defensive penalty, say, 1m out, but if the offence happened on the goal line it gets advanced 5m. I could have seen some justification for moving a penalty in goal forward to the goal line, so a penalty deep in ingoal was not awarded 20m from the goal line. On a windy day that could be a long way to work it back into the fop, and if you were to run it, very difficult not to touch it down if tackled.

 

[crossref]

Don't see why, it's pretty clear.

Attacking PK Mark is never closer than 5m to Goal Line.
Defending PK, at place of offence - unless that was in-goal in which case 5m out.

yes it's clearly what they wrote, but it creates an anomaly which makes everyone wonder if that's really what they meant,

 

[crossref]

going back to the original video

- from the video we can't actually see the ball.

- so it's possible that the ball hadn't crossed the goal line when the attacker came in front of the back foot (unlikely I'd say, from the position of the players, but possible)

- if the referee could see the ball, and judged the ball to be still on the FOP when the attacker came in front of the back foot, then he made exactly the right decision.