[Tackle] Offside line at a tackle

[Last_20]

I have a question about the Lawes off-side call - a couple of referees from our society have been discussing today and we have found ourselves having difficulty answering a fundamental question had we been refereeing that game (we wouldn't be because we are all too old and slow, but it doesn't stop us asking the question)

I am sure it will have been dealt with on other threads but trying to find the answer within all the discussions is difficult, so appreciate the help.

Rewatching the footage we think that this is a tackle only - there are no English players on their feet at any point competing for the ball - therefore no ruck.

So where is the offside line?

The English player on the floor?
The foot of the NZ prop who advances passed the English player on the floor?
If Lawes starts a certain distance (is it 1 metre?) or more away from the tackle area is any of the former points relevant.

By the way I think Lawes response when interviewed was great for us referees "the referee said I was offside... therefore I was offside!" or words to that effect.

 

[L'irlandais]

Where to start?
if I was you I would start around #40 into this other discussion; nice diagram at this point in the thread.

 

[Last_20]

OH CRAP, I EDITED THIS POST BY ACCIDENT INSTEAD OF QUOTING IT

MY BAD - SORRY,


I'll see if I can recover it.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree. Some smart-arse coachs are bending the laws to breaking point.

 

[crossref]

Thank you - very helpful.

Our game can be confusing - the idea that a different definition of 'off-side' and 'ball back in play' exists between a tackle and a ruck.. that to the untrained eye look pretty similar.. that none of the officials on tv explained that was behind their thinking...

I doubt the TMO thought about half the issues we have found to talk about !

I don't think World Rugby considered half the implications of changing from the mono-ruck to the tackle-with-offside-lines. Let's face it , they accompanied the change with a press release saying that all the 2017 trials had been adopted unchanged. Why is that familar?

 

[frencie851]

BTW the idea that the front player in this sort of tackle can keep advancing to create a new offside line for the defence.. providing he is still bound and therefore part of the tackle - seems like yet another unintended consequence if I have interpreted the law correctly.

I think that if a ruck is formed with the absence of the defending team the the offiside line should be the player on the floor

 

[Last_20]

I think that if a ruck is formed with the absence of the defending team the the offiside line should be the player on the floor

Unless I have missed something, I don't think you can have a ruck without someone from the defending team on their feet contesting for the ball (which is on the floor) with an opponent - that is the definition of a ruck is it not? What you are describing is a tackle isnt it?

 

[Dickie E]

for me it is pretty simple - if you have a muckle, then the offside line is the piece of a player's body (who is in the muckle and irrespective if on feet or not and irrespective of which team he is on) that is nearest to your goal line.

And yes, this offside line can move as players move (eg rolling maul).

 

[crossref]

For me a player on the floor is out of the game , and shouldn't be setting an offside line for opponents

As well as the principle of the thing, he is also pretty invisible if you are a distance away or if you are a ref, and normally standing on the other side, so it's not practical

(Obviously in a tackle he DOES set the offside line, the diagram is clear.)

 

[Pablo]

For me a player on the floor is out of the game , and shouldn't be setting an offside line for opponents

As well as the principle of the thing, he is also pretty invisible if you are a distance away or if you are a ref, and normally standing on the other side, so it's not practical

(Obviously in a tackle he DOES set the offside line, the diagram is clear.)

I agree it’s counterintuitive vs the principle of “the game is to be played by players on their feet”. But I feel the wording of 14.10 is quite clear that this is the intent. Here’s the relevant sentence:

“Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball.”

To me, that should be read as “any player in the tackle, even if they’re on the floor” OR “anyone on their feet over the ball, even if they’re not part of the tackle”.

 

[Ian_Cook]

BTW the idea that the front player in this sort of tackle can keep advancing to create a new offside line for the defence.. providing he is still bound and therefore part of the tackle - seems like yet another unintended consequence if I have interpreted the law correctly.

I have absolutely no problem with this at all.

I see it as no different from your ruck or maul being driven backwards pushing your offside line back. The solution to THAT problem is to commit more players to the ruck or maul (instead of having them seagulling out in the backline.

If you don't want the opposition coming through your the tackle to advance the offside line, commit players on their feet to turn it into a ruck and stop them doing it.

 

[crossref]

I agree it’s counterintuitive vs the principle of “the game is to be played by players on their feet”. But I feel the wording of 14.10 is quite clear that this is the intent. Here’s the relevant sentence:

“Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball.”

To me, that should be read as “any player in the tackle, even if they’re on the floor” OR “anyone on their feet over the ball, even if they’re not part of the tackle”.

Yes the Law makers clearly state what they want . There is no doubt at all what the Law says

My point was that I think it's a foolish law
I don't think it's appropriate that a player on the ground , and out of the game , is nevertheless pushing all 15 opponents back an extra metre from the ball.

 

[Pablo]

Yes the Law makers clearly state what they want . There is no doubt at all what the Law says

My point was that I think it's a foolish law
I don't think it's appropriate that a player on the ground , and out of the game , is nevertheless pushing all 15 opponents back an extra metre from the ball.

And yet the end outcome is the creation of more space. Somewhat analogous with moving the scrum offside lines back 5m ten(-ish) years ago. I think that’s a good thing, even if the manner of achieving it is a little weird.

 

[crossref]

Well if you propose that the offside line at rucks , tackles and mail's should be 1m behind the back foot , that is a different proposition, and yes, quite an attractive idea to trial

 

[Pinky]

remember that a ruck has only to have players on their feet to start it. Assuming they do not deliberately go to ground, they are still part of the ruck, and I think would contribute to offside lines whilst they are part of the ruck. They are only out of the game as regards playing other players or the ball, in my opinion. They are part of the game in that they may obstruct and thus be liable to penalty.

 

[crossref]

The Ruck Law specifies hind foot

The tackle law specifies any part of the body

In a ruck if you are on the ground in front of the ball i would say you ARE offside, you are not setting the opponents offside line

 

[Last_20]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]The nuaunce though is in a ruck it is your players foot, in a tackle it is the hindmost point of any player (not just yours)

At a ruck Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the ruck participants’ hindmost foot. If that foot is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.[/FONT]

 

[Ian_Cook]

The Ruck Law specifies hind foot

The tackle law specifies any part of the body

In a ruck if you are on the ground in front of the ball i would say you ARE offside, you are not setting the opponents offside line

Got a law reference for that?

 

[The Fat]

The Ruck Law specifies hind foot

The tackle law specifies any part of the body

In a ruck if you are on the ground in front of the ball i would say you ARE offside, you are not setting the opponents offside line

So every BC who is brought to ground, has a ruck form over him and then places the ball behind him (i.e. nearer to his own DBL) is now offside? Hmmm, never heard a ref yell at the tackled player, "get out of there 12 red, you are offside"

 

[crossref]

I was thinking of something equivalent to this scenario

If you changed it so that the red player is on his feet, making this into a ruck I think we could agree that the yellow player on the ground on the red side of the ruck, ie between the red 9 and the red back foot , was offside , right ?

Yes, I would tell him to get out of there