Offside on Try Line

[JP_Rocks]

Situation from last weekend's game that I thought was pretty straight forward, but have had a couple of people question it since. Teams are Gold and Red, and this incident occurred 20 mins into the game, no trends or otherwise important information.

Gold go through multiple phases, using good quick pick and drives, and eventually set up a ruck 5m from Red's tryline. On the left hand side of the fiels, Gold now have a three (possibly four) on one overlap. The lone Red player on that side of the field goes offside to defend the play, resulting in him intercepting the pass before the ball gets to Gold's first reciever.

Decision?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Situation from last weekend's game that I thought was pretty straight forward, but have had a couple of people question it since. Teams are Gold and Red, and this incident occurred 20 mins into the game, no trends or otherwise important information.

Gold go through multiple phases, using good quick pick and drives, and eventually set up a ruck 5m from Red's tryline. On the left hand side of the fiels, Gold now have a three (possibly four) on one overlap. The lone Red player on that side of the field goes offside to defend the play, resulting in him intercepting the pass before the ball gets to Gold's first reciever.

Decision?

If I am visualising correctly from your description, I am going straight under the posts, and YC the Lone Ranger as well!

 

[Dickie E]

Quite likely PT for deliberate offending and yellow card.

 

[Taff]

Situation from last weekend's game that I thought was pretty straight forward, but have had a couple of people question it since.

What have they questioned?

 

[Ian_Cook]

What have they questioned?

Purely a guess, but I would suggest that JP_Rocks awarded a PT and others are questioning that decision.

Some dissenters might pick up on this wording, which appears in several places in the LoG...

[LAWS]"A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team."[/LAWS]

... they might argue that offside is not foul play so cannot result in a PT.

My counter-argument would be...

[LAWS]10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]


JP says that the lone Red defender "goes offside to defend the play, resulting in him intercepting the pass before the ball gets to Gold's first receiver".

Well, that sounds intentional enough to me!

 

[didds]

clear case of PT + YC!!

didds

 

[JP_Rocks]

Ian, you are pretty much bang on- I went the route of Penalty Try plus Yellow Card. No-one really queried the penalty try, but I've had a few people question the decision to YC him as well- not surprisingly, the red captain and management thought a PT was sufficient, but more surprisingly, one of my AR's (a very experienced referee who has also done a fair bit of referee education for our association) thought the same.

I agree with you guys- the YC needs to be awarded as this is the penalty for his offending, not the penalty try. The try was probably going to be scored if he hadn't offended, so the awarding of the Penalty Try is just to return the situation to the baseline. By only awarding the PT, this means that the player gets off scott free for his offending. Hence the need for the YC. Also, considering the situation (on the goal line) and grade level (prem club), the offence has to be considered intentional.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, you are pretty much bang on- I went the route of Penalty Try plus Yellow Card. No-one really queried the penalty try, but I've had a few people question the decision to YC him as well- not surprisingly, the red captain and management thought a PT was sufficient, but more surprisingly, one of my AR's (a very experienced referee who has also done a fair bit of referee education for our association) thought the same.

I agree with you guys- the YC needs to be awarded as this is the penalty for his offending, not the penalty try. The try was probably going to be scored if he hadn't offended, so the awarding of the Penalty Try is just to return the situation to the baseline. By only awarding the PT, this means that the player gets off scott free for his offending. Hence the need for the YC. Also, considering the situation (on the goal line) and grade level (prem club), the offence has to be considered intentional.

JP, you have obviously been to the Mark Lawrence school of Refereeing.

Have a listen to what he says here. It starts around 6:30 into the video with Tommy Bowe batting the ball over the sideline, and results in a PT and YC against him.

It is essentially what you are saying.... that the YC is a punishment for the offence, and the PT is for the try that would have been scored.

Don't let anyone convince you that you were wrong, least of all the management of the aggrieved team

[LAWS]10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended (i.e. Yellow Card) or sent off (ie Red Card).

[/LAWS]


Your AR ought to know better!!!

 

[ChrisR]

My question is this: Would you have issued the YC if this had happened in Gold’s half of the pitch? I'd really have to see the Red player getting into the passing lane early (and cynically, the disdainful sneer is a clue) rather than just miss-timing and getting a jump to feel a YC was warranted.

 

[Phil E]

JP, you have obviously been to the Mark Lawrence school of Refereeing.

Have a listen to what he says here. It starts around 6:30 into the video with Tommy Bowe batting the ball over the sideline, and results in a PT and YC against him.

What was the idiot commentator prattling on about?
"Thats wrong because its inconclusive if the ball had crossed the goal line"

It doesn't matter whether it had or not. :nono:

[LAWS]10.2 (c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball
with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.[/LAWS]

 

[RobLev]

What was the idiot commentator prattling on about?
"Thats wrong because its inconclusive if the ball had crossed the goal line"

It doesn't matter whether it had or not. :nono:

[LAWS]10.2 (c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball
with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.[/LAWS]

That would be the commentator with an Irish accent? Can't imagine why he'd query the decision.

 

[Ian_Cook]

What was the idiot commentator prattling on about?
"Thats wrong because its inconclusive if the ball had crossed the goal line"

It doesn't matter whether it had or not. :nono:

[LAWS]10.2 (c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball
with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.[/LAWS]

I think he's trying to say that because he thought this offence didn't clearly happen in-goal, the referee should not have got the TMO involved.

 

[JP_Rocks]

Your AR ought to know better!!!

Damn right. I have no problem ignoring the remonstrations of an agreived management team, but having the AR (who is our former REO) make the same comment threw me a bit.

 

[JP_Rocks]

My question is this: Would you have issued the YC if this had happened in Gold’s half of the pitch? I'd really have to see the Red player getting into the passing lane early (and cynically, the disdainful sneer is a clue) rather than just miss-timing and getting a jump to feel a YC was warranted.

That is a completely different situation- I think we need to be hypervigilant in try scoring situations to make the burden of positivity fall on the defending teams. I had a good example of this a few weeks ago when I blew a penalty for a player not rolling away 2m out from the try line after some fairly quick phases by the attackers. While the attackers lined up a kick at goal, I had a quiet chat with the defending captain- he asked whether his player had been pinned in there and whether it should have been a scrum. I replied that I might have gone that way elsewhere on the field, but that I am never going to give the defending team the benefit of the doubt in those situations.

Expanding on this, around midfield there is a greater scope for giving the defending offender the benefit of the doubt. However, at this level of rugby, you need to assume that everything a player does on the field is intentional, and then weight up what outcomes they were intending to achieve by their actions. Snuffing out a 4 on 1 overlap in any part of the field through illegal play could easily merit a PK and YC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

....While the attackers lined up a kick at goal, I had a quiet chat with the defending captain- he asked whether his player had been pinned in there and whether it should have been a scrum.

As per the directive to our referees this year... if a player is pinned on the wrong side of a tackle/ruck, that is HIS responsibility.

If he wants to make sure he doesn't get pinned there, then he needs to take extra care to ensure he doesn't fall on the wrong side.

 

[barker14610]

As per the directive to our referees this year... if a player is pinned on the wrong side of a tackle/ruck, that is HIS responsibility.

If he wants to make sure he doesn't get pinned there, then he needs to take extra care to ensure he doesn't fall on the wrong side.

The players get "pinned" on the wrong side on purpose. Even if they do not, it still slows down a chance for quick ball for the attacking side. In this case, there is no doubt about failure to comply. The tackler is clearly the player who caused the problem.

15.8 DOUBT ABOUT FAILURE TO COMPLY

If the ball becomes unplayable at a tackle and there is doubt about which player did not conform to Law, the referee orders a scrum immediately with the throw-in by the team that was moving forward prior to the stoppage or, if no team was moving forward, by the attacking team

 

[OB..]

As per the directive to our referees this year... if a player is pinned on the wrong side of a tackle/ruck, that is HIS responsibility.

If he wants to make sure he doesn't get pinned there, then he needs to take extra care to ensure he doesn't fall on the wrong side.

I'm not a fan of such absolute responsibility. A player making a tackle is not solely in control of what happens and is therefore not solely in control of where he ends up. THe directive gives an incentive to teams to try and pin an opponent who is merely unlucky.

Yes, some players do make a point of trying to end up on the wrong side., but you must allow the referee some element of judgement.

 

[Phil E]

When a players says "I was trapped Sir", I usually reply with, "then don't get yourself in that position in the first place". If I am the third man there, then they have enough time to move.

As the saying goes, if I threw a grenade in there, I bet you would find a way to move!!

 

[Davet]

although the well-informed tacklee may try to get himself on the "wrong" side...

 

[Cave Dweller]

Purely a guess, but I would suggest that JP_Rocks awarded a PT and others are questioning that decision.

Some dissenters might pick up on this wording, which appears in several places in the LoG...

[LAWS]"A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team."[/LAWS]

... they might argue that offside is not foul play so cannot result in a PT.

My counter-argument would be...

[LAWS]10.2 UNFAIR PLAY
(a) Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.
Sanction: Penalty kick
A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise
have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either
be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.[/LAWS]


JP says that the lone Red defender "goes offside to defend the play, resulting in him intercepting the pass before the ball gets to Gold's first receiver".

Well, that sounds intentional enough to me!

Well while we at the guessing and fortune telling game lets say he might have dropped the ball????