[Law] Offside or no offside - Ospreys v SF

[ChuckieB]

My new best friend!

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/10/21/joubert-right-along/

Makes interesting reading!

I'm with the author on his view and then his comments about the World Rugby match official selection committee and most importantly Craig Joubert has just shot up in my estimation!!!!

 

[ChuckieB]

The "OR" indicates options; "If you do this OR that OR the other." They have equal validity.

A player only has to move 10 mtrs away from the player IF he is within 10. If he is already outside he dones not need to do so as he is already 10 mtrs away. He must not move towards the ball. The law says what he must not do. It does not say what he must do. Why? It's because he has a choice, stay put or retreat His call.

As suggested take guidence from your society. If they have the same view as you then happy days for you. Alternative they might just stop you getting a rough time from an advisor.

reducing the statement a bit further.

"cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play".

It can be read as applying on its own with equal validity, per your suggestion.

Which bit about that is there not to like?

But yes, of course, to take guidance is not to be frowned upon.

 

[ChuckieB]

To support this argument have a look at the sanction for 11.9 which says [LAWS]Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line[/LAWS]

The concept of an "offside line" only makes practical sense at a ruck, maul, etc. Where is the offside line for a kick in general play?

I alluded to this in another post as being curious.

You would think it might reasonably stay where the ball is kicked (a fixed point) or less likely, maybe even move with the kicker (harder to judge), but it seems they have chosen it to sit at the line of the infringing player in this instance. So if you look at multiple payers offside, there is no single offside line in play but it will end up being the line of the player at the actual place of infringement/deemed interference.


Remember, this is a law provision that stands out all on its own.

 

[The Fat]

My new best friend!

http://www.theroar.com.au/2015/10/21/joubert-right-along/

Makes interesting reading!

I'm with the author on his view and then his comments about the World Rugby match official selection committee and most importantly Craig Joubert has just shot up in my estimation!!!!

Craig Joubert made his decision based on his belief that Phipps hadn't touched the ball.

 

[ChuckieB]

Craig Joubert made his decision based on his belief that Phipps hadn't touched the ball.

Did CJ say that or was it the committee just confirming what they thought he had applied i.e. 11.7, based on what they determined he might not have seen in real time ?

http://www.rugbyworldcup.com/news/115761?lang=en

They hardly gave him a ringing endorsement. Where they to have understood their own laws, they could have argued, "well even if he didn't see it (Phipps was facing him, how could he not see it!), actually, the video evidence showed Phipps had touched the ball yet under the loitering laws, although 18blue has been made onside, he has interfered with play and so as not to provide him any benefit, it could and should have been a penalty anyway.

Yes, it is a spin on matters, but it would have saved them an awful lot of face and we would have a loitering case for future reference in our armoury .

Writer shows he was trying to think "out of the box". He's still my best friend..... of the moment at least.

 

[The Fat]

It was CJ's reasoning for why he awarded the PK.
We looked at that incident in great detail on here using frame by frame views supplied by Ian Cook and there was still divided opinion whether Phipps had touched the ball but many conceded that it would have been very difficult for CJ to be sure of any touch in real time.
Loitering would be the last offence to come into a referee's head for the CJ incident.
As the definition of the word suggests, an offender would need to be where he is not supposed to be for a minimum amount of time.
Anyway, the CJ incident certainly wasn't a case of loitering, and I also think that hanging your referee's cap on the law interpretations of journalists and commentators would not be a smart career move.

 

[ChuckieB]

It was CJ's reasoning for why he awarded the PK.
We looked at that incident in great detail on here using frame by frame views supplied by Ian Cook and there was still divided opinion whether Phipps had touched the ball but many conceded that it would have been very difficult for CJ to be sure of any touch in real time.
Loitering would be the last offence to come into a referee's head for the CJ incident.
As the definition of the word suggests, an offender would need to be where he is not supposed to be for a minimum amount of time.
Anyway, the CJ incident certainly wasn't a case of loitering, and I also think that hanging your referee's cap on the law interpretations of journalists and commentators would not be a smart career move.

for CJ in the moment yes but for the committee, with all that time, I would have hoped for more as regards support for the decision of their bloke in the field. "Leave no stone unturned to ensure we are seen to support him".

Gosh, I might have even seen such a call as this one, under the arguments I am trying to rationalise, as being harsh under the circumstances. It was an instinctive reaction rather than a delayed and deliberate response as is the case in the OP.

is this journalist recognised as being any good, just as a matter of interest?

 

[The Fat]

is this journalist recognised as being any good, just as a matter of interest?

"Journalist" would be using the term loosely.
The writer's profile describes him (Max) as a "Roar Rookie" who has read 50,991 articles, written 1, and has written 26 comments.

 

[Pegleg]

...is this journalist recognised as being any good, just as a matter of interest?

Perhaps this needed researching before using him as a reference.

 

[Pegleg]

reducing the statement a bit further.

"cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play".

It can be read as applying on its own with equal validity, per your suggestion.

Which bit about that is there not to like?

But yes, of course, to take guidance is not to be frowned upon.

Liking it is not relevant.

Here's the thing ,again:

11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play
or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball
or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

So 11.1 covers movement towards the ball. Being too close following a kick and Interfering ( which covers youe latest reduction of the law).

There is no good reason for point 2 if it is a requirement that ther player retreats. Law 11.4 covers a player being too close followiing a kick. The player has to get out of the zone where he is deemed to be having an unfair advantge.

Anyway I'm out of this one as we are just going around in cirlcles. I'll be interested whwn post your society's view of the law.

 

[ChuckieB]

It was CJ's reasoning for why he awarded the PK.
We looked at that incident in great detail on here using frame by frame views supplied by Ian Cook and there was still divided opinion whether Phipps had touched the ball but many conceded that it would have been very difficult for CJ to be sure of any touch in real time.
Loitering would be the last offence to come into a referee's head for the CJ incident.
As the definition of the word suggests, an offender would need to be where he is not supposed to be for a minimum amount of time.
Anyway, the CJ incident certainly wasn't a case of loitering, and I also think that hanging your referee's cap on the law interpretations of journalists and commentators would not be a smart career move.

Out of interest, was there ever discussion about 18G's action, with the possibility he might have himself touched the ball forward?

Without the detailed frame by frame analysis and consideration of any possible unsighting by Joubert, I recall my immediate instinct at the time was a knock on by 18G. Without the fog of the loitering argument, it then is determined, is it not, it could have been scrum blue and we have a different outcome, but still a scrum.

This is perhaps no less credible than the fudge they put out. It could have been easier to add this and would have at least been an added consideration and diffuse a difficult situation. Potentially three possible outcomes, i.e. the one on the pitch and then two, not one, further interpretations, is a bit more supportive to Joubert. I am having a pop here at the committee's handling of the situation rather than trying to determine what the right call actually was. Try to protect your own, don't hang them out to dry.

 

[DocY]

Out of interest, was there ever discussion about 18G's action, with the possibility he might have himself touched the ball forward?

Without the detailed frame by frame analysis and consideration of any possible unsighting by Joubert, I recall my immediate instinct at the time was a knock on by 18G. Without the fog of the loitering argument, it then is determined, is it not, it could have been scrum blue and we have a different outcome, but still a scrum.

This is perhaps no less credible than the fudge they put out. It could have been easier to add this and would have at least been an added consideration and diffuse a difficult situation. Potentially three possible outcomes, i.e. the one on the pitch and then two, not one, further interpretations, is a bit more supportive to Joubert. I am having a pop here at the committee's handling of the situation rather than trying to determine what the right call actually was. Try to protect your own, don't hang them out to dry.

I don't recall any knock on by gold at the time and there was no mention of it in any of the discussions. The arguments were all around the facts, rather than the law. It was well accepted that if gold had touched the ball then the scottish prop was on side.

 

[The Fat]

I don't recall any knock on by gold at the time and there was no mention of it in any of the discussions. The arguments were all around the facts, rather than the law. It was well accepted that if gold had touched the ball then the scottish prop was on side.

The ball was knocked on by a Scotland player and Phipps and a 2nd Scotland player sort of collided. CJ ruled the ball came off the Scotland player and went to a team mate who was in front of the guy CJ said touched the ball. PK to Aus.
Only trouble was that slow mo replays look like Phipps got a hand to the ball after the ball came off the 2nd Scotland player.
Initially, I thought CJ had got it right (of course I would), but I think there was a clip that Ian C put up where you could see that the ball deviated just a fraction near Phipps' hand and so it should have been a gold scrum for the first knock on instead of PK. If I have any of that wrong, I'm sure there will be a Scotland supporter who will correct me. Pretty sure the vision is etched into every Scotland supporter's brain.
I think we were also discussing that, as difficult as the decision would have been to make in real time, there was something about the TMO protocols that prevented a TMO review or intervention.

 

[ChuckieB]

I don't recall any knock on by gold at the time and there was no mention of it in any of the discussions. The arguments were all around the facts, rather than the law. It was well accepted that if gold had touched the ball then the scottish prop was on side.

I am just reiterating it was genuine instinctive real time view, from the telly. His hand outstretched, not necessarily C&O Hardie was the first to touch the ball in his attempt to grab it.

View attachment 3552

The frame after might quite reasonably suggest the opposite, and probably why it wasn't considered, i.e.that he couldn't have touched the ball (an assumption in itself),

View attachment 3553

the only verifiable contact being with Hardie's arm meaning it was a knock on and sunsequnet penalty.

I am not trying to justify myself on this one.

As I said, mine was an instinctive real time view at the time that, had it been one of the things under consideration, could have diffuses the situation, i.e. more reason to say, "We just don't know and so it is unfair to say the outcome should have been anything other than what CJ called on the pitch in his real time view" thereby sitting on the fence and maintaining some integrity and most importantly better support for the man on the pitch.

 

[ChuckieB]

I think we were also discussing that, as difficult as the decision would have been to make in real time, there was something about the TMO protocols that prevented a TMO review or intervention.

Hopefully arriving a this perhaps? ......and so then to have added the protocol would not have necessarily spared the argument and so might not be seen as being a beneficial step in a better direction! Stay as we are.

 

[OB..]

Looking back Loitering is not in the 1991 laws - so do we, nonchalantly looking at OB, know why it was added?

Check again.[LAWS]1991 Law book
Law 25 (3) NOTE (ii)
The referee should be careful to ensure that no benefit under Law 25 (2) is gained by loiterers who wilfully remain in an offside position and thereby prevent opponents from running with, kicking, passing or otherwise playing the ball.[/LAWS]

I can also tell you there was a significant change in 1992. Before then it was legal to chase a kick even if you were in front of the kicker, as long as you stopped at least 10 metres before reaching a player waiting to catch the ball (etc).

I have been looking into the history and it is difficult because
(a) before 2000 there were separate laws for offside and onside, and offside covered all phases of play. Currently Law 11 really only covers General Play.
(b) Many concepts have changed. The first mention of "loitering" I have is 1959, when the ruck was a "loose scrum", wing forwards could detach early etc. Mauls were not mentioned.

This makes it hard to be sure quite what was intended at various times (and there is no guarantee that views remained consistent over the years as the game changed). I might try to put together a historical perspective, but that does not necessarily help in today's world.

Laws 11.3 and 11.9 seem to be contradictory. If a player is put onside by 11.3, then he is no longer a loiterer, but 11.9 still wants to inhibit his actions. He can't be put onside by a team mate, since he is already onside. 11.8 covers most of what was covered by the pre-2000 laws and 11.9 may be intended just as a catch-all.

As I say so often, we should not be trying to apply logic to the wording of the laws, but to the best interests of the game.

 

[ChuckieB]

A steadying hand on the tiller. Thanks.

Your development of the laws explanation will give some comfort to both camps.

Per your final words of wisdom (!), what might then be the logic to be applied in the best interests of the game?

 

[Pinky]

A couple of points - Law states you cannot whilst offside move forwards towards the ball - you can move backwards towards the ball, but depending on the phase of play you may have to watch whether you interfere with play or enter a breakdown incorrectly.

My problem with the CJ decision is that the C&O was the initial KO by blue. It was not then clear what happened after that (especially not at full speed and seen once) but CJ chose to decide (incorrectly) that the ball had been played by an offside player and offer a penalty instead of simply going for the scrum to G for the original KO. His decision to award a penalty affected the outcome of the match. Contrast that with WB's extended but careful management of the France Wales game where it was ultimately the players who decided the outcome of the game, not the ref.

 

[ChuckieB]

A couple of points - Law states you cannot whilst offside move forwards towards the ball - you can move backwards towards the ball, but depending on the phase of play you may have to watch whether you interfere with play or enter a breakdown incorrectly.

My problem with the CJ decision is that the C&O was the initial KO by blue. It was not then clear what happened after that (especially not at full speed and seen once) but CJ chose to decide (incorrectly) that the ball had been played by an offside player and offer a penalty instead of simply going for the scrum to G for the original KO. His decision to award a penalty affected the outcome of the match. Contrast that with WB's extended but careful management of the France Wales game where it was ultimately the players who decided the outcome of the game, not the ref.

I would reasonably suggest he didn't "decide" incorrectly, he "judged" incorrectly that the ball had been played first by an offside player. I see (judge, interpret, understand, etc.,) those two as being different. Same wrong outcome, but less blame attached with the latter.

Different scenario to WB I think. CJ had to blow his whistle for something. Knock on or knock on offside. It just ended up being the wrong decision in most people's eyes. With 2 minutes to go we then don't know what a scrum might have brought.

I don't think WB had his hands quite so tied. It was an incomplete phase of play, i.e. the scrum, so Play on. And in the intervening period while the clock had gone to time. The outcome was then decided in open play.

 

[Pinky]

I would reasonably suggest he didn't "decide" incorrectly, he "judged" incorrectly that the ball had been played first by an offside player. I see (judge, interpret, understand, etc.,) those two as being different. Same wrong outcome, but less blame attached with the latter.

Different scenario to WB I think. CJ had to blow his whistle for something. Knock on or knock on offside. It just ended up being the wrong decision in most people's eyes. With 2 minutes to go we then don't know what a scrum might have brought.

I don't think WB had his hands quite so tied. It was an incomplete phase of play, i.e. the scrum, so Play on. And in the intervening period while the clock had gone to time. The outcome was then decided in open play.

ChuckieB, I think you are splitting hairs here, judgements and decisions are often the same thing - cf courts - and very often we refer to referees making hundreds of decisions in the course of a match. Absolutely we don't know what the outcome from the award of a scrum might have been, but that would have been largely to the players to decide and not the referee and that is why I believe that the "correct" decision for a referee to make in these circumstances would be to award a scrum gold for the original C&O KO. WB was asked by the French captain about a PT (that he could with some justification awarded) but he was clear in his reply why he did not consider that was justified. As i say i felt he was careful in how he dealt with that so that he did not at the end of the day affect the result ofte match, something that all referees should aspire to.