[Law] Offside or no offside - Ospreys v SF

[ChuckieB]

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.

To see a C&O KO by blue and ignore the next action by blue and call it a scrum gold would have been a misapplication of the laws. It is not for referees to do that, as I think was stated in a post in another thread.

 

[DocY]

To see a C&O KO by blue and ignore the next action by blue and call it a scrum gold would have been a misapplication of the laws. It is not for referees to do that, as I think was stated in a post in another thread.

I don't think it would.

You're told to only ping the C&O.

What Joubert had was a C&O knock on, then an unclear playing of the ball by gold, then a blue player in front of the last blue player to play the ball playing the ball.

And it's the middle bit that's the problem. Does the lack of clarity around gold's playing of the ball roll up to a lack of clarity about the blue player being offside? The answer is yes.

It would have been a hard sell, perhaps, but CJ would have been perfectly correct to say "I couldn't tell if gold played the ball, so it wasn't a C&O offside. We'll have a scrum for the KO".

 

[OB..]

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?

I am not convinced that 11.9 adds anything useful. What gaps are there in the offside laws that it might usefully fill? Can anybody remember it being used?

 

[Dickie E]

I am not convinced that 11.9 adds anything useful. What gaps are there in the offside laws that it might usefully fill? Can anybody remember it being used?

Yeah, its for the lumbering forward meandering back on side at a ruck with his arms in the air "accidentally" getting in the opposition's way

 

[ChrisR]

Yeah, its for the lumbering forward meandering back on side at a ruck with his arms in the air "accidentally" getting in the opposition's way

If he's making an effort to get onside then he's not "loitering".

 

[ChuckieB]

I am not convinced that 11.9 adds anything useful. What gaps are there in the offside laws that it might usefully fill? Can anybody remember it being used?

It should be there for good reason.

That it hasn't been applied does not mean it is not adding anything useful.

When The ARU raised their query on law 11.4 (f) back in 2011 they even stated: "This section of Law does not appear to have been applied in any professional or international competition since it was introduced in 2009", i.e. that they hadn't got an example so to speak, but they still raised their question.

Perhaps this is just such a situation, i.e. per the original post, to allow people like me, and reasonably so I think, to smell a rat and call an infringement. I think I have understood the laws and I can support my decision and cannot be marked down as having made it up as I have go along.

Of course there is much more weight added to contribution of those more experienced than I. I accept that. So while the majority might disagree it doesn't cast in stone that I am actually wrong. .........Fresh set of eyes and all.

Even DocY in his #25 says he has pinged a player for loitering after being played on side following a pass by the opposition. He did at least mention he had seen it as loitering and the actual sanction, from everything that I have gathered, I can only see it as being pulled from this law..........

 

[ChuckieB]

If he's making an effort to get onside then he's not "loitering".

......but "accidentally" allowing himself to now be considered as active in play and presumably benefitting as a result.

 

[ChrisR]

If a player in an offside position takes the most direct route to put himself onside and does so at a reasonable pace (ie. something quicker than a walk) then he is complying with law.

 

[ChuckieB]

I don't think it would.

You're told to only ping the C&O.

What Joubert had was a C&O knock on, then an unclear playing of the ball by gold, then a blue player in front of the last blue player to play the ball playing the ball.

And it's the middle bit that's the problem. Does the lack of clarity around gold's playing of the ball roll up to a lack of clarity about the blue player being offside? The answer is yes.

It would have been a hard sell, perhaps, but CJ would have been perfectly correct to say "I couldn't tell if gold played the ball, so it wasn't a C&O offside. We'll have a scrum for the KO".

Ping the clear and obvious. That's helpful advice.

Careful phrasing of any response by the ref is also then cause for careful consideration, as this case highlights. We also know this by what I am assuming is now specified guidance around the awarding, or not, of tries?

Don't have the detail for what he actually said to the committee, but for CJ it seems his C&O obvious was the knock on by blue and the C&O of blue player subsequently playing the ball. Under that guidance his decision would have been deemed correct, would it not?

Yes, while it might have been a reasonable response to say in this instance, gold touching the ball not C&O, would actually continue the uncertainty into the next phase of play. It does seem that would have been contrary to the guidance (I am assuming such guidance would have been relevant at the time). soa hard case to make nd get away with.

Any guidance as to where the exact opposite applies? Off the top of my head I can only think of where the referee directs "play on" for a number of situations. As such the use of the whistle is important as it implies he has seen a C&O infringement. Play then stops.

Uncertainty about playability of the ball is perhaps the other area which itself involves the whistle?

 

[DocY]

Even DocY in his #25 says he has pinged a player for loitering after being played on side following a pass by the opposition. He did at least mention he had seen it as loitering and the actual sanction, from everything that I have gathered, I can only see it as being pulled from this law..........

I'm flattered that you value my opinion, but I'd advise against putting too much weight on it I spend half my Saturday afternoons having at least 30 blokes think I'm wrong!

 

[ChuckieB]

I'm flattered that you value my opinion, but I'd advise against putting too much weight on it I spend half my Saturday afternoons having at least 30 blokes think I'm wrong!

But on one occasion a bloke who admitted you were right. Happy days!

So that's three who might have cause to agree perhaps? Me, you and him!

I'm gathering a head of steam on this!

Dickie E stated I made a good case.

Others were perhaps challenging my view on the basis that it didn't apply to a kick situation but I don't think they have sought to clarify why not.

We have some uncertainty at least.

And if the authorities want to see it as specific to a ruck or a maul situation, and not a kick in general play, stick it in those two laws instead. That would be my recommendation.

 

[The Fat]

If a player in an offside position takes the most direct route to put himself onside and does so at a reasonable pace (ie. something quicker than a walk) then he is complying with law.

I agree with you on the assumption you are responding to a response to Dickie E's example of loitering following a ruck.
If it is a kick in general player, the offside player (providing he is not within the 10m zone) is only required to stand still (i.e. not move forward or towards where the ball would land or next be played).
But yes, I agree, a player who is doing as you describe is complying with the Laws

 

[ChuckieB]

If it is a kick in general player, the offside player (providing he is not within the 10m zone) is only required to stand still (i.e. not move forward or towards where the ball would land or next be played).
But yes, I agree, a player who is doing as you describe is complying with the Laws

This is specifically a fair and correct point in my view. While we would reasonably expect him to move back, he is not obliged to, even if it raises the odd alarm bells.

 

[ChuckieB]

This is specifically a fair and correct point in my view. While we would reasonably expect him to move back, he is not obliged to, even if it raises the odd alarm bells.

What happens with him next as regards any involvement he has in the continuing phase of play is the next thing for the referee to have to consider.

 

[Phil E]

I'm gathering a head of steam on this!

:knuppel2: :deadhorse:

 

[ChuckieB]

What happens with him next as regards any involvement he has in the continuing phase of play is the next thing for the referee to have to consider.

• is he involved?
• is he onside?
• if he is, how has been made onside?
• if he has been made onside by the action of the opponent, has he benefitted?

 

[ChuckieB]

:knuppel2: :deadhorse:

Cleverly keeping you pinned down in the ruck, so the ref can't see what I am doing and you can't roll away so easily perhaps?

 

[The Fat]

• is he involved?
• is he onside?
• if he is, how has been made onside?
• if he has been made onside by the action of the opponent, has he benefitted?

I have just spent the last six and a half hours editing a set of local rugby By-Laws and dealing with no end of numbering and formatting issues inherited from the original document and anybody's previous input during past editing attempts. I needed just one more straw to break the camel's back or send me to the psych ward.
I think I just found the tipping point.
I agree with Phil E, not in a vindictive way mind you. Just sort of in a delirious trance like happy/strange way.:wink:

 

[ChuckieB]

I have just spent the last six and a half hours editing a set of local rugby By-Laws and dealing with no end of numbering and formatting issues inherited from the original document and anybody's previous input during past editing attempts. I needed just one more straw to break the camel's back or send me to the psych ward.
I think I just found the tipping point.
I agree with Phil E, not in a vindictive way mind you. Just sort of in a delirious trance like happy/strange way.:wink:

Do you need any help?

Send 'em over!

No...... don't bother!

Was he being vindictive? I hope not! .... whole new thread there, based on interpretation of a couple of emojis, me thinks !:wink:

But the points I raise are intended to have a serious element to them, not meant to bog things down. If I wanted to do that I could apply to The EU to be part of their Brexit negotiating team. Make it all stretch out to 10 years rather than the two intended. I am sure I could really be very good at that.

 

[The Fat]

Do you need any help?

Send 'em over!

No...... don't bother!

Was he being vindictive? I hope not! .... whole new thread there, based on interpretation of a couple of emojis, me thinks !:wink:

I would say not. Just being clear that I wasn't with my post. You know how these internet conversations can get taken the wrong way.
Anyway, just to reiterate in a non vindictive way, I think you're floggin' a dead horse there mate.