Offside or Not?

[Ian_Cook]

Apologies for the poor quality video... I used a smartphone video off the TV screen

Try was disallowed because the TMO ruled that Blue 15 was in front of Blue 9 even though the ball touched the White player in between times. The TMO said that the Whte player didn't play it intentionally (which is irrelevant, he was lazy running).

The worst aspect of this is that Angus Gardiner, an otherwise excellent, international referee, bought this truckload of horse puckey!

 

[Dickie E]

10.6 (c) uses the word “intentionally “ so appears correct decision.
TMO sounded all at sea. Gardner got it right it would seem.

 

[ChuckieB]

It was a case of none of the officials actually being prepared to commit as they were all lost for a moment.

Call him a lazy runner would have been the more justifiable interpretation of the situation.

 

[Dickie E]

It was a case of none of the officials actually being prepared to commit as they were all lost for a moment.

Call him a lazy runner would have been the more justifiable interpretation of the situation.

Calling him a lazy runner doesn’t change the Highlander offside call

 

[Ian_Cook]

If you give a free pass to an offside player in this situation because he "unintentionally" touches the ball, then you've been sucked in by that player.

He was offside, trying to get in the way... and he did. That is intentional in my book.

 

[Dickie E]

If you give a free pass to an offside player in this situation because he "unintentionally" touches the ball, then you've been sucked by that player.

He was offside, trying to get in the way... and he did. That is intentional in my book.

I’m not suggesting he gets a “free pass”. He is subject to penalty. But his actions do not put opponents onside

 

[ChuckieB]

Calling him a lazy runner doesn’t change the Highlander offside call

....just saying he was a lazy runner without going on to say all the stuff about impeding the pass. All
looked cut and dried to me as to what the outcome should have been.

 

[Dickie E]

and what do you think it should have been?

 

[crossref]

In open play you are only offside if you are in front of a team mate who last played the ball.

Surely it was White lazy runner who last played the ball, putting blue onside just like if it had been an attempted charge down .

Put it another way ...

If white had come from onside position and intercepted the pass, smacking it backwards , the try would clearly have stood .
Dont think that white should be *better off* because he was offside and in the way

 

[Taff]

Was there a ruck though, or just a tackle?

No such thing as a "lazy runner" at a tackle.

 

[crossref]

Was there a ruck though, or just a tackle?

No such thing as a "lazy runner" at a tackle.

Well, the first person to arrive at a tackle create offisde lines .. and lazy runners

 

[Taff]

Well, the first person to arrive at a tackle create offisde lines .. and lazy runners

But only if someone is on their feet and over the ball on the ground, isn't it Crossref?

Was there a Ruck here? I'm not 100% sure; there is a defender who isn't supporting his own weight and the ball pops out PDQ.

If we decide that was a Ruck, then the teammate was offside. So the Ref has 2 judgement calls to make:

1. Was that a Ruck or a tackle?
2. If it was a Ruck (and offside lines would have been created) was the "lazy runner" there deliberately or did the attacking side see the chance to grab a cheap penalty and chuck the ball into the retreating player?

If I thought it was deliberate, I would give a PK - and possibly a :noyc:

If I thought it was ploy by the attackers to get a cheap penalty, personally I would have given a scrum for accidental offside. I'm bracing myself for flack here. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

I'd give the try..
White plays it, blue is onside
Try

 

[Dickie E]

I'd give the try..
White plays it, blue is onside
Try

Crossref, talk me through that. Law 16.c requires that the White player "intentionally" plays the ball. I don't see how being 'falconed' can be deemed as intentional.

I understand that the player may have been intentionally offside or he may have been intentionally onside. For 80 minutes, every player puts himself in a position somewhere with intent. But its a long bow to say that can be extended to intentionally playing the ball.

 

[damo]

I agree with the call from the TMO. The lions player may be subject to PK for getting in the way but he did not intentionally play the ball.

I am a Highlanders man and I had no problem with the call.

 

[Dickie E]

how do you post a video from a smart phone here? There was a lineout incident at 11:00 mins in first half that I'd like to share.

 

[crossref]

how do you post a video from a smart phone here? There was a lineout incident at 11:00 mins in first half that I'd like to share.

Load it up to YouTube first, then put up a link

 

[crossref]

Crossref, talk me through that. Law 16.c requires that the White player "intentionally" plays the ball. I don't see how being 'falconed' can be deemed as intentional.

I understand that the player may have been intentionally offside or he may have been intentionally onside. For 80 minutes, every player puts himself in a position somewhere with intent. But its a long bow to say that can be extended to intentionally playing the ball.

I get your point.
Comparing it to a charge down , though , in a charge down you put your body in the path of the ball, hoping the ball will hit you. That counts as intentionally playing the ball.

I reckon this was pretty much the same thing, he placed his body between the 9 and 10 hoping he would get in the way, one way or another

 

[Dickie E]

Load it up to YouTube first, then put up a link

Thanks anyway “your google account password is not recognised blah blah blah”

 

[crossref]

I understand that other amateur video upload sites are available