Offside or Not?

[crossref]

Unless it was a repeat offence I actually wouldn't as I think that gifting a try was punishment enough

 

[DocY]

I think that people are being rather charitable to the offside player , who places himself , illegally, between the oppo 9 and 10 but it's really not his fault that the pass happens to hit him .

I don't buy that . I think he got in the way of the pass intentionally and thus played all his opponent on side

On a practical note, though, it begs the question of what is clear and obvious - the facts or the infringement.

For me, it's not obvious that he intentionally played the ball, but I couldn't say it was obviously unintentional (though on balance of probabilities I think it was unintentional).

So does that lack of obviousness that stop any offside being clear and obvious?

 

[Rich_NL]

I think he got in the way of the pass intentionally and thus played all his opponent on side

Intentionally being offside is not intentionally playing the ball. The impression that would give is that you're cross at him and want to teach him a lesson, rather than refereeing to the laws of the game.

 

[Rich_NL]

On a practical note, though, it begs the question of what is clear and obvious - the facts or the infringement.

For me, it's not obvious that he intentionally played the ball, but I couldn't say it was obviously unintentional (though on balance of probabilities I think it was unintentional).

So does that lack of obviousness that stop any offside being clear and obvious?

The scorer was C&O in front of the scrum half - not a half-pace or a split-second misjudgement. So *if* the situation calls for an offside judgement, that bit is C&O.

The retreating player doesn't change course or speed (besides to flinch away) from before the ball being passed. Doesn't reach out, lean in, swerve... what evidence do you have of intent?

As a player, he may have had the intent to slow things down or disrupt the play, but any lazy runner who actually plays the ball knows it's a penalty against at the very least.

 

[crossref]

There is only really one reason why a player (whether offside or not ) would get in between the oppo 9 and 10 .. it's to get in the way of the pass ..
Why else was he in that channel , just at the moment the pass was made ..

I don't think it was by chance ..

 

[chbg]

Even if it was, he restricted Blue 9's reasonable options to use the ball.

If you are offside, keep out of the way.

 

[Rich_NL]

I agree he was intentionally offside and deserved penalising for that. That's still not intentionally playing the ball.

Why was he in the channel just as the pass was made? Because the scrum half passed it at just the moment that it crossed the path of his head. It was an accident, made more likely by his lazy, disruptive (and hence penalisable) running.

If he'd predicted exactly when, where and how fast the ball would be passed, before the scrum half had picked up the ball, and intentionally jogged in such a way as to head the ball, maybe it would count as intentionally playing the ball.

 

[crossref]

I get your point , and I think that approach is perfrctly credible ... but I just think you are being unwarrantedly kind to him ..

 

[didds]

Its very simple... don't want to get PKd for lazy running, don't get in the channel. If that means laying on the floor until play has moved on, so be it.

didds

 

[crossref]

Or I would say : if you want to avoid knocking the ball 10m toward your own DBL , and simultaneously putting your opponents all onside and free to pick up the loose ball, then avoid lazy running between the 9 and 10 looking to disrupt them

 

[rugbyslave]

I have watched this over as a Lions supporter, this was a try, anywhere, anytime, they just made up rubbish about intention.

 

[BikingBud]

Really

It's crap ball, uncontrolled coming out of the base of a poorly formed ruck between the SH's legs, he then turned around and is facing the wrong way.

The SH is then passing to the second row, number 5, clearly the "tactical decision maker" that will prosecute a well planned and orchestrated attack to deliver the try of the match!!

Yes there was a lazy runner but the scrum half played for that, realised it was slow and poor ball and conned the ref.

Scrum for accidental offside and warn the SH not to take the piss.

 

[crossref]

I find it completely fascinating how we all watch the same incident and see different things.

In this thread we have more than one person going for each of three option
1 - scrum blue (white accidentally offside)
2 - PK to blue (white offside, adv blue, blue offside)
3 - Try to blue (white offside, white plays blue onside, adv blue, try)


If I was advising the ref who chose (2) or (3) I'd say 'fair enough' (but did you consider the other view as well)

I have to say - I can't get my head round (1)

 

[ChrisR]

So you have now gone from Scrum to Play on?

The law for a player retiring from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout is clear. If he interferes with play, the sanction is a PK.
There are many grey areas in the law, but this isn't one of them. Calling play on from this would lose you all credibility.

Take it step by step. White is not offside by intent, he's offside because play passed him by and he is retiring to get back onside. It's not unreasonable for him to take the most direct route, even if it puts him momentarily between 9 and 10. Is he making haste or loitering? That is certainly material and is a referees judgement call.

Does he move to play the ball? No, nor does he drop to the ground as didds would suggest. What would you expect him to do? What does the law expect him to do?

So, for me that's accidental offside. Does he gain from it? Yes, he does as it stopped the ball from reaching the target so I now take back the "Play on" and should be playing Blue scrum advantage. Offside Blue killed that when he played the ball. If Blue 9 had played the ball instead and scored then I'd say the score stands.

So, it all boils down to offside players retiring and what are their responsibilities.

And, as I posted previously, if they hustle back, don't make a play for the ball then it's up to the 9 to time his pass to get the ball to the target. Accidental offside, no advantage, Blue scrum.

 

[didds]

Scrum for accidental offside and warn the SH not to take the piss.

You don't want to get pinged for PK don't be there ie don't take the piss.

didds

 

[didds]

I'm sure if it was the last play of the match, and the attackers had a seven man overlap out left they'd consider accidental offside, scrum, final whistle more than equitable after all.

didds

 

[BikingBud]

I'm sure if it was the last play of the match, and the attackers had a seven man overlap out left they'd consider accidental offside, scrum, final whistle more than equitable after all.

didds

I take that as an ironic statement but why is any of it relevant to the ref's decision?

I get the point about plays/actions always being intentional at top level but the quality of play and thought from the SH was not of the top level otherwise he would have got the ball first time and executed a well timed and lofted pass to the number 5, note not the number 10.

He didn't he ballsed it up and I would suggest that realising the poor situation deliberately passed it at the retiring player's head, the player who isn't even in the frame when the SH is scrabbling round for the ball. The SH then gets all theatrical in some sort of soccer fashion maybe hoping to draw the penalty and card for the opposition from the ref.

Ian any idea what advantage the ref is offering in the first place?

 

[menace]

Take it step by step. White is not offside by intent, he's offside because play passed him by and he is retiring to get back onside. It's not unreasonable for him to take the most direct route, even if it puts him momentarily between 9 and 10. Is he making haste or loitering? That is certainly material and is a referees judgement call.

Does he move to play the ball? No, nor does he drop to the ground as didds would suggest. What would you expect him to do? What does the law expect him to do?

So, for me that's accidental offside. Does he gain from it? Yes, he does as it stopped the ball from reaching the target so I now take back the "Play on" and should be playing Blue scrum advantage. Offside Blue killed that when he played the ball. If Blue 9 had played the ball instead and scored then I'd say the score stands.

So, it all boils down to offside players retiring and what are their responsibilities.

And, as I posted previously, if they hustle back, don't make a play for the ball then it's up to the 9 to time his pass to get the ball to the target. Accidental offside, no advantage, Blue scrum.

We are talking pro rugby here. He knows he's offside - he cant not as he looks at the ruck. He has a responsibility not to affect the play. He knows the ball is coming out. He still chooses to run through the 9/10 channel (to try and get the 9 to hold the pass for a second or 2 to allow defence to position). His position is no accident.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Its very simple... don't want to get PKd for lazy running, don't get in the channel. If that means laying on the floor
until play has moved on, so be it.

didds

This.

I often hear referees talking to players on the wrong side of a ruck/tackle saying "wait there" or "stay there" when they can see the ball is about to emerge or be picked up by the SH.

I also subscribe to the view that nothing players do on the pitch in pro-rugby is by accident. Getting in the way of a pass is something players do intentionally to minutely slow down the opposition's quick ball... every little bit helps.

In this case, the player may not have actually touched the ball intentionally, but he was making no effort to keep out of the way.

 

[Pinky]

This.

I often hear referees talking to players on the wrong side of a ruck/tackle saying "wait there" or "stay there" when they can see the ball is about to emerge or be picked up by the SH.

I also subscribe to the view that nothing players do on the pitch in pro-rugby is by accident. Getting in the way of a pass is something players do intentionally to minutely slow down the opposition's quick ball... every little bit helps.

In this case, the player may not have actually touched the ball intentionally, but he was making no effort to keep out of the way.

Not directly relevant to the particular situation here, but Ian is right about refs asking players to stay on the ground out of the way of playing the ball, but we also see players being penalised when they end up trapped in a tackle and can't get away from the ball. The view is that they should not be there so they are penalisable if they interfere with play. For me it is exactly the same situation with someone on his feet. If he is in an offside position and interferes with play then I am thinking penalty. It would be unusual for me to consider that accidental offside. in TV rugby a player hit by a ball kicked from behind is almost always a PK, even although it is clearly accidental.