Offside or Not?

[DocY]

in TV rugby a player hit by a ball kicked from behind is almost always a PK, even although it is clearly accidental.

I'm not sure about that.

In general, if your team is the last to play the ball and you can't get out of the way it's given as accidental; if your opponent was last to play the ball it's almost always given as a full offside.

In the sort of case as is in the OP, I'd want the player to be making a very deliberate and obvious effort to avoid the ball before I give it as accidental.

 

[Dickie E]

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

get your hands on a law book and read Law 10.6(c) iv which clearly uses the word "intentionally"

 

[Dickie E]

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.

So are we all now in furious agreement that the ref got it right?

 

[DocY]

So are we all now in furious agreement that the ref got it right?

Dunno - did he give a scrum or a penalty?

 

[crossref]

I think the ref gave a try, didn't he ? But was talked down by the TMO

 

[Dickie E]

I think the ref gave a try, didn't he ? But was talked down by the TMO

after due deliberation, the decision was that the contact with the ball by the White player did not put the Blue player on side. All those in favour, say Aye.

 

[crossref]

Nay :biggrin:

 

[Rich_NL]

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

Then you can give him a card on top of the PK, rather than misapplying laws.

 

[crossref]

We agree on the Laws
It's a question of whether it was intentional.

 

[rugbyslave]

get your hands on a law book and read Law 10.6(c) iv which clearly uses the word "intentionally"

Looks very intentional to me !!!!

 

[DocY]

Looks very intentional to me !!!!

You seem to have decided on the outcome and are now looking for reasons. Your first post said that the bit about intention was 'rubbish', now you've changed your tune, but are still advocating the same outcome.

 

[Rich_NL]

We agree on the Laws
It's a question of whether it was intentional.

Is it? I've not heard any arguments that the player intentionally played the ball that was thrown at him. Only that he was intentionally offside, intentionally trying to slow the game, gets off too lightly with just a penalty... even Ian, who started the thread, said "the player may not have actually touched the ball intentionally, but..."

I've not heard the case made that him flinching away from a ball flung (let's assume accidentally) at his head is him intentionally playing it. It seems to be a question of "how can we reinterpret the laws away from the words' normally-understood meaning, to make sure we can punish him as we have decided is fit?"

 

[crossref]

You would agree that a charge down is intentional, and puts your opponent onside (as per the Laws)


A charge down is putting your body intentionally in what you calculate will be the path of the ball, hoping the ball will hit you.

If , in the event , it hits your head, there will very likely be some last second flinching involved

I think that also describes what we see here .

In other words he was in the way accidentally-on-purpose ie Intentionally

 

[Pinky]

A charge down is of a kick and not relevant here. The TMO was of the view that the retiring white player had not intentionally played at the ball. The question of whether the white player was offside or not was not addressed nor was whether the offside was accidental as there was already a side entry advantage, so they went back for that penalty.

 

[didds]

A charge down is of a kick and not relevant here. y.

I read that as being relevant to the illustration that a fl;inch is not an indicator of a totally unintentional situation.

Its very simple. Whether he MEANT to be between 9 and 10 is immaterial - he affected play from an offside position - i.e. he prevented the pass form 9 getting to 10. End of.

didds

 

[crossref]

Yes , a charge down illistrates that one way of intentionally playing the ball is to put yourself in its path and hope it hits you.
That way if you are offside you might even fool the ref into thinking it was accidental!

Anyway , I am not intending a fight to the last on this one . I can completelynl understand many will see that as unintended.

 

[didds]

WRT to the "but he has some sort of right to return on side by the shortest route possible " etc... if the shortest route was through the 10 would that be acceptable? Or through the referee even?

didds

 

[Camquin]

Shortest route that does not interfere with play.

 

[didds]

Shortest route that does not interfere with play.

In which case this bloke manifestly failed. He interfered with play - he prevented the 9-10 pass from completing.

didds

 

[menace]

You would agree that a charge down is intentional, and puts your opponent onside (as per the Laws)


A charge down is putting your body intentionally in what you calculate will be the path of the ball, hoping the ball will hit you.

If , in the event , it hits your head, there will very likely be some last second flinching involved

I think that also describes what we see here .

In other words he was in the way accidentally-on-purpose ie Intentionally

IMO this argument holds a lot of merit that the player had every intention that the ball would hit him.
As I said before - it was no accident he was there so it could easily be conceived that allowing the ball to hit him, but feign that we was somehow trying to get out of the way, is tantamount to intentionally playing the ball. (Who intentionally offends and doesn't somehow act as if they're innocent? That was as cynical as it gets).
Thats the problem with assessing 'intent'...it's a judgment call.
I suspect at that moment I would have awarded the try. I can see how the TMO was fooled into thinking the poor offside player was just innocently passing through when accidently clobbered in the head. )