Offside under 10m Law

[damo]

I think one can use extraneous information to help interpret ambiguous law, but where the law is not ambiguous, extraneous information has no use.

The law is clear enough, no direction can override a clear piece of law. I feel our duty is to follow the law as written.

 

[damo]

[LAWS]10.7 A player offside under Law 10.4c cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent, apart from a charge down.[/LAWS]

This is strange wording as it's not the opponent who is charging down but a teammate.

Huh? The kickers team mate is the one offside. The charge downer is on the other team - hence an opponent charging down the ball puts the player onside.

 

[ChrisR]

Thanx Damo.

This is a scenario that I'm not clear on:

Red kick, Blue attempt a charge down, ball is deflected up by Blue hands, ball comes down within 10m of Red player in front of kicker.

Is Red player onside from attempted charge down?

 

[crossref]

He is played onside by the attempted charge down

 

[Phil E]

This is a scenario that I'm not clear on:

Think of it this way.

In open play (generally speaking, and ignoring lazy runners for now) only the team with the ball or who last touched the ball can be offside.
Because you can only be offside if you are in front of the person from your team who has or last had the ball.

So the kicker kicks and team mates are in front of him....they are offside. The other team can't be offside.

Then the ball is charged and the charger becomes the last person to touch the ball.

So now all the kickers team are onside as they don't have or were last to touch the ball.

And any of the chargers team in front of the charger are now offside.


Hope that helps?

 

[DocY]

He is played onside by the attempted charge down

Huh? I thought, in either lawbook, a player offside under the 10m law could not be played on side by the actions of an opponent.

Edit: Sorry, misread. He's not actually offside under the 10m law. Just plain offside.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Ask you society.

- - - Updated - - -

If you read each book in isolation that would be the only conclusion you could come to.

However as we (experienced ref's) know there have been no law changes to the offside law, so the answer is still Yes, but this would not be immediately obvious to a new referee reading the 2018 law book in isolation. Any Society (including the RFU) presented with this question would say Yes and that is how we will all referee it, but I agree with you that its a pigs ear!

Common sense!

 

[crossref]

Huh? I thought, in either lawbook, a player offside under the 10m law could not be played on side by the actions of an opponent.

Only by a chargedown

 

[crossref]

]



Common sense!

Weeellll....

Phil's position is the first of these four approaches

1 Always apply 2017 Laws

2 Always apply 2018 Laws

3 Where 2018 is unambiguous apply it, but if there is any ambiguity or wiggle room interpret it to match 2017

4 Decide case by case which makes sense , if the change seem deliberate apply it, if accidental ignore it

Tbh I am not sure if any of those really count as common sense ... But (3) seems to me the closest to it

 

[thepercy]

Was there a scrum-up option for 10-meter law in 2017? 11.4(a)-(e)(2017) only list PK as sanction, and only 11.4(f)(2017) which deals with charge downs lists the scrum-up option. Did the sanction in (f) apply to (a)-(e) even though a specific sanction was listed?

Is this a change to law?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Weeellll....

Phil's position is the first of these four approaches

1 Always apply 2017 Laws

2 Always apply 2018 Laws

3 Where 2018 is unambiguous apply it, but if there is any ambiguity or wiggle room interpret it to match 2017

4 Decide case by case which makes sense , if the change seem deliberate apply it, if accidental ignore it

Tbh I am not sure if any of those really count as common sense ... But (3) seems to me the closest to it

Deliberate missrepresentation.

 

[crossref]

Deliberate missrepresentation.

Of what ?
No, no deliberate misrepresentation!
No misrepresentation at all, I hope

 

[damo]

Weeellll....

Phil's position is the first of these four approaches

1 Always apply 2017 Laws

2 Always apply 2018 Laws

3 Where 2018 is unambiguous apply it, but if there is any ambiguity or wiggle room interpret it to match 2017

4 Decide case by case which makes sense , if the change seem deliberate apply it, if accidental ignore it

Tbh I am not sure if any of those really count as common sense ... But (3) seems to me the closest to it

Personally I consider (3) is the most viable approach.

 

[Zebra1922]

Getting back on topic, what happens if the kick doesn't got 10m? I've seen a few instances where they duff the kick and it goes straight up and say 8m forward. What do players in front of the kicker do then? Retire to a line where the kick was placed?

 

[crossref]

Getting back on topic, what happens if the kick doesn't got 10m? I've seen a few instances where they duff the kick and it goes straight up and say 8m forward. What do players in front of the kicker do then? Retire to a line where the kick was placed?

They all must start to retire and the kicker runs forward and puts them onside

Or if you follow the 2018 Law Book they must retreat the whole 10m

 

[Taff]

Getting back on topic, what happens if the kick doesn't got 10m? I've seen a few instances where they duff the kick and it goes straight up and say 8m forward. What do players in front of the kicker do then? Retire to a line where the kick was placed?

They all must start to retire and the kicker runs forward and puts them onside

I'm sure Crossref knows it, but what he probably meant to say was "They all must start to retire and the kicker or another onside player runs forward and puts them onside.

What used to catch me out (and I'm pretty sure I am not alone) is the position of the mark for the PK if there are multiple players offside under the 10m Law.

The lawbook says the PK mark is where the player closest to where the ball landed - which if you think about it is the worst of the options as it will be further from the goal posts. I reckon the mark for the PK should be where the offside player furthest from where the ball landed - as that would be closer to the goal posts.

 

[crossref]

Hmm of course in the new laws when there are multiple offense aren't you supposed to offer the captain a choice ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Of what ?
No, no deliberate misrepresentation!
No misrepresentation at all, I hope

It is missintyerpretation because Phil and others have been clear:

There are no law changes. The new book was neant ot be clarification. The book failed to be that and has "muddied the water". The question that follows from that is What do we as refs do to make it work. Use the two books in conjunction and talk to you society which will have guidence for you. For others it seems t obe more "fun" to stir the pot.

Of course some people don't want to listen to their society and we will all draw our own conclusions why that is.

- - - Updated - - -

Getting back on topic, what happens if the kick doesn't got 10m? I've seen a few instances where they duff the kick and it goes straight up and say 8m forward. What do players in front of the kicker do then? Retire to a line where the kick was placed?

You do exactly what you did in December and before! Of course that answer assumes you were doing the right thing before.

 

[didds]

They all must start to retire and the kicker runs forward and puts them onside

Or if you follow the 2018 Law Book they must retreat the whole 10m

So in the example given, they actually have to retire to 2m behind where the ball was kicked from ? (just checking)

And in a case of the ball merely scuffing off a boot and trickling forward 1m, they'd have to retire 9m behind where the ball was kicked?

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

Hmm of course in the new laws when there are multiple offense aren't you supposed to offer the captain a choice ?

There are multiple infringements of the law... but the PK mark is in the same place for all of them.