[Law] Partial charge down - offsides .

[rugbyslave]

I have requested a clarification from a couple of senior referees and all seem say they would also award the try, obviously the coach of the team who had the try scored against him was not amused. The only thing all the referees asked was he really trying to charge ball down and not just sticking out a hand.

 

[VM75]

Yes I get that , but it rather conflicts with how we are taught to manage lazy runners .. which is that we shouldn't let them gain an advantage from being one .

Eg red win the ball at a ruck , red scrum half passes to red 10 who is tackled by a lazy blue runner .. who claims he was put onside by red passing the ball.

We don't allow that
But we do say he is put onside by a failed red chargedown attempt ?

I agree, That doesn't seem consistent application.

Maybe the answer is that Lazy runner offending [unless i'm mistaken] is a modern development, whereas the 'partial' charge down continuance of play is a much older permission.

Maybe the law ideology is that all full/partial charge downs are by definition deliberate attempts to touch the ball :shrug:

 

[crossref]

Yes.

In open play I think it's just the luck of the bounce .. by definition a charge down is unpredictable, and you just take the risk, normally it will have a good result but sometimes it will fall for an opponent.. You make the charge down you take the risk

But around a ruck or maul does/should this include the risk of putting an opposing lazy runner onside ?

I am not so sure. I don't think that any other action by Red would allow a Blue, offside, lazy runner to benefit from his laziness and play the ball (?)

 

[chbg]

So at a ruck a very lazy runner , making no proper effort to get onside , could catch a box kick by his own Scrum half , that was touched by an opponent trying to charge it down?

Then penalise him for being offside at the ruck ("making no proper effort to get onside"), before he is put onside by the charge down. It became material when the kick was charged down (rather like NO's delayed PK decision in Scot v Eng).

 

[crossref]

Then penalise him for being offside at the ruck ("making no proper effort to get onside"), before he is put onside by the charge down. It became material when the kick was charged down (rather like NO's delayed PK decision in Scot v Eng).

yes, I really didn't like NO's delayed PK decision!

 

[ChuckieB]

Not being offside is only in respect of the provisions of the 10m as far as I can see.

A winger running in front of the kick by his own failings will always be offside and liable.

Consider a cross field kick where the winger was ahead of the kicker and advancing and there is a failed charge down and the ball still manages to reach him. Is that fair?

the offence has occurred at the point of the kick, is continuing and is not negated by the failed charge down attempt.

 

[Rich_NL]

Yes I get that , but it rather conflicts with how we are taught to manage lazy runners .. which is that we shouldn't let them gain an advantage from being one .

Eg red win the ball at a ruck , red scrum half passes to red 10 who is tackled by a lazy blue runner .. who claims he was put onside by red passing the ball.

We don't allow that
But we do say he is put onside by a failed red chargedown attempt ?

We don't allow that because passing doesn't put a player onside from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout.

 

[crossref]

We don't allow that because passing doesn't put a player onside from a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout.

Exactly .. so why does a chargedown

 

[Rich_NL]

Exactly .. so why does a chargedown

The chargedown follows a kick - which does put the opposition players onside.

So to wrangle it to the ruck scenario, it goes back deep to red 10, who's charged down by (an onside) blue 6 while blue 13 jogs back upfield from an earlier heavy tackle 20m offside from the ruck that winded him for a phase. He's offside but retiring and takes no part in the game. At red 10's kick, he's onside, and can catch the ball as long as it's behind blue 6.

 

[crossref]

a lazy blue runner is definitely not put onside when his own blue 9 kicks the ball toward him.

But the claim is that if a red forward manages to get a touch on the ball, the blue lazy runner is now onside and allowed to catch the ball kicked by his own 9.

I don't really buy it .. I understand the justification in Law but we seem to end up with an undesirable result ..