How about 11.3 (c)
[LAWS](c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.[/LAWS]
No
Laws that are written to cover specific situations cannot be generally applied across the whole game, or parts of the game they don't apply to. Let me give you an example
[LAWS]10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents
an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick
[/LAWS]
If we were to apply this Law universally across the whole game, then rucking, mauling and scrummaging would be illegal. In a maul, all the players in front of the ball carrier are blocking the ball. So too are the players in front of the ball at a ruck, and the entire front row, second row and flankers in a scrum when the ball is at the No 8's feet. To allow rucks and mauls and scrums to take place, we have specific, specially written Laws to allow this phases of play to occur in spite of Law 10.2
When you have a law that covers a General situation, Call it Law "A" and another law that covers a specific situation, call it Law "B", and that specific situation occurs, you must apply Law "B" and not Law "A". Further, you must not try to apply the provosions of Law "B" to other situations.
In the case of Law 11.3, it applies to general to offside, but there is a specific Law, 11.7 that applies when the ball is knocked on
[LAWS]
11.7 OFFSIDE AFTER A KNOCK-ON
When a player knocks-on and an offside
team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is
liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
This Law only applies to the knock on situation so you must apply it to the situation under discussion, and you must not apply it to other situations. Laws 11.7 makes no reference to intenionally playn ghte ball
In the situation under discussion, the blue player knocked the ball forward and and
opponent (Phipps) next played the ball before another blue player played it. Therefore, no offside.
The ball did not just touch Phipps. It hit him and he very deliberately knocked it backward. So it is not two knocks on. The only question is whether Phipps hitting the ball back towards the previously offside Jock puts him onside. I'd like to hear Ian's view on that again because I'm not at all sure I understood it first time round.
For me, hiding behind the protocol is an excuse not a reason. It never occurred to Craig to go upstairs.
Yes, it does, and that is where Law 11.3 and "intent" does apply. As soon as Phipps hit the ball back, the previously offside player is put onside.
Also, of course, there is this
[LAWS]11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.[/LAWS]
It does not matter that the blue player was in an offside position, he was put onside by the actions of Phipps, who as you point out, played the ball.
