Saint Nigel

[BikingBud]

Argentina kick off with less than a minute left.

"Too far in front I cannot ignore that":wow::sad:

So he is prepared to ignore some?

In front is in front isn't it? Just like being pregnant:shrug:

 

[Pegleg]

Materiality?

 

[Balones]

Argentina kick off with less than a minute left.

"Too far in front I cannot ignore that":wow::sad:

So he is prepared to ignore some?

In front is in front isn't it? Just like being pregnant:shrug:

Being in an offside position is not an offence. Interfering with play while in that position is. Bad wording by NO perhaps.

 

[BikingBud]

Materiality?

How is offside immaterial?

Especially from a KO when pressuring the receiving team and trying to force a knock on or a turnover. Potentially acceptable if the goal kicker is running towards his own goal line and the KO is taken by another player while the goal kicker returns to his own half before then re-joining the game.

I think in the attempts to speed up the game we have allowed, by stealth, the normalisation of encroachment of offside lines. By his own admission Nigel is saying that.

 

[BikingBud]

Being in an offside position is not an offence. Interfering with play while in that position is. Bad wording by NO perhaps.

Being in front of a kick is a specific offence:

13.3 Position of the kicker’s team at a kick-off
All the kicker’s team must be behind the ball when it is kicked. If they are not, a scrum is formed at the centre. Their opponents throw in the ball.

 

[Pegleg]

How is offside immaterial?

Especially from a KO when pressuring the receiving team and trying to force a knock on or a turnover. Potentially acceptable if the goal kicker is running towards his own goal line and the KO is taken by another player while the goal kicker returns to his own half before then re-joining the game.

I think in the attempts to speed up the game we have allowed, by stealth, the normalisation of encroachment of offside lines. By his own admission Nigel is saying that.

That's for the ref to decide at the time. But a simple example for you:

LIne-out on Blue left wing on half way. Red Left wing 60 mtr away is 9 mtr back. Probably not material.

Here NO seems to have given you his reasoning.

"Too far in front I cannot ignore that"

as opposed to a possible earlier "offence" where the comment might have been

"Careful lads your were a bit quick of the mark there. Make sure you're behing the ball when it is kicked".

Materiality has been done to death but the concept still seems to cause confusion.

Was NO's judgement right? No idea didn't watch it. But he's a far better ref than me.

 

[DocY]

*with the caveat that I didn't see it*

England just had to catch the ball and put it out to win the game.

If the Argentinian player(s) was only just ahead of the kicker, but didn't stop the receiver taking the ball and securing possession, yes, ignore it - it won't have any affect on the game.

But if they were far enough in front that it did disrupt England's possession (or if they were taking the p***), blow up for it.

 

[DocY]

I remember hearing someone say "Good players do the right thing. Great players do the wrong thing that turns out to be right".

I think this is even more true of referees than players.

 

[L'irlandais]

I am with BikingBud on this one. If the kick chaser is ahead of the kicker at kick off, it is always going to be material. 1 or 3 steps ahead of the kicker is putting pressure on the catcher who has less time to decide what to do with the ball once he catches it. Usually only happens when the winger is already up and chasing as the kick is being taken, further reducing the catcher's thinking time, as he is hitting the offside line at speed. In the context of this game, putting the ball out of play was clearly the way to go. In a league match a team may need to think beyond simply winning this particular match, scoring an extra try might the the difference of getting into the play-offs at the season's end. Why give the offending team any leeway, the player MUST be behind the kicker. Simple enough Law to obey, when you bear in mind some LoTG are at times impossible to comply with. E.g. Ball carrier slips into the tackle, ping High tackle!
Poor wording by NO I think as any offside chaser must retire before taking further part in / interfering with play, surely?

 

[Pegleg]

Even if the ball is kicked deep into the 22 with the catch near his own line? Or the lumbering forwards are a foot over the line? To my mind it is better to have an open mind and the adage "Never say Never". Judge things on the detail not some catch all verdict. Reffing by numbers is usually poor refereeing.

 

[L'irlandais]

Fair enough that's a good approach. However the ref is usually relying on the kicker to ensure his team or onside at the kick off. Clearly in this case that trust was misplaced. At grass roots we often don't even have the luxury of touch judges to police this offside line. Some of the more experienced refs on here have referred to "setting out one's stall". For me the kick off is a good place to do just that. It is a bit of a WTF moment, "are your team not even capable of complying with this simple rule?" Where is that going to lead when things get complex in the thinking man's game?

Surely BikingBud's scrum on the halfway line England put-in allows them to kick the ball out if they want too.
Rather than ignoring the offending player and allowing play to continue. Receiver fumbles under pressure, Pumas recover the ball and score winning try. TMO has to review offside at kickoff. Waste of everybody's time.

Nobody is suggesting being pedantic, but even a lazy prop a foot over the line, should be waved back by his teammate kicker. Why allow sloppiness, if he's too tired to take half a step backwards perhaps he shouldn't eat so many pies? His winger is busting a gut to put the receiver under pressure and chubby can't be arsed to start from an onside position, great team spirit.

 

[BikingBud]

*with the caveat that I didn't see it*

England just had to catch the ball and put it out to win the game.

If the Argentinian player(s) was only just ahead of the kicker, but didn't stop the receiver taking the ball and securing possession, yes, ignore it - it won't have any affect on the game.

But if they were far enough in front that it did disrupt England's possession (or if they were taking the p***), blow up for it.

None of us saw it as the replay intervened but I just don't get how allowing chasers to get a flyer can ever be immaterial. If England had knocked on to an offside defender because the catcher was watching the attacker who set off within an offside distance NO would have allowed. You're always offside you are nearly always influencing the game as the space and time has been minimised.

 

[Ian_Cook]

None of us saw it as the replay intervened but I just don't get how allowing chasers to get a flyer can ever be immaterial. If England had knocked on to an offside defender because the catcher was watching the attacker who set off within an offside distance NO would have allowed. You're always offside you are nearly always influencing the game as the space and time has been minimised.

Try telling that to elite referees w.r.t. the offside line at rucks. They routinely allow pillars to stand ahead of offside line to protect the SH when he box kicks; they routinely allow rush defenses to get a head start on ball out of ruck.

 

[DocY]

None of us saw it as the replay intervened but I just don't get how allowing chasers to get a flyer can ever be immaterial. If England had knocked on to an offside defender because the catcher was watching the attacker who set off within an offside distance NO would have allowed. You're always offside you are nearly always influencing the game as the space and time has been minimised.

I can't speak for NO, but in that situation I'm sure he'd give the receiving team the options. I expect his thinking in these situations is "Can I get away with not blowing my whistle here?" and if he can, he does. It's much harder to do that than blow every time you could.

As Pegleg pointed out, a hard and fast rule isn't useful and it's far better to judge each situation on its own merits.

 

[L'irlandais]

I agree Ian. I agree too with the OP that's the thin end of the wedge. The easy way is not to blow the whistle for the kickoff, remind the kicker it is his responsibility to ensure his teammates are onside. If, as in this case he had started play, little option but to blow up the offense.

If Nigel,Owens, who is well paid for reff'ing this match. With the benefit of fit professional players who know the LoTG and what is expected of them at all stages of the game. (Who are frigging paid for playing the sport! Offside at the kickoff is professional negligence for these guys.) With the support of two fit and knowledgeable assistant referees running touch for him, along with a TMO safety net to catch any offenses that slip thru. If he is going to let the basics slide, not only because he feels he has bigger fish to fry with professionalism/fouls creeping into the Elite game, but also because he knows he has the on-field presence to assert his authority when necessary. Then he is letting down every wouldbe ref like myself, who lacks all those advantages, but will be faced by players convinced that to let those things slid is a sign of good reffin'

 

[DocY]

Then he is letting down every wouldbe ref like myself, who lacks all those advantages, but will be faced by players convinced that to let those things slid is a sign of good reffin'

Good reffing is knowing when to let things slide. Overly strict referees are usually bad referees and the best apply the laws just enough.

If you were to let things slide all the time then that would probably be worse than whistling too much.

 

[L'irlandais]

Getting that balance right is not at all easy. I am sure NO has good it just right for the Elite level he is at. However TV rugby is causing problems for the Grassroots game, because it appears to be applying a modified interpretation of the LoTG

 

[Balones]

Being in front of a kick is a specific offence:

13.3 Position of the kicker’s team at a kick-off
All the kicker’s team must be behind the ball when it is kicked. If they are not, a scrum is formed at the centre. Their opponents throw in the ball.

So are many other offences where materiality and even advantage can be applied. As we know the referee should be looking for reasons for not blowing the whistle and not vice versa. If a player in front of the kicker the referee has a number of options. Calling the player to 'stop' or even calling an 'advantage' are two I'd be looking for these before the referee automatically blowing the whistle. If the ball was kicked deep and the ball moved wide I would expect the referee to allow play to continue but issue a warning management word at down time or the next restart/KOff. If pressure is clearly and obviously being applied then that is a different matter and quite often blowing the whistle is the right option because it is likely that if the ball was kicked short then some pressure has been applied.

 

[Balones]

None of us saw it as the replay intervened but I just don't get how allowing chasers to get a flyer can ever be immaterial. If England had knocked on to an offside defender because the catcher was watching the attacker who set off within an offside distance NO would have allowed. You're always offside you are nearly always influencing the game as the space and time has been minimised.

If what you say happened then I would be looking for the referee to make the correct decision which would be to blow his/her whistle. If pressure has been applied then yes the offside cannot be ignored. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. It is the automatic blowing that is being argued against. If the offside has no impact then carry on. - But mention it to the players as a preventative input at downtime to ensure things don't slide.

 

[SimonSmith]

6 inches isn't very much.
A yard and a half is.

Anyone who would rigidly blow for anyone having a half stride offside needs to revisit what they're trying to accomplish as a referee.