Super Rugby AU: Force v Waratahs

[chbg]

Taking an opportunity to get back to discussing application of rugby Laws:

Just seen highlights of Force v Waratahs from the weekend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu0GTeuu108&list=PL3Ypd5NbZr_F8rTKh6M4jlbMia6YypAY9&index=4

Two main decisions rather puzzled me - were they necessary?

1. 4:30 (Youtube time): Obstruction by White player in front, but he didn't appear to move to cause it.
2. 5:01: White 9 deemed offside; was he not put onside by 12?

The decision at the end of the match looked a bit uncertain, but accepted by all. In fact a 'reverse' (if you see what I mean) knock-on causing the confusion?

On the other hand, the two early scrum penalties seemed spot on.

Thoughts?

 

[Pablo]

1. My view is that Blue 16 has looked for a penalty, and I feel vindicated in that by the way he theatrically throws himself to the ground. The white player is barely moving, and he's certainly not looking at the blue player. No penalty, play on.

2. Bit of a gotcha call, and not something we would ever pick up on an average Saturday in non-showbiz, non-TMO rugby. 9 is offside at the point of the kick, and therefore liable to penalty if he moves forward towards the ball (Law 10.4.a). He does do this very marginally, before being passed by White 12. It's only clear if you go frame-by-frame - he's on the halfway line when the ball is kicked; by the time White 12 has passed him, he's a metre or so over the line. I loathe TMO calls like this - they are technically correct, but utterly lacking in empathy for the game.

 

[buff]

I thought the offside decision was very harsh. 9 was running more across field than upfield, and swerved a tiny bit to his left before being put onside. It was completely immaterial.
Most of us would have been in the same position as the ref, would never have seen 9, and nobody else would have noticed either.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I thought the offside decision was very harsh. 9 was running more across field than upfield, and swerved a tiny bit to his left before being put onside. It was completely immaterial.
Most of us would have been in the same position as the ref, would never have seen 9, and nobody else would have noticed either.

They are being very hard on that this year. White 9 was a few metres offside at the kick and then moved towards the ball. He is supposed to STOP until he is put onside, and gains a considerable advantage by not doing so. Had he complied with the Law, I seriously doubt he could have been in position to receive the pass from White 15

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

1. My view is that Blue 16 has looked for a penalty, and I feel vindicated in that by the way he theatrically throws himself to the ground. The white player is barely moving, and he's certainly not looking at the blue player. No penalty, play on.
.

I read this somewhere, doesn't the bold below apply?

The game is played only by players who are onside.

OFFSIDE AND ONSIDE IN OPEN PLAY

A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes:

Playing the ball.

Tackling the ball-carrier.

Preventing the opposition from playing as they wish.

 

[buff]

They are being very hard on that this year. White 9 was a few metres offside at the kick and then moved towards the ball. He is supposed to STOP until he is put onside, and gains a considerable advantage by not doing so. Had he complied with the Law, I seriously doubt he could have been in position to receive the pass from White 15

By the letter of the law you are right, but he would have made it with time to spare. He did not accelerate upfield until he was put onside.

 

[OB..]

They are being very hard on that this year. White 9 was a few metres offside at the kick and then moved towards the ball. He is supposed to STOP until he is put onside, and gains a considerable advantage by not doing so. Had he complied with the Law, I seriously doubt he could have been in position to receive the pass from White 15

He is not required to stand still. He just cannot legally move forward. Running sideways or, of course, back is perfectly OK.

 

[Phil E]

He is not required to stand still. He just cannot legally move forward. Running sideways or, of course, back is perfectly OK.

Not strictly true.

The player must not "move forwards towards the ball". (admittedly not a great description).

If moving sideways takes him towards the ball then he could interfere with play.

 

[didds]

sideways isn't forwards. If the law makers wanted to include sideways they shoud have included it, or been less specific.

I accept that sideways could be towards the ball.

just not "forwards towards" the ball.

This is what the rewrite was for I thought - to remove any ambiguities.

thats my pedantry done for the day.



didds

 

[OB..]

Not strictly true.

The player must not "move forwards towards the ball". (admittedly not a great description).

If moving sideways takes him towards the ball then he could interfere with play.

[LAWS]

• An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
  • Interferes with play; or
  • Moves forwards towards the ball

[/LAWS]
Interfering with play is a separate offence.

 

[crossref]

when the kick is taken, hopefully I spot 9 offside and starting to move
i shout "9 stop"
if he stops, and waits a second to be put onside, and then moves again --- then it was immaterial, play on
if he ignores me.. moves forward .. and goes on to receive the scoring pass, its not going to be a try !

(of course, in real time, I might not have noticed, but that's different)

 

[SimonSmith]

One thing that has struck me from the AU and NZ matches is the lack of preventive calling from the referees.

Get it wrong? Ping.
I'm not sure if I like it or not.

 

[didds]

One thing that has struck me from the AU and NZ matches is the lack of preventive calling from the referees.

Get it wrong? Ping.
I'm not sure if I like it or not.

this was standard 30 years ago. Players were presumed to know and understand the laws they play under.

That may be a tad harsh for a 4th XV weekend warrior - but after all these guys we are discussing are professionals. Its their job to understand the parameters of their trade ... a lorry driver cannot expect to not5 have to have an understabndign of the highway code for example.

And frankly preventitive calling is just a way to give two bites of a cherry - players in the knowledge that they can try and cheat and if they get spotted they'll be told so they can back off and not get pinged.

Players now being expected to "take back control" of their actions?

didds

 

[crossref]

It's like a lot of things, a good tool if used properly

 

[SimonSmith]

this was standard 30 years ago. Players were presumed to know and understand the laws they play under.

That may be a tad harsh for a 4th XV weekend warrior - but after all these guys we are discussing are professionals. Its their job to understand the parameters of their trade ... a lorry driver cannot expect to not5 have to have an understabndign of the highway code for example.

And frankly preventitive calling is just a way to give two bites of a cherry - players in the knowledge that they can try and cheat and if they get spotted they'll be told so they can back off and not get pinged.

Players now being expected to "take back control" of their actions?

didds

Valid points.
But especially in the first couple of rounds, as players and referees adjusted to new...emphases in law application, it stood out to me.

 

[chbg]

One thing that has struck me from the AU and NZ matches is the lack of preventive calling from the referees.

Get it wrong? Ping.
I'm not sure if I like it or not.

Stuart Barnes in The Times (of London) frequently argues that the game improves without it.

 

[SimonSmith]

If there are two sides of history in rugby, you be guaranteed that Barnes will pick the wrong one.

I blame the descent into hysterical mediocrity of so much of today's rugby commentators on him. He made ignorance permissible.

 

[OB..]

If there are two sides of history in rugby, you be guaranteed that Barnes will pick the wrong one.

I blame the descent into hysterical mediocrity of so much of today's rugby commentators on him. He made ignorance permissible.

... but at least he is not as bad as Stephen Jones.

 

[SimonSmith]

... but at least he is not as bad as Stephen Jones.

What an epitaph to have!

 

[Rich_NL]

I'm surprised, I asked this here http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?21507-Offside-support-players&highlight=
and of my ref coach and peers, and the response was "flankers and 9s are always moving to where play is heading in offside positions/you'll kill the game if you referee that too strictly/no-one really bothers with 10.4.b unless it's really C&O and play is interfered with"