The kicked ball touches the opponent

[Akira Nonaka]

According to law 10.4c, I think red players remain offside but are not penalized. Am I missing something?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1741035285910372404

 

[Volun-selected]

It looks wrong to me, too. When red kicks, only one red player is behind him and they don’t run up, only the kicker runs (yellow circle). The ball lands just inside the half way line so for me the several red players are offside under the 10m law (10.4c).
The screen grab below shows where the ball lands (red circle) and where I’d put the 10m line.

Maybe someone else more experienced can explain why, but I’d have called offside on this.

 

[Dickie E]

Looks like a critical error to me. And not just 10.4.c. also 10.4.a and 10.4.b. Quite strange

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

Did the white player get a touch on the ball after red kicked it?

(Watched a couple of times but only on phone and couldn't confirm it but thought maybe I heard "touched" called - only plausible option for play on - 10.7.b.iv - not 10.8 as not 'charged down')

 

[Decorily]

.....as not 'charged down')

Depends on the interpretation......that much discussed interpretation.

 

[Akira Nonaka]

Did the white player get a touch on the ball after red kicked it?

(Watched a couple of times but only on phone and couldn't confirm it but thought maybe I heard "touched" called - only plausible option for play on - 10.7.b.iv - not 10.8 as not 'charged down')

Yes, the referee calls out "Touch!" and then red players in front start moving toward the ball as if they believe they are not offside.

 

[RemainingInTheGame]

Yes, the referee calls out "Touch!" and then red players in front start moving toward the ball as if they believe they are not offside.

Cheers, thanks for confirming.

Then I believe that the ref has ruled that under 10.7.b.iv or 10.8 (depending on if the ref thought it was a charge down or a deliberate touch) that the players were immediately put onside and therefore had rights to ball and allowed play to continue.

 

[Volun-selected]

Yes, the referee calls out "Touch!" and then red players in front start moving toward the ball as if they believe they are not offside.

So they call “touch” but treat as a charge down (since a player offside under Law 10.4c cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent, apart from a charge down.)

As @Decorily just reminded me, we did the whole “what exactly counts a charge down?” before. I really wish WR would settle this…

Ok, back to Charge down puts oppo on side for a recap…

 

[Stu10]

So they call “touch” but treat as a charge down (since a player offside under Law 10.4c cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent, apart from a charge down.)

As @Decorily just reminded me, we did the whole “what exactly counts a charge down?” before. I really wish WR would settle this…

Ok, back to Charge down puts oppo on side for a recap…

Law Clarifications | World Rugby Laws

Clarifications in law for the game of rugby union, as requested by unions or individuals.

www.world.rugby

 

[crossref]

Law Clarifications | World Rugby Laws

Clarifications in law for the game of rugby union, as requested by unions or individuals.

www.world.rugby

It that clarification the key thing is that a charge down happens at "close quarters"

In the video he is about 2m away ??? So if that's the main criteria perhaps it was a chargedown

(It's not really what I envisage though)

 

[Stu10]

It that clarification the key thing is that a charge down happens at "close quarters"

In the video he is about 2m away ??? So if that's the main criteria perhaps it was a chargedown

(It's not really what I envisage though)

I was up to my neck in the last discussion on this, and (based largely on this clarification) I've come away with the mindset that a charge down is any purposeful action intended to block a kick that I consider to be close quarters based on distance and reaction time, no matter how ungainly or how successful (i.e. a full hand versus glancing contact).

In the video, though somewhat feeble, the defender clearly puts his arm in the air with the intention to block/deflect the kick, and he makes contact with the ball, so it should be considered a charge down IMHO. In contrast, for example, if he had only turned his body to avoid getting hit in the face and the ball glanced his shoulder, I would not consider that a charge down.

 

[crossref]

I was up to my neck in the last discussion on this, and (based largely on this clarification) I've come away with the mindset that a charge down is any purposeful action intended to block a kick that I consider to be close quarters based on distance and reaction time, no matter how ungainly or how successful (i.e. a full hand versus glancing contact).

In the video, though somewhat feeble, the defender clearly puts his arm in the air with the intention to block/deflect the kick, and he makes contact with the ball, so it should be considered a charge down IMHO. In contrast, for example, if he had only turned his body to avoid getting hit in the face and the ball glanced his shoulder, I would not consider that a charge down.

i think he actually deserves dick of the day - as it was senseless. The most likely outcome was ... exactly what happened.

I