Akira Nonaka
New member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2021
- Messages
- 16
- Post Likes
- 2
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
According to law 10.4c, I think red players remain offside but are not penalized. Am I missing something?
Depends on the interpretation......that much discussed interpretation......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.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')
Cheers, thanks for confirming.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.)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…
It that clarification the key thing is that a charge down happens at "close quarters"Law Clarifications | World Rugby Laws
Clarifications in law for the game of rugby union, as requested by unions or individuals.www.world.rugby
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).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 think he actually deserves dick of the day - as it was senseless. The most likely outcome was ... exactly what happened.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.