Was I correct?

TheBFG


Referees in England
Joined
Apr 14, 2008
Messages
4,392
Post Likes
237
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
not 10m, move it forward to the 5m line and give a new mark
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
not 10m, move it forward to the 5m line and give a new mark

that back to the option of penalising red for stopping retiring, and give PK to blue.

we were disucssing the other alternative - if you regard red's ceasing to retire as immaterial, then what : do red get a scrum for the forward pass, or a scrum/lineout option for the knock on into touch?

two offences, red should get the sanction that is most advantageous to them (not necessarily for the one that happened first, as in the old Law)
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
How can the illegal actions of a player "negate any opportunity for advantage" being played to the opposition without those actions being material?

Because the advantage would otherwise accrue to the team (B) that hadn't thrown forward; however they haven't gone back far enough (10m) to be able to use that advantage. My understanding, which may be different to others' as we are by nature of the post relying on a description not a picture, is that Team B not retiring 10m did not influence the throw forward by Team A, but, because Team B are not back 10m, Team B cannot use that Team A throw forward to advantage.
 

beckett50


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
2,514
Post Likes
224
Current Referee grade:
Level 6
As with all of these scenario questions the only answer is "It depends". I'm not being evasive, but what was the level of the match, how far had the red team actually retreated before they stopped retreating?

Iff they were very nearly 10m then the effort has been made and as they were retreating when the Blue SH played the ball one could argue that the fact they were retreating had no influence on her brain fart induced forward pass; and so materiality does enter the equation.

In the process of stopping retiring does the OP imply that red had started to advance at speed? If they are merely standing some distance away from the mark then, IMO, there is no interference with the play options of blue.

The knock-on from the winger precludes the QTI option.

Need to see the video.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Because the advantage would otherwise accrue to the team (B) that hadn't thrown forward; however they haven't gone back far enough (10m) to be able to use that advantage. My understanding, which may be different to others' as we are by nature of the post relying on a description not a picture, is that Team B not retiring 10m did not influence the throw forward by Team A, but, because Team B are not back 10m, Team B cannot use that Team A throw forward to advantage.


I think this is where we differ. If a player is retiring, i.e. in the act of complying with offside law or with Law 21.7 (b) or 21.8 (b) but has not yet reached the offside line/10m back, and he gets in the way of his opposition, we call that "lazy running" (a term first coined by Andre Watson). I have seen lazy runners pinged, even when the ball hasn't touched them, and even when they haven't physically made contact with an opponent. They are pinged merely because their presence affects the options available for the non-infringing team.

Do you agree that "lazy runners" should be penalised if they, even indirectly, disadvantage the opposition, for example, by cutting down their options to play the ball as they wish?

I see a very real possibility that a throw forward in that situation my well be a result of an attempt to "thread" the ball though opponents who are lazy running and who then stop running at all. It may well be that the retiring players stopped retiring before the pass was made, but the pass was certainly made while the retiring players were present and still retiring and could still potentially be seen as lazy runners interfering with play.

I would rather not reward lazy runners in this situation, or have them benefit from their tardiness!!
 
Last edited:

irishref


Referees in Holland
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
978
Post Likes
63
my twocents worth (Ireland went metric in 1967 :ireland:)

Forward pass first, so no lineout options since another player has knocked-on into touch. If we're awarding against blue, then red scrum where the PK was taken.

Retreating players, the law is very explicit on this point and the OP specifically states that they stopped retiring, so I would say march them on 10m for a second PK - except in this case we can only go to the 5m line since we're already within 10 of the goal line.
 

ianh5979


Referees in England
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
468
Post Likes
59
First league match of the season between two ladies' teams who finished second and third in their league last season. One touch judge is a higher grade referee than meself but has not officiated for twelve months due to ill health, the other, a recently retired higher grade referee using this match as a practice match on course to becoming an observer.

I award a penalty to blue, ten yards or so from their opponents' try line and fifteen yards from touch. The defenders are retreating. The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring, the pass goes a full yard forward, then off the winger's fingertips forwards and straight into touch.

What should I give? Both TJs thought that my decision was correct, all four coaches, that I was wrong.

NM

So what decision did you actually make?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
yes, come on NM - what decision did you make.

the defendable options seem to
- Red not retiring, PK Blue on 5m line
- Forward pass by blue, Scrum Red
- knock on into touch by blue, Scrum/Lineout option to Red

But because you say BOTH sets of coaches were unhappy, I'm sticking with my prediction above: you chose none of those options but went for something else.
 

leaguerefaus


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
1,009
Post Likes
248
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
yes, come on NM - what decision did you make.

the defendable options seem to
- Red not retiring, PK Blue on 5m line
- Forward pass by blue, Scrum Red
- knock on into touch by blue, Scrum/Lineout option to Red

But because you say BOTH sets of coaches were unhappy, I'm sticking with my prediction above: you chose none of those options but went for something else.

Restarted the whole game.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
N Madraj - that was a real post-and-run

go on --- come back and tell us what you actually did!
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,032
Post Likes
1,775
forward pass, scrum down, defenders ball where the s/h was standing.


didds
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,032
Post Likes
1,775
PK to Blue because...

"The retreating defenders stop retiring,"

This was the first infringement.


NM said

"The defenders are retreating. The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring"

The defenders do not stop retiring until AFTER the forward pass.

didds
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
NM said

"The defenders are retreating. The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring"

The defenders do not stop retiring until AFTER the forward pass.

didds

"tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The retreating defenders stop retiring, the pass goes a full yard forward, then off the winger's fingertips forwards and straight into touch.


1. The pass gets mentioned both before and after the mention of the player stopping, so it is NOT as clear as you suggest.

2. The whole thing from pass off the ground to winger knocking on is likely to have taken place in less than a second.

3. Those players are still obliged to keep retiring, even if the ball is passed and even if it goes forward. It is not like offside where players can be put onside by actions of opponwents such as running 5m or passing the ball. They must continue retiring and not take part in play until they have reached a line across the field 10m from the mark.

4. Even if they are still retiring at the time the player is about to pass, they are not allowed to interfere in play, either physically or by cutting down options, i.e., the fact that they are still retiring does not absolve them of culpability if they get in the way of their opposition i.e. lazy running. If you don't believe that, answer me this.

Modify NM's scenario as follows

The defenders are retreating. The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed. The ball strikes a retreating player, and goes a full yard forward, then off the winger's fingertips forwards and straight into touch.


Would you penalise the retreating opponent?

and

The defenders are retreating. The blue scrum half taps the ball correctly and tries a long pass off the ground to her winger, standing on the wing unopposed, but a retreating player is in her way, and as a result the pass goes a full yard forward, then off the winger's fingertips forwards and straight into touch.


Would you penalise the retreating opponent?



Read some of the subsequent posts, particularly my post #8
 
Last edited:

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,032
Post Likes
1,775
Wekll, I would rpefer to keep things simple. "Tries to make a pass" implied strongly enough that the pass was made and this is semantics. NM can clarify maybe. sound to me that the pass was made, and it was forwards.


Aws for the hypothetical retreating player... presumably a backwards pass wold not have hit them (unless we start double hypothetcial cases). so the case is redundant. Its still a forward pass.

Second scenario... PK (and play advantage ) for interfering with play. Elite refs could help a lot here with lazy runners top sell this situation.



End of.

didds
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
For me its about the materiality of the 'retreat' , most SH regularily face situations where the oppo are still on the retreat when they pass, and they do so without arrowing it forward.

In this OP it sounds more like a SH not having the technical ability to fire out a long flat pass from a standing start AND keep it at least lateral, in a rushed technique attempt ( limit of range?)

I'd only consider the retreaters as influencing the pass error if I was convinced they/she had impinged the SH in any material way .

So I'd have to see the vid, other than that I'm sticking with post #2.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,231
Post Likes
356
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Ian, retiring players cannot be put onside by the actions of an opponent but they can be put onside by a teammate. From 21.8(c) Opponents must keep retiring the 10m unless a player of their team who was 10m away when the kick was taken has run in front of them.

This not likely to have happened here but it should be mentioned.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Ian, retiring players cannot be put onside by the actions of an opponent but they can be put onside by a teammate. From 21.8(c) Opponents must keep retiring the 10m unless a player of their team who was 10m away when the kick was taken has run in front of them.

This not likely to have happened here but it should be mentioned.

Yes I should have mentioned that. The point I was making though is that unlike offside Law, players retiring from a QT cannot be made onside if the QTer runs 5m or passes the ball (Law 11.3)

For example, if the SH takes a QT 9m from the goal line, and NO defenders are back to the goal line at the moment he kicks the ball, then he will almost certainly score a try because no-one can touch him until he reaches the goal line unless they first retire all the way to the goal-line themselves before coming forward. If he was tackled by any opponent who did not comply, I would award a PT.
 
Last edited:

Na Madrai


Referees in England
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
261
Post Likes
0
My sincere apologies, all, for my delay in replying - coming to the end of the golf season and I have been desperately busy with the various Societies I run.

Thank you for all your replies and spirited debate.

My decision was a defensive scrum for a forward pass. My reasoning, as has been postulated above, was materiality. The winger's offence I ignored as there had been two offences before - the forward pass and the stop in retreating. I had to decide if the latter had influenced the former.

All defenders were retreating, the act of the SH taking the penalty stopped their actions. However, in my opinion, they had retreated sufficiently so as to have no material effect on the SH. The SH, in attempting to take a quick PK, was let down by her poor technique in passing forwards.

Both TJs agreed with me, all the coaches were of the opinion that the PK should have been advanced.

Once again,my apologies for the delay in replying.

NM
 
Top