[Law] What's the decision

[The Fat]

Did the defender move before the PK was taken?
If so, it is another PK 10m in front of the original.
If not, then it is hard to argue against #4 being offside and playing the ball.
If he touched the ball before it hit the post, what would you have ruled had the ball then gone over the cross bar?

Just watched the video.
Ball hits crossbar, white player knocks the ball forward, team mate in front plays the ball.
PK to red 5m out and in front of sticks

 

[chbg]

Did the defender move before the PK was taken?
If so, it is another PK 10m in front of the original.

Surely confusion with a Conversion Kick??
:wtf:

 

[leaguerefaus]

Has to be a PK for offside. No doubt about it assuming you agree he has knocked on.

 

[The Fat]

Surely confusion with a Conversion Kick??
:wtf:

No confusion. At a PK the non-kicking team must stand still until the ball is kicked.
Had the white player run/moved before the kick, that is an infringement that results in a further PK 10m in front of the original mark.

 

[chbg]

Mea culpa. Once intention to kick at goal is given (21.5) ... as opposed to opposing team must keep running away from mark (21.7).

:redface: :redface:

 

[crossref]

Has to be a PK for offside. No doubt about it assuming you agree he has knocked on.

Even if he knocked back (into crossbar) his team mate is in front of him, so offside

 

[leaguerefaus]

Even if he knocked back (into crossbar) his team mate is in front of him, so offside

Good call Crossref.

 

[The Fat]

Getting back to the other question I posed, what would your decision be if he had touched the ball before it hit the cross bar but then cleared the cross bar? And would your answer vary if,
(a) the ball may have been going to clear the bar regardless of his touch? or
(b) the ball was going to just dip under the cross bar prior to his touch?

 

[Chris_j]

Those suggesting a penalty lack an empathy for the game played in real time. There is no way the defender who picked up the rebound saw clearly that his teammate played the ball first. It was quick, and behind him. Therefore the offside could never be classed intentional. The scrum call by the ref was spot on.

 

[The Fat]

Those suggesting a penalty lack an empathy for the game played in real time. There is no way the defender who picked up the rebound saw clearly that his teammate played the ball first. It was quick, and behind him. Therefore the offside could never be classed intentional. The scrum call by the ref was spot on.

Although I can see your reasoning, the player in front has his arms up but his head is turned and is looking at his team mate. When he gathers and kicks the ball, red attacking players are only a few metres from him, so there is a good argument that his action prevented a red player from playing the ball.
Had the red chasers only been at about the 22 then there would be more merit in the scrum restart argument

 

[tim White]

9.A.2 Kick at goal - special circumstances

(a)If after the ball is kicked, it touches the ground or any team-mate of the kicker, a goal cannot be scored.

(b)If the ball has crossed the crossbar a goal is scored, even if the wind blows it back into the field of play.

(c)If an opponent commits an offence as the kick at goal is being taken, but neverthless the kick is successful, advantage is played and the score stands.

(d)Any player who touches the ball in an attempt to prevent a penalty goal being scored is illegally touching the ball.

Sanction: Penalty

 

[RobLev]

Those suggesting a penalty lack an empathy for the game played in real time. There is no way the defender who picked up the rebound saw clearly that his teammate played the ball first. It was quick, and behind him. Therefore the offside could never be classed intentional. The scrum call by the ref was spot on.

Intentionality is irrelevant if the jumper knocked on - Law 11.7 doesn't require it:

[LAWS]When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.[/LAWS]

And if he didn't, then Law 11.6 (accidental offside) doesn't involve the offside player not knowing that he is offside; he has to to be unable to avoid being touched by it:

[LAWS]When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside.[/LAWS]

If he's not accidentally offside, he's offside and a PK is the sanction for offside.

 

[Camquin]

My apologies to OB,
I mistook a statement of the facts, what he officials actually gave on the day, with an opinion as to whether they were correct to do so.

It is interesting the difference:
- after a knock on, penalty if the player intentionally plays the ball
- after a forward pass, where the player is unintentionally offside but intentionally plays the ball, go back for the scrum

Camquin

 

[crossref]

It is interesting the difference:
- after a knock on, penalty if the player intentionally plays the ball
- after a forward pass, where the player is unintentionally offside but intentionally plays the ball, go back for the scrum

Camquin

I think the difference is
- when a ball is loose it takes a consicous decision to play it.
- but when team mate passes the ball to you it takes a conscious decision NOT to catch it

 

[Treadmore]

Did the defender move before the PK was taken?
If so, it is another PK 10m in front of the original.

No confusion. At a PK the non-kicking team must stand still until the ball is kicked.
Had the white player run/moved before the kick, that is an infringement that results in a further PK 10m in front of the original mark.

Which Law requires them to stand still? Under 21.7 there are 4 things the opposing team must do, standing still isn't one of them.

 

[The Fat]

Which Law requires them to stand still? Under 21.7 there are 4 things the opposing team must do, standing still isn't one of them.

Law 21.5(c)

 

[Treadmore]

Law 21.5(c)

Thanks

 

[ChrisR]

Looking at the incident from the perspective of the referee, 45m away.

1. Did White #? leap to prevent the ball crossing the bar? No, he was trying to catch it one handed.

2. Did the ball come in contact with White #?'s hand? Not C & O so "no".

3. Can White 4 play the ball? If the answer to 2 is "no" then "yes".

Result: Lineout.

 

[crossref]

Looking at the incident from the perspective of the referee, 45m away.

1. Did White #? leap to prevent the ball crossing the bar? No, he was trying to catch it one handed.

2. Did the ball come in contact with White #?'s hand? Not C & O so "no".

3. Can White 4 play the ball? If the answer to 2 is "no" then "yes".

Result: Lineout.

Q1 - come off it - the answer to Q1 is clearly yes, he was trying to stop it crossing the bar (by either knocking/catching it)

Q2 - we know that the referee, from his perspective, DID think white had C&O touched it -- he awarded a scrum

 

[The Fat]

But! If the runners had not been infront of the kick they woudl not have been in a position to be denied possession. So we are down to a scrum. Whilst in Law that is probably the "correct call" I believe it to be unjust to pick one of several offences.

Incidentaly, OB only refers to the issue of preventing the kick going over.

The 2 ARs are behind the posts waiting to rule on the kick at goal. The referee is watching the kicker, then as the ball is kicked, he starts running to follow the kick. The early chasers from red are behind the referee. Who is going to make the call to penalise them if no-one saw the infringement?