[Law] What's the decision

[RobLev]

I came upon the thread a few days ago, saw some of the posts discussing knock on and offside, watched it once from the op link and decided it was never a penalty.

There is nothing C & O about it.

Didn't realise until tonight it was a Pro 12 game, so experienced and wired up TO3. The reaction (or lack of) from the two ARs says it all. They were focussed on the ball and the bar. They would have called any obvious attempt to prevent the penalty crossing the bar and were very close after the rebound to call in knock on or offside.

In real time in a game no one would call this a penalty. Even with the benefit of endless analysis of step through video the experts here can't agree on it being a penalty. What more evidence is needed that there is no clear and obvious offence.

We could though look at the inconsistencies of those happy to dismiss the several attackers in front of the kicker (not material?) whilst in the same breath claiming that because those same players were within a few metres of the defender who caught it he prevented them playing the ball. How did they get there? If they had started behind the kicker they would have been around the 22 when the defender caught it.

And yet the ref called a knock-on - so the TO3 did see contact. Once it is accepted that there was contact, how can White #4's deliberate playing of the ball before the chasers could get to it not be a PK for offside?

As for the chasers - at the moment of kicking, they were less than a metre ahead of the ball.

 

[Chris_j]

No obvious knock on signal I ccould see from the video. I admit I haven't listened to it.

Less than a metre ahead of the ball

so offside?

Humans, even rugby players, are not Formula One cars. When the ball was kicked the attackers were full speed and in front. Had they started from where they set off but later (legally) they would have been a metre further away at the kick and slower. So on or about the 22 when it landed. Too far away to call a penalty, even if you thought it might be if the chasers were onside.

If the TO3 did call a KO, there has been a lot of discussion recently about knock ons and accidental offside, most of that accepts the concept. Aussie friends excepted.

 

[RobLev]

No obvious knock on signal I ccould see from the video. I admit I haven't listened to it. [/QUOTE

This has been commented on at some length on this thread.

so offside?

Materially so?

Humans, even rugby players, are not Formula One cars. When the ball was kicked the attackers were full speed and in front. Had they started from where they set off but later (legally) they would have been a metre further away at the kick and slower. So on or about the 22 when it landed. Too far away to call a penalty, even if you thought it might be if the chasers were onside.

If they had started at the same time but a metre deeper, they'd have been up to a metre furtehr away from White #4 when he gathered and kicked the ball - maybe 5 metres away, therefore. And bear in kind that they were slowing as they came into shot - had they kept running, because they'd started a meter back, they'd have been in pretty much the same position as they in fact were. How material is that "less than a metre"?

If the TO3 did call a KO, there has been a lot of discussion recently about knock ons and accidental offside, most of that accepts the concept. Aussie friends excepted.

There's been a fair amount of discussion on this thread.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Going back to crossrefs OP "So this happens -- what's your decision?"

We can only make that decision on what we see; what is C&O, we cannot make it on what actually happened if that turns out to be different from what is apparent, because we aren't told this until later.

So, based on what we see....

1. Red players ahead of the kick
2. White players jump for the ball in apparent attempt to stop the penalty from being score (although this is not certain)
3. Possible knock-on by White player followed by White 4 playing the ball infront of his team-mate..

Well, the only C&O thing in those three is the players ahead of the kick, so

[LAWS]21.4 PENALTY AND FREE KICK OPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
(a) to (l)
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a
scrum at the mark. The opposing team throw in the ball.
[/LAWS]
[LAWS]21.5 SCORING A GOAL FROM A PENALTY KICK
(a) to (f)
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a
scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.
[/LAWS]
So I am revising my previous stance, and awarding a scrum to white on half way,

(since time is up, that is no-side)

 

[Dickie E]

Materially so?

Well, if the defender's offside was material then that can only be the case because the chasers were in close proximity. That close proximity makes their "in front of kick" material.

 

[The Fat]

Well, if the defender's offside was material then that can only be the case because the chasers were in close proximity. That close proximity makes their "in front of kick" material.

This from my previous post.

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?

 

[crossref]

Scrum for being in front of the kicker is a real non answer to what is an interesting question.

 

[Taff]

Scrum for being in front of the kicker is a real non answer to what is an interesting question.

Depends on whether the offside player "deprived the opposition of an advantage" doesn't it?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Scrum for being in front of the kicker is a real non answer to what is an interesting question.

True, but taking the situation as it is, that is the only C&O infringement from my perspective. The referee may see something different from his position or his ARs may tell him, but we don't have that information.

If we assume for a moment that there were no players in front of the kick then there does not appear to be any C&O infringement, so line-out, red throw-in, but since time is up - no side

 

[crossref]

He is kicking for goal 52m away, if you are giving a scrum for in front of kicker, you HAVE to be blowing your whistle while the ball is in the air.

So none of the subsequent events ever happen

 

[OB..]

Scrum for being in front of the kicker is a real non answer to what is an interesting question.

I see it more as a confused mess caused by a stupid bit of play from the Zebre player. I doubt if we will see it again, so I wonder if it is worth this amount of analysis.

He is kicking for goal 52m away, if you are giving a scrum for in front of kicker, you HAVE to be blowing your whistle while the ball is in the air.

Or play advantage?

 

[crossref]

Yes, or shout and play advantage
But it's a scrum advantage and white receive the ball 50m behind the advantage line, so what advantage are you expecting to accrue?

 

[tim White]

Wait and see if it is material? (1m is neither here nor there when kickers regularly nick some ground) -unlikely to be any advantage to defenders and you wouldn't expect to wait for them to grind 50m up the pitch before calling (scrum) advantage over

 

[OB..]

Yes, or shout and play advantage
But it's a scrum advantage and white receive the ball 50m behind the advantage line, so what advantage are you expecting to accrue?

In theory, catch a failed penalty and kick the ball dead thus ending the game. If the catcher gets nailed before he can kick, then being in front of the kicker was material.

 

[L'irlandais]

Meanwhile crossref you were going to enlighten us at the end of this discussion, please to because it seems a mess to me.
It's a shame the match ref uttered the words "knock on"
It wasn't clear and obvious, so the kick to touch following a rebound off the crossbar seems like a fair way to end the game. IMHO

Expect Zebre to drop out of Pro12 in the coming seasons. No return on investment in that franchise.

 

[The Fat]

In theory, catch a failed penalty and kick the ball dead thus ending the game. If the catcher gets nailed before he can kick, then being in front of the kicker was material.

Again, if no-one in the To3 saw the chasers being in front of the kicker (as per this video), they are never going to be sanctioned for that infringement so we are back to what happened down near the goal posts.

 

[RobLev]

Again, if no-one in the To3 saw the chasers being in front of the kicker (as per this video), they are never going to be sanctioned for that infringement so we are back to what happened down near the goal posts.

I'm still floating the Penalty Try...

 

[ChrisR]

I'm still floating the Penalty Try...

"Floating"? Smells a lot like "trolling". If you can come up with the rational, supported by Law and backed up with evidence then I'll be happy to add that to the list a possible outcomes.

But then I really think you're joking.

 

[Dickie E]

"Floating"? Smells a lot like "trolling". If you can come up with the rational, supported by Law and backed up with evidence then I'll be happy to add that to the list a possible outcomes.

But then I really think you're joking.

I wouldn't give a PT but can see roblev's logic. Offside defender prevents attackers from taking possession a few metres out. What's trolling about that?

Once again, a "I don't agree with your view so I'll accuse you of being disingenuous".

Can we stop doing this please?

 

[RobLev]

"Floating"? Smells a lot like "trolling". If you can come up with the rational, supported by Law and backed up with evidence then I'll be happy to add that to the list a possible outcomes.

But then I really think you're joking.

See my #19.

And thanks, Dickie.