[Law] Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If I've got it right. If there is a charge down attempt the 10 mtr rule does not apply. Nor does Offiside in open play.


HOWEVER,

If the ball is merely "touched in flight." Open play offside does not apply but the 10 metre rules does.
 
Last edited:

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
If I've got it right. If there is a charge down attempt the 10 mtr rule does not apply. Nor does Offiside in open play.


HOWEVER,

If the ball is merely "touched in flight." Open play offside does not apply but the 10 metre rules does.

That is what I concluded and what I think what is written in law, BUT I do not think others on rugbyrefs agree.


EDIT maybe we are not similar, I would say the chargedown has to occur (forward and/or downward) not merely an attempt
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
If I've got it right. If there is a charge down attempt the 10 mtr rule does not apply. Nor does Offiside in open play.


HOWEVER,

If the ball is merely "touched in flight." Open play offside does not apply but the 10 metre rules does.

I think that is correct .. but it leads the question of what is the definition of a chargedown , and how is a charge down any different from a touch in flight ?

My view is that any sort of touch just after the kick is a chargedown, so 10m law doesn't apply
But when the ball is fumbled on landing, then 10m law still applies
 
Last edited:

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
I'm sure that someone will ask you to define "just after".

If they don't, I will!

Perhaps an alternative rule of thumb could be: touched in the first half of its initial trajectory = treat as a charge-down; touched as it is dropping from its flight apex = 10m offside law applies.
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
I'm sure that someone will ask you to define "just after".

If they don't, I will!

Perhaps an alternative rule of thumb could be: touched in the first half of its initial trajectory = treat as a charge-down; touched as it is dropping from its flight apex = 10m offside law applies.

kicks can be made in line drive fashion, apex hard to determine
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
I think that is correct .. but it leads the question of what is the definition of a chargedown , and how is a charge down any different from a touch in flight ?

Unfortunately a charge down is ( ) parathesized and described in law 11
 

Ian_Cook


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

1. When a player attempts to block a kick and makes contact with the ball, that is a charge down, Offside Laws (including 10M) do not apply.

2. When a player attempts to catch the ball from a kick and makes contact with the ball but fails to catch , that is touched in flight (10M Law applies).
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Wasn't there some kind of clarification many moons ago that touching the ball on its way UP was a charge down, and touching it on its way DOWN wasn't?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
How about?

1. When a player attempts to block a kick and makes contact with the ball, that is a charge down, Offside Laws (including 10M) do not apply.

2. When a player attempts to catch the ball from a kick and makes contact with the ball but fails to catch , that is touched in flight (10M Law applies).

I would be tempted to say "block or deflect" .. to cover the sort of action in this thread

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately a charge down is ( ) parathesized and described in law 11

Only in the context of not being a knock on if it goes forward
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
Only in the context of not being a knock on if it goes forward

It is a reference. What is your reference? , "Everybody knows"

It called a charge"down", hence what happens to the ball as down.

No good, but what r u hanging ur hat upon?
 

chbg


Referees in England
Joined
May 15, 2009
Messages
1,479
Solutions
1
Post Likes
439
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
It is a reference. What is your reference? , "Everybody knows"

It called a charge"down", hence what happens to the ball as down.

No good, but what r u hanging ur hat upon?

Because that only occurs under Law 11-Knock on (which is actually later in the Law Book than Law 10 Offside) and it is not included in Definitions.

To take your position to the extreme, if the 'charge down' actually goes upwards from the hands/arms (and that happens pretty often) and not downwards as in the picture in Law 11, then it cannot fall under the exclusions from a knock-on. Actually the Law "knocks the ball forward", so we cannot rely just on the picture (or the word 'down').

Why is that the only description of a charge down? Because an attempted 'charge down' that doesn't go forward is not going to worry the judiciary in a Knock-on Law.

We just suggest for clarity that a charge down should be defined in the manner that it is refereed in custom.
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
I don't think there is any definition on which to hang it.

But I have some evidence, when looking for evidence it is not always good evidence.

For instance, circumstantial evidence is not great in court of law, but it is a "kind of evidence"
 
Last edited:

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
To take your position to the extreme, if the 'charge down' actually goes upwards from the hands/arms (and that happens pretty often) and not downwards as in the picture in Law 11, then it cannot fall under the exclusions from a knock-on. Actually the Law "knocks the ball forward", so we cannot rely just on the picture (or the word 'down').
.

Eventually that charge down describe in red, will come down and also forward.
 

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
Why is that the only description of a charge down? Because an attempted 'charge down' that doesn't go forward is not going to worry the judiciary in a Knock-on Law.

.

If it doesn't go forward it is not a charge down, it is played and does not negate 10m law.
A "proper" charge down does negate the 10m because there is not 10m of existance.
 
Last edited:

Not Kurt Weaver


Referees in America
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
2,285
Post Likes
159
We just suggest for clarity that a charge down should be defined in the manner that it is refereed in custom.

I understand the custom, which may be incorrect, but that custom does not protect the receiving/catching player from a previously offside player smashing them to dust. If fact, the custom further increases the likelihood of mid air collisions.
 
Last edited:

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If it doesn't go forward it is not a charge down, it is played and does not negate 10m law.
A "proper" charge down does negate the 10m because there is not 10m of existance.

That would be a successful charge down. not a "proper one". Cf a attempt at a conversion one that misses is unsuccessful the other is succerssful,. both are "proper" what ever that means.

The law, as other have tried to does not define a chargedown.You disagree by quotinga partly rerlated section of the knock on law. I see little reward in following that line of thinking.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
That would be a successful charge down. not a "proper one". Cf a attempt at a conversion one that misses is unsuccessful the other is succerssful,. both are "proper" what ever that means.

The law, as other have tried to does not define a chargedown.You disagree by quotinga partly rerlated section of the knock on law. I see little reward in following that line of thinking.
The relevance of that line of thinking is that the aim is to prevent a charge down from being penalised as a knock-on. I take that to be because the charger is deemed to be unable to adjust to the kick because he is too close. It also helps the referee who does not have to decide which part of the player the ball actually hit.

An effective charge down will normally send the ball back in the other direction. However the action might merely deflect the ball on its way upfield - hence the problem. At present it seems that this is a risk that the player must accept, with the illustrated potential consequences.
 

Marc Wakeham


Referees in Wales
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
2,778
Post Likes
842
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
However, yours are not the posters words.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Personally, I have never seen any referee, at any level of the game, penalise a downfield player for offside (under the 10M law or otherwise) when the ball has been clearly touched in flight. On the contrary, most referees will yell "touched" so all players know that everyone downfield is onside. Pulling out the whistle and PKing a player for 10M offside after yelling "touched" would count as a real "gotcha" moment.

Its important to keep in mind that 10M law is all about where the ball lands or is caught after being kicked.

[LAWS]Law 10.4. An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

c:
Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.
[/LAWS]

The ball touched in flight has not been caught, nor has it landed, so that makes all players onside irrespective of the 10M Law. That the ball will land later is irrelevant, because the last player who played the ball was an opponent, so all those players have been previously made onside under law 10.1. Law 10.4c cannot override that.

IMO This Law was written with the intention of not making any downfield team-mates of the kicker onside when an opponent near where the ball lands, touches or plays the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to field it, for example, an opponent attempts to catch the ball but drops it behind him. An action like that will put those players onside in scenarios where the 10M Law does not apply

[LAWS]Law 10.7: Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:
b:
An opponent of that player.
i:
Carries the ball five metres, or
i
i.Passes the ball, or
iii:
Kicks the ball, or
iv
Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.[/LAWS]

As often happens in here, the Law has been over-analysed to the nth degree, in discussions involving numbers of angels on pin heads. This is unhelpful to newish referees looking for answers. The words printed in the Laws do not matter as much as how they are officially interpreted - what really matters is what advice we should give to referees should they encounter this scenario in their games. My advice would be that, when a player attempts to block a kick, and the ball is touched in flight by the blocker, then all players of both sides that are downfield of the blocker, are onside.
 
Last edited:
Top