Laws Question? Ask here!

castie

Shelflife wrote: »

But even if there is no ruck formed, the defending players would have to come through the gate or at least get behind the tackle line to put themselves onside??

If theres no ruck formed then there is no offside line.

I still stand by my comments that you cant just cross the line go to deck and not get it down so toss it back into the field of play.

Dave your thoughts on that part?

Shelflife

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

pickarooney

Shelflife wrote: »

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

Enter what though, if there's no ruck or maul there?

There should have been no option for him to take that ball in any case as Evans was held up.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed.

Shelflife

When a player is tackled the arriving players who will subsequently form a ruck (usually) must enter through the gate ie: the length of the player who was tackled.

Podge_irl

But if a player is tackled and offloads the ball into the hands of a retreating defensive player that is not given as offside.

I'd be inclined to go with the fact it should have been a 5m scrum though regardless.

rje66

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

lets forget about the ball for the moment, so assuming that both players are on the ground and in in goal then there is no offside line as a tackle can only take place in the field of play,( ie between try lines.)so no gate no offside line.
agree with others a 5m scrum would be a fair call, but then again we have seen slomo replays etc to form an opinion, ref had split second.
And it looked so wrong when b15 took ball to round the ball, even though it was technically legal.

Podge_irl

rje66 wrote: »

agree with others a 5m scrum would be a fair call, but then again we have seen slomo replays etc to form an opinion, ref had split second.

Except it was a TMO call.

rje66

agree, even though he hasnt the authority to make such a call. bad day at office for TMO.
think ref just got into a big fluster and then made worse by tmo.

But sometimes in communication to tmos it goes something like this, "try, yes or no?, if its not ill restart with a penalty", so poss ref assumed ruck had formed in field of play, and toul. 15 was offfside.

pickarooney

The TMO in the Top14 has the right to call on any aspect of the play around the try line.

daveharnett

Shelflife wrote: »

But if there is a tackle then that becomes the offside line and you must enter through the gate.

No offside line per se at a tackle, the gate only applies if you want to get involved at the tackle area. Since the ball has left the tackle area, there's no problem unless a ruck has taken place.

castie wrote: »

I still stand by my comments that you cant just cross the line go to deck and not get it down so toss it back into the field of play.

Dave your thoughts on that part?

pickarooney wrote: »

There should have been no option for him to take that ball in any case as Evans was held up.

22.10 BALL HELD UP IN-GOAL
When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed.

IMO the purpose of the 'held up' law is to prevent a dangerous stalemate. Given that the ball becomes available promptly and fairly here, I wouldn't see any benefit in interrupting play.

Gelio

In the Irish game early engage was being penalized with a penalty, in the Australia game it was being penalized with free kicks. Which is the right call?

kensutz

Free kick unless repeated infringements after the ref gives a warning. Didn't see the game so don't know how many times they engaged early.

Downtime

ajeffares wrote: »

In the Irish game early engage was being penalized with a penalty, in the Australia game it was being penalized with free kicks. Which is the right call?

When did this happen? Was watching the game and didn't notice it. We were definitely FK'd for two early engagements.

daveharnett

Downtime wrote: »

When did this happen? Was watching the game and didn't notice it. We were definitely FK'd for two early engagements.

Same here. In fact I thought Owens gave up on policing it entirely after 60 minutes, to the point where they engaging on the 'e' of 'pause' at 75 minutes.

Snickers Man

This has come up in a thread concerning the second test between Ireland and New Zealand played last Saturday.

It concerns the scrum awarded to New Zealand in the last minute from which they scored their winning dropped goal. The scrum was awarded following a failed dropped goal attempt which was touched in flight and then played dead behind the Irish posts by an Irish defender. The referee gave a scrum 5 ruling that the ball had been played behind the goal line by an Irish player (the one who had touched it in flight)

But Neil Francis points out in the Indo that the defender (Reddan) was pressurised by two New Zealand players who had been in front of Carter when the ball was kicked. Under the 10m law, they were offside as they should have been retreating rather than following up as Reddan got the ball.

As I have a copy of both the 2009 version of the IRB Laws of the game, and the 2012 version I can verify that there were changes to Law 11.4 "Offside under the 10m law" made between 2009 and 2012.

Section f of the 2009 version states:

(f) The 10-Metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside.



But the 2012 version adds a crucial sentence, namely:
The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.

The emphasis is mine in each case.

So this new statement of the law introduces a distinction between "charge down" and "touches or is played by an opponent but not charged down".

I don't think there are any grounds for saying that Carter's first failed drop kick was charged down, although it was certainly touched. But if the two New Zealand players who forced Reddan into making the ball dead were indeed in front of the kicker then they were offside under the current statement of Law 11.4.

Are there any possible grounds for ambiguity under this?

locum-motion

Snickers Man wrote: »

...Are there any possible grounds for ambiguity under this?

Seems fairly unambiguous to me!

rje66

havnt seen match so cant comment on the drop goal , but there is a difference between ball touching a player and attempted charged down in relation to players in front of team who kicked the ball.

in the classic charge down scenario the ball brushes the chargers arm but still continues up field where his team are , they have been put on side by the ball touching the classic charge down man:)

in a scenario where player with ball kicks through, but it touches an opposition player and continues up field where the kickers team mates are they are off side.
see link
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2011/81

davesweets

Here is the link to highlights and also the full match. Hope this helps

Snickers Man

rje66 wrote: »

havnt seen match so cant comment on the drop goal , but there is a difference between ball touching a player and attempted charged down in relation to players in front of team who kicked the ball.

in the classic charge down scenario the ball brushes the chargers arm but still continues up field where his team are , they have been put on side by the ball touching the classic charge down man:)

in a scenario where player with ball kicks through, but it touches an opposition player and continues up field where the kickers team mates are they are off side.
see link
http://www.irblaws.com/EN/clarificationdetail/year/2011/81

Thanks for clearing that up.

Seems like Owens was right, then. But my God what a palaver! I am racking my brains to think of a possible scenario that would justify the addition of that sentence to the most recent version of the law book if an attempted charge down, such as that effected by the Irish player on Saturday does not mean the same as "touched or played but not charged down"

My brain is too teeny for all this spurious detail.

daveharnett

Snickers Man wrote: »

My brain is too teeny for all this spurious detail.

The law seems sensible to me, but the writing is clear as mud.

A: Defender deliberately (partially or fully) blocks the kick - "all on".
B: Kicker kicks into a passive defender (usually a grubber that hits a leg) - normal offside rules apply.

castie

daveharnett wrote: »

The law seems sensible to me, but the writing is clear as mud.

A: Defender deliberately (partially or fully) blocks the kick - "all on".
B: Kicker kicks into a passive defender (usually a grubber that hits a leg) - normal offside rules apply.

What about the scenario where someone goes to charge down but catches and maintains possession.

In my opinion the guys in front are still offside.

Thoughts?

rje66

In my opinion the guys in front are still offside.

as ball catcher is heading the opposite way, arent they now the guys behind:)

castie

rje66 wrote: »

as ball catcher is heading the opposite way, arent they now the guys behind:)

Theyre still in front of the kicker.

daveharnett

castie wrote: »

What about the scenario where someone goes to charge down but catches and maintains possession.

In my opinion the guys in front are still offside.

Thoughts?

Agreed. The "is played by" part means that a block down has to be an attempt to block the kick, exclusivity.

If the 'blocking' player attempts to take possession (before the ball hits the ground or another player), then the action loses it's "block down" status, and normal rules (including knock-on and, offside) apply.

rje66

castie wrote: »

Theyre still in front of the kicker.

dont think they are off side as the actions of the player catching the attempted kick has put them on side, but should a ruck form then they are.

Pighead

Scoreboard reads Team A 15 Team B 7. The time is up and Team B are attacking. They grab a try to make it 15 12.

Now my question is: Can Team B's kicker aim to kick the ball against the post so the ball rebounds back on to the field of play thus giving them a chance to score a try/pen to win/draw the match or is the match deemed over as soon as the conversion is kicked?

ormond lad

Pighead wrote: »

Scoreboard reads Team A 15 Team B 7. The time is up and Team B are attacking. They grab a try to make it 15 12.

Now my question is: Can Team B's kicker aim to kick the ball against the post so the ball rebounds back on to the field of play thus giving them a chance to score a try/pen to win/draw the match or is the match deemed over as soon as the conversion is kicked?

if team Bs kick at goal is missed or hits the post its the end of the match and team A wins.
if the ref deems team A may have committed an offence as/after team B scored the try. team B may be awarded a penalty on the halfway line and will have a chance to win the game

Pighead

ormond lad wrote: »

if team Bs kick at goal is missed or hits the post its the end of the match and team A wins.

Right. So even if a player from team B catches the rebounded ball (after it has hit the post) before it hits the ground the game is still deemed over.

locum-motion

Pighead wrote: »

Right. So even if a player from team B catches the rebounded ball (after it has hit the post) before it hits the ground the game is still deemed over.

From a penalty attempt, the ball is still in play if/when it comes back of the post.
From a conversion attempt, it isn't.

castie

rje66 wrote: »

dont think they are off side as the actions of the player catching the attempted kick has put them on side, but should a ruck form then they are.

Then how is anyone ever offside from a kick.
Person catches and plays the ball you are claiming this puts them onside.

Disagree completely