[6N] Ireland v England

Pinky

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
isn't it usually also down to whether an oppo was prevented from claiming the KO'd ball though?

Not that has always sat comfortably with me, as if a kick was caught in such a manner with no oppo anywhere near we'd still expect it to be penalised. Maybe its the distance involved?


didds
You are right that that circumstance requires a penalty, just as in law the receiver of a forward pass is deemed to be not offside, so only a scrum sanction is required. There is a bit of judgement required with the other, though about whether it is accidental offside or a penalty.
 

Phil E

, Referees/Trains Referees in England
If the ball hits a player who is totally unaware of its existence I would call accidental offside.
If the player picks up the ball it has to be a penalty, he knows what he is doing.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
If the ball hits a player who is totally unaware of its existence I would call accidental offside.
If the player picks up the ball it has to be a penalty, he knows what he is doing.
In this case the player in front deliberately picked it up.

It's how it came to him that I have a problem with as it was by incidental contact by the #9 who had the ball kicked at him . yes he would have been trying to play the ball but technically he did not either play or initiate "touch" with the ball as it was kicked into him before he could do so. No contact with the hands or arms that I saw.

My reading of the accidental off side law is awry here as it says a player playing the ball or touching the ball and not, having incidental contact with a ball being kicked towards him. Most other forms of accidental offside I have thought about come from a player directly trying to play the ball and it coming off the hands or arm as a result of failing to gather the ball cleanly?
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
If the ball hits a player who is totally unaware of its existence I would call accidental offside.
If the player picks up the ball it has to be a penalty, he knows what he is doing.
even if its not material Phil? eg nearest oppo is 10m away, but there is an onside teammate 1m away

i'm merely checking.

didds
 

chbg

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
Any contact between player and ball, or ball and player, is 'playing the ball'. Do not (yet again) try to microscopically apply legal standards of interpretation to the Laws.

Accidental offside after a KO when either the player instinctively grabs the ball (therefore probably when it is in the air coming straight towards him - your standards will vary as the player standards vary); when he cannot get out of its way; when he might not know that it was a KO from his own team. And yes, when there are no opposition players within yards, dependent on circumstances.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
To be clear the ball hit the player and bounced forward.
His team mate in front deliberately picked it up preventing a defender from playing it.

so not a KO, and certainly nothing accidental about the pick up. Why not then a penalty in its place?
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
To be clear the ball hit the player and bounced forward.
His team mate in front deliberately picked it up preventing a defender from playing it.

so not a KO, and certainly nothing accidental about the pick up. Why not then a penalty in its place?
.......and if you see it as a KO, perhaps a more compelling case for a penalty a la Craig Joubert RWC?

so potentially a fudged decision by the TMO in my view.
 

Pinky

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
To be clear the ball hit the player and bounced forward.
His team mate in front deliberately picked it up preventing a defender from playing it.

so not a KO, and certainly nothing accidental about the pick up. Why not then a penalty in its place?
This is probably one of the situations where it could either have been a penalty or accidental offside. And there is a judgement to be made by the ref (and his advisers) about this. For me, law makes it clear that a KO picked up by an offside player is PK, but in this instance it was not KO, it bounced forward off the 9. For me the question about what to award is about how deliberate the bounce off the 9 was - from the description this was a kick by the opposition, which assuming he was just hit by it rather than getting in the way of it or sticking out his foot, I would be quite happy with the decision of AO and scrum.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
This is probably one of the situations where it could either have been a penalty or accidental offside. And there is a judgement to be made by the ref (and his advisers) about this. For me, law makes it clear that a KO picked up by an offside player is PK, but in this instance it was not KO, it bounced forward off the 9. For me the question about what to award is about how deliberate the bounce off the 9 was - from the description this was a kick by the opposition, which assuming he was just hit by it rather than getting in the way of it or sticking out his foot, I would be quite happy with the decision of AO and scrum.
That's about the size of it. Bounced off him from a kick through at the tackle and then instinctively but deliberately picked up in front in an attempt to score a try. We had the benefit of the TMO review because of the on field "Try" call.

This is perhaps where the laws are tied up in knots. A reasonably foreseeable situation, or at least a not uncommon occurrence. Then left to the interpretation of the officials to assess two vastly different discrete decisions, i.e. AO and scrum, or PK.

We appreciate the laws are complex but its the sort of thing the law makers need to address so as to demystify certain aspects the game for the benefit of the spectator. If people are left shrugging their shoulders, I include experts on this, it hardly benefits the long term development of the game.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
The knock on itself doesn't matter - it's whether the player played the ball in front of the team mate who last played the ball that's the important bit. Just as it's a penalty for playing the ball from in front of the kicker.

The player knew who last played the ball, and that he was in front of him. Just because there's a doubt about whether it's a knock on doesn't make playing the ball from an offside position any more accidental.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
The knock on itself doesn't matter - it's whether the player played the ball in front of the team mate who last played the ball that's the important bit. Just as it's a penalty for playing the ball from in front of the kicker.

The player knew who last played the ball, and that he was in front of him. Just because there's a doubt about whether it's a knock on doesn't make playing the ball from an offside position any more accidental.
Under that premise, it could and perhaps should have been a PK. The player picking the ball up went on to claim the try and so denied a defender the opportunity to clear the line, in the same way as the defending player who had kicked it in the first place had attempted to.

As I think I said Jamie Nutbrown seemed none too convinced on the call by Glenn Newman the TMO but was happy to go with it.
 

Pinky

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
That's about the size of it. Bounced off him from a kick through at the tackle and then instinctively but deliberately picked up in front in an attempt to score a try. We had the benefit of the TMO review because of the on field "Try" call.

This is perhaps where the laws are tied up in knots. A reasonably foreseeable situation, or at least a not uncommon occurrence. Then left to the interpretation of the officials to assess two vastly different discrete decisions, i.e. AO and scrum, or PK.

We appreciate the laws are complex but its the sort of thing the law makers need to address so as to demystify certain aspects the game for the benefit of the spectator. If people are left shrugging their shoulders, I include experts on this, it hardly benefits the long term development of the game.
ChuckieB, there are lots of situations where it is left to the officials to determine the sanction. Take a KO, normally a scrum, but if adjudged deliberate a PK and if judged cynical a YC and if done near the goal line, may be judged a PT and YC. This is actually what makes an important part of the game for me, that there is a trust in the officials to make these judgements and everyone (well excpet for many members of the press and a number of coaches) usually just gets on with it.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
ChuckieB, there are lots of situations where it is left to the officials to determine the sanction. Take a KO, normally a scrum, but if adjudged deliberate a PK and if judged cynical a YC and if done near the goal line, may be judged a PT and YC. This is actually what makes an important part of the game for me, that there is a trust in the officials to make these judgements and everyone (well excpet for many members of the press and a number of coaches) usually just gets on with it.
Totally agree that the referee has to be relied upon to make a certain judgements and for you it is in an environment without the help of technology.

There is slightly different angle to be seen on this one:

Different to RWC 2015 where we know for such an instance CJ had no TMO review protocol he could call on.

This was a TMO decision making a call on basic points of fact, rather than some form of judgement (Nothing about C&O or degree of sanction)

Did the ball go forward? - yes
Did his own player pick it up to try and gain an advantage - yes (he went on to claim a try)
Did it prevent an opponent from gaining an advantage - yes (the opponent was unable to play the ball)

"What's the judgement call in that?", I might ask myself.

This is the pinnacle of the game and with the technology at their fingertips it shouldn't be the sort of call that people are left still wondering on.

I am no clearer as to whether it was something they called wrong or whether the laws are not sufficiently robust enough to be deemed reliable in certain areas. We don't want to be left in a situation where people suspect they are making it up as they go along (and we know we don't condone that).
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
For me, the lack of clarity (from the player) when he plays the ball is immaterial.

Was he in an offside position (most likely in front of the team mate who last played the ball)? Did he deliberately play the ball? If yes to both of these it has to be a PK (but perhaps if the player quickly realised what he was doing and dropped the ball I'd say it was accidental).

I don't buy the arguments of calling accidental if it was a knee jerk reaction, or if whether he was offside was ambiguous (if he wasn't C&O offside it's no infringement of any sort).
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
......and in this instance and with the footage available to the TMO, it was as just as clear as the video example they have inserted into the laws.

11.7 Offside after a knock-on - 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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

[video]http://laws.worldrugby.org/content/video_popup_ver6.php?v=laws/2222-offside-after-knock-on[/video]

the player was sort of unavoidably in front of the player knocking on but then chose to gather the ball.

If I take this tack, I find myself clearer on what I must do, unless anyone chooses to suggest otherwise.