Wellington 7s Final - Offside

chbg

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#21
Not the same scenario, as the last man to play the ball does not continue to retire, the ball bounces forward and a player who was always in front of both the last player and the ball picks it up. Always offside (in-goal has no effect). And their own fault for not touching down when they had the opportunity.
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#22
Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball?

Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again, nice to be no. 1 at something, usually I'm Number 2.

For the British, that is called self deprecating houmor. If you wish to respond make it clever, not like
"no shit", or 10 kilos of number 2 in a 5 kilo pouch

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball?
I'm in a hurry, but I'll think of a response. I'll get back
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#23
Hopefully this incident will spawn a clarification.

I agree with NKW that the law is clear and a strict interpretation can only lead to a penalty for offside.

The question really is "is that really what was intended?" It's very rare situation, so the writers maybe just didn't think of it.

As a barometer, think about what would happen if you were in this situation last Saturday.

If you'd said play on, nobody would bat an eyelid because, let's face it, this is only really interesting to us law geeks; but if you gave the penalty you'd have players and spectators scratching their heads (if they're very polite).

Sure, you could get out your lawbook after the game and show them you were 'right', but at the time you'd be losing respect (and with it control) and making your life more difficult for a reason that 99% of rugby people wouldn't fathom.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#24
I think this is a good point.
If ever there is a situation where thirty players are expecting one thing, and you make a different decision, there should be a warning bell ringing
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#30
I do not think I have ever seen a U12 game, (once at halftime in /dubai) not in USA.

At U12 is it parents or players?
The latter - the players themselves are alright, but the parents are really awful - half of them weren't involved in rugby before their kids started playing so have no appreciation of the laws or the culture.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#31
Back to the point, though, protection might be a bit of a strong word, but there are things you can do - often unrelated to your performance - that just make your job so much easier, and keeping the crowd and the players off your back is a huge part of that.

Once they get on your back they're going to start undermining the players' confidence in you, you're going to enjoy yourself less and your game will deteriorate to everyone's detriment.

And, IME, they start to get on your back when you do the unexpected - whether that's missing an obvious knock on or pinging someone for something that doesn't look wrong.

That's what Phil's meaning by protection - you protect yourself by doing things to make your job easier; or not doing things to make your job harder.
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#32
The latter - the players themselves are alright, but the parents are really awful - half of them weren't involved in rugby before their kids started playing so have no appreciation of the laws or the culture.

yep, the only thing wrong with youth sports is parents.

Parent behavior for Soccer in the USA seems to improve as level of play improves and kids get older.

Parents in basketball are generally a mirrored reflection to school district / population. Even a better district there always seems to be a couple of clowns. Our basketball organization encourages youth players to shake refs hand. This actually has seemed to decreased parent disagreement. At high school level, the refs run from the court to their locker room at the final buzzer 99% of time.
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#35
Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball?
NO

Allow me address these items of query one at a time. First the drop kick/ ko

7.1 Playing a match

Any player may throw it or kick it.


Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.



Drop kick: The ball is dropped from the hand or hands to the ground and kicked as it rises from its first bounce.



By definitions a drop kick is a a kick, kicks are permissible, players may kick. A missed drop kick (that is no contact below knee) is not a kick, and is a KO or TF if in fact it occurred toward opponents DBL

Nothing outrageous, correct?
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#36
Looks like our No, 1 "theoretical referee" is hard at it again

Tell me NKW, do you PK scrum-halves for hands in the ruck when they take the ball out of a ruck?
Do you call a knock on when a player drop-kicks the ball?
Only if they are offside, and I can't say I have ever seen that.

Here is my spin:

Below a-d refer to offenses within ruck, e and f can only be done by rucking players or on side players, f is obviously targeted to a dummy from SH or perhaps a player a base of ruck, this could also include verbal.

16.4 Other ruck offences
(a)
Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b)
Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(c)
Players must not pick up the ball in a ruck with their legs.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(e)
A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(f)
A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick


A SH handling in a ruck is not violating (b) if he is onside, this law applies to those in ruck.

Conversely if (a) occurs from SH, SH is either offside himself or rucking players were offside.(PK) Rucking players committing (a) are not offside, so this law applies to them.(FK)
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#37
By definitions a drop kick is a a kick, kicks are permissible, players may kick. A missed drop kick (that is no contact below knee) is not a kick, and is a KO or TF if in fact it occurred toward opponents DBL

Nothing outrageous, correct?
The probem situation is when a player is tackled after releasing the ball but just before making contact for a kick. I remember seeing Dan Carter being called for a knock-on under such circumstances, which seems wrong to me because the action of an opponent has turned something initially "legal" into an infringement.

Your argument that because a kick is legal, therefore the forward release must necessarily also be legal is insufficient because many kicks do not require the forward release. It would be better all round if the law made the exception explicit.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#38
The probem situation is when a player is tackled after releasing the ball but just before making contact for a kick. I remember seeing Dan Carter being called for a knock-on under such circumstances, which seems wrong to me because the action of an opponent has turned something initially "legal" into an infringement.
I don't agree - I see it as good play from the opposition forcing the knock on. Happened to me a couple of times as a player and I've given knock-ons as a referee in this situation and nobody's questioned it.

I see it similarly to an opponent getting a hand to the ball when a player is juggling it - that also turns something that could be legal into an infringement.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#39
Only if they are offside, and I can't say I have ever seen that.

Here is my spin:

Below a-d refer to offenses within ruck, e and f can only be done by rucking players or on side players, f is obviously targeted to a dummy from SH or perhaps a player a base of ruck, this could also include verbal.

16.4 Other ruck offences
(a)
Players must not return the ball into a ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick

(b)
Players must not handle the ball in a ruck except after a tackle if they are on their feet and have their hands on the ball before the ruck is formed.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(c)
Players must not pick up the ball in a ruck with their legs.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d)
Players on the ground in or near the ruck must try to move away from the ball. These players must not interfere with the ball in the ruck or as it comes out of the ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick12

(e)
A player must not fall on or over the ball as it is coming out of a ruck.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(f)
A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck.
Sanction: Free Kick


A SH handling in a ruck is not violating (b) if he is onside, this law applies to those in ruck.

Conversely if (a) occurs from SH, SH is either offside himself or rucking players were offside.(PK) Rucking players committing (a) are not offside, so this law applies to them.(FK)
You accept that (e) and (f) apply to players not in the ruck but insist that (b) can only apply to players in the ruck. I see no justification for that. The parallel section for scrums, 20.9, spells out the groups to which each sub-paragraph applies, which would imply that 16.4 covers all players.

As ever, I argue that we have to interpret the laws sensibly, not literally. It is, however, a good idea for the lawmakers to ensure the laws are a reasonable reflection of the way the game is actually played.
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#40
The probem situation is when a player is tackled after releasing the ball but just before making contact for a kick. I remember seeing Dan Carter being called for a knock-on under such circumstances, which seems wrong to me because the action of an opponent has turned something initially "legal" into an infringement.
Seems just fine to me. It is a risk of kicking.

Your argument that because a kick is legal, therefore the forward release must necessarily also be legal is insufficient because many kicks do not require the forward release. It would be better all round if the law made the exception explicit.
No my justification is that the definition of a kick includes releasing the ball, direction of release is irrelevant. As also are kicks that do not require any release.

As ever, I argue that we have to interpret the laws sensibly, not literally. It is, however, a good idea for the lawmakers to ensure the laws are a reasonable reflection of the way the game is actually played.