Held Up Over The Line ... Or Not?

[SimonSmith]

Flish's post notwithstanding, I think the law doesn;t help us here.

That close to the goal line, the pick and drive is start from low and keep going lower. If the defence is to haver any chance, they have to also start low, which means that a lot of the time, they're going to be touching the ground.

 

[smeagol]

Flish's post notwithstanding, I think the law doesn;t help us here.

That close to the goal line, the pick and drive is start from low and keep going lower. If the defence is to haver any chance, they have to also start low, which means that a lot of the time, they're going to be touching the ground.

I’ve seen a number of defenders assume the 3 or 4-point stance more common in offensive/defensive linemen in the American code. I’ve had to warn defenders that the parts touching the ground must be at or behind the line.

 

[Decorily]

I’ve seen a number of defenders assume the 3 or 4-point stance more common in offensive/defensive linemen in the American code. I’ve had to warn defenders that the parts touching the ground must be at or behind the line.

Indeed that appears to be the way that we generally referee it. However it does appear to conflict with the good book.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a clarification being sought.

 

[shebeen]

I see Black 7 kneeling on the line, so in goal, in any other scenario touching the line is in goal, a try, touch etc so I’ve got no problems calling him as in goal and all appropriate law changes that brings?

I was going to respond to this that it is debatable whether the knee is on the line or not, because it was clearly ahead at times too. Furthermore, his right hand is supporting himself by leaning onto the ruck well in the field of play.

But I must admit, I learnt a law today that seems to make this a legal tackle from an onside perspective


Seems like a bit of a cheat code that many defending players are unaware of, Including the poster above and the officiating team here too - his left foot is clearly always behind the line, therefore the right knee is irelevant. Defending players are often told to keep hands behind the line - which is clearly not required according to 21.12.

What most definitely does remain for me is the HU:GLDO that becomes such a lottery. The on field decision is held up, by an unisghted ref. How does he know that, as both teams celebrate? TMO asks for more angles from the french TV director, guess we'll never know for sure!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think the knee was certainly not C&O outside the in-goal. I will take the officials' call on this one.

 

[shebeen]

I think the knee was certainly not C&O outside the in-goal. I will take the officials' call on this one.

Coming back to this, because my previous post (where I did an about turn on my initial reading) here is quite revealing (to me at least).

Here is the screenshot of when the ball is played - looking at black 7

left foot - on line
right foot - clearly behind line
right knee - debatable on/over line
right arm - leaning on ruck in field of play.



from what I see here in law 21.12, his right foot counts him to be "in goal" and he can essentially be offside compared to a conventional ruck.



I fully expect this could be known as a Ollivon Rule or similar in the future.

 

[didds]

and FWIW and others MMV - his right knee _is_ on the goal line - its certainly wholly within the FoP.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Coming back to this, because my previous post (where I did an about turn on my initial reading) here is quite revealing (to me at least).

Here is the screenshot of when the ball is played - looking at black 7
View attachment 4971
left foot - on line
right foot - clearly behind line
right knee - debatable on/over line
right arm - leaning on ruck in field of play.



from what I see here in law 21.12, his right foot counts him to be "in goal" and he can essentially be offside compared to a conventional ruck.
View attachment 4972


I fully expect this could be known as a Ollivon Rule or similar in the future.

Knee is clearly on the line.

 

[jeremy]

Coming back to this, because my previous post (where I did an about turn on my initial reading) here is quite revealing (to me at least).

...

from what I see here in law 21.12, his right foot counts him to be "in goal" and he can essentially be offside compared to a conventional ruck.
View attachment 4972

Perhaps I've misunderstood - are you saying that being in-goal (by 21.12) allows a player to be offside, such that 15.4 and 15.8 etc don't apply to that player?

I don't see where a player being in-goal is exempted from other laws.

 

[shebeen]

...


Perhaps I've misunderstood - are you saying that being in-goal (by 21.12) allows a player to be offside, such that 15.4 and 15.8 etc don't apply to that player?

I don't see where a player being in-goal is exempted from other laws.

Yes, I am saying EXACTLY that.

If you're in goal, then you can't be offsides. Laws seem to contradict each other, don't they?

Knee is clearly on the line.

I wouldn't say clearly - he's moving but I could be convinced with clearer angles (but we have french TV directors here, even the TMO requested more options!). but moot point really since his hand is definitely resting on a the ruck and in field of play.

 

[jeremy]

If you're in goal, then you can't be offsides.

By which law?

Laws seem to contradict each other, don't they?

Which laws?

 

[Decorily]

If you're in goal, then you can't be offsides.

You might want to review that!

 

[shebeen]

By which law?


Which laws?

You might want to review that!

Wow. Guys, Scroll up (21.12).

I'm not going to screenshot the actual law a third time on the same page.

 

[Decorily]

2

Wow. Guys, Scroll up (21.12).

I'm not going to screenshot the actual law a third time on the same page.

21.12 certainly doesn't state that you cannot be offside if you are ingoal!
What am I misunderstanding?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Wow. Guys, Scroll up (21.12).

I'm not going to screenshot the actual law a third time on the same page.

Nope. 21 .12 (from your screenshot says:

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes, I am saying EXACTLY that.

If you're in goal, then you can't be offsides. Laws seem to contradict each other, don't they?


I wouldn't say clearly - he's moving but I could be convinced with clearer angles (but we have french TV directors here, even the TMO requested more options!). but moot point really since his hand is definitely resting on a the ruck and in field of play.

But I am a disinterested party in all of this. I support neither side. Therefore, subconscious bias is not a factor, for me.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think our good friend may be confusion to aspects of Law:

Certain aspects of play can only exist in the "FIELD OF PLAY" (eg Rucks 15.1, Mauls 16.1 and Tackles 14.1). Offside under the laws pertaining to those areas of play SPECIFICALLY is not possible as Tackles / Rucks and Mauls do not exist in in-goal can't happen. Others aspect of play (open play) can exist in the entire playing area. Eg Offside in OPEN PLAY. There is no contradiction here.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

just to throw another in,

Law 13 Players on the ground in open play​

Principle The game is played only by players who are on their feet.

Do we therefore assume that any defender with a knee on the ground is out of the game?
You could interpret it like that!

 

[Camquin]

15.4
Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the try line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the try line, the offside line for that team is the try line.

15.15
Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges.

Neither 7 nor 22 are properly bound, and are therefore both are off their feet.
7 is also offside. Not sure about 22.

 

[shebeen]

I think our good friend may be confusion to aspects of Law:

Certain aspects of play can only exist in the "FIELD OF PLAY" (eg Rucks 15.1, Mauls 16.1 and Tackles 14.1). Offside under the laws pertaining to those areas of play SPECIFICALLY is not possible as Tackles / Rucks and Mauls do not exist in in-goal can't happen. Others aspect of play (open play) can exist in the entire playing area. Eg Offside in OPEN PLAY. There is no contradiction here.

Damn right I'm confused.

According to 21.12 - Black 7 can play the ball carrier in the field of play, and even legally take him around the neck as it's he's in-goal (That's what the ref/TMO actually said - you can hear the conversation between team and Blue captain very well).
According to all the Field of play rules rucks/mauls the offsides line is the tryline, and (forgetting about his right knee and it's location on/near the line) he is bound/resting on the ruck with his right hand clearly infront of the offsides line.

15.4
Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the try line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the try line, the offside line for that team is the try line.

15.15
Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges.

Neither 7 nor 22 are properly bound, and are therefore both are off their feet.
7 is also offside. Not sure about 22.

not sure who the 22 you're referring to is? Maybe #8 who is in the way but Referee decides has no effect on play.

can hear the conversation between players and officials quite well in this clip.