• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Held Up Over The Line ... Or Not?

Marc Wakeham said:
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.
Click to expand...

And while *the ball* remains in the field of play, the ruck exists - and hence offside applies, including to *players* who are deemed in-goal by 21.12.
 
There is 7 who i on his knees with a hand on the ruck.
#18 on his backside
And number twenty-something - I thought 2, the one in the blue scrum cap - who also has his and on the other side of the ruck. Admitedly, he does not interfere.

What I am saying is you cannot legally just put your palm on the ruck, you either bind properly or you stay onside.
And putting your handout, means you are off feet, as your hand is taking weight.

I think 7 is illegal before the ball comes in-goal.

But, as ever, these are marginal decisions by the ref - and TMO - on the day.
 
The player in the blue scrum cap is twenty-something. I thought 22.
But 7 is the critical player.
Once the ball crosses the line, he is legal, but I think he was offside and off feet before that,
Had the AR on that side called it, the ref would have given a different decision.

But from the ref's view he gave the right decision.
And neither the AR nor the TMO did anything to convince him otherwise.

Rugby comes down to human decisions about inches.
 
shebeen said:
well I was paraphrasing the referee there....should have used inverted commas!
Click to expand...

I think you're reading into that conversation things that aren't in evidence.

At no point does the ref say tackling around the neck is legal, either in-goal or by an in-goal player.

Towards the end (around 2:00) he says "because the ball reaches the white line, 7's actions are legal - he's allowed to do that, to try and hold it up like that". He's explicitly referring to tackling the player and the ball to hold it up (permitted because the ruck has ended), no reference to high tackles.

A player then asks "and he's not offside prior to that?", ref responds "no no, he's not". Not (IMO) because he's in-goal - he just (rightly or wrongly) doesn't think he was over the line during the ruck.

More interestingly, earlier (around 1:00) someone says "he's on his knees there as well, 7, he's off his feet", ref replies "he's in-goal though" - which I understand to mean he's allowed (by 13.3, which only applies in the field of play) to be on his knees in-goal - not that he's allowed to be offside.

All in my opinion, of course, but I think a more reasonable interpretation of the conversation.

(All that said, I don't much like the Black #1's apparent round-arm to a supporting attacker's head just after #7's tackle... But hey ho.)
 
so the crux of all this it seems based on that ref/TMO interaction is that

* a knee on the ground and/or hand on a body in the FoP in the FoP means 7 is offside/out of the game
EXCEPT
* his feet are always in goal therefore he is onside and that trumps all
AND
* he doesnt actually do anything to the ball/ball carrier unril trhe ball is over the try line

therefore his actions are legal

Did I paraphrase trhat correctly from that video above?

I cant actually tell if the voice saying "he is offside" being overrules by anothjer voice saying "he is on side/he is legal" etc is the TMO&ref, or the commentators. Which is why it would be far more helpful if commentators just STFU!
 
didds said:
EXCEPT
* his feet are always in goal therefore he is onside and that trumps all
Click to expand...

No, not at all.

Rather, his feet are always in-goal and therefore *he's allowed to be off his feet*.

But *he's not allowed to be offside* - regardless of whether he (the player, not the ball) is in-goal.

So (to the extent that anything does) *offside* trumps all - as long as offside exists.

Specifically in this case, he has to remain entirely behind/on the goal line, but he's allowed to have knee/hands on the ground behind/on the goal line - and is allowed to keep them on the ground as he tackles the attacker.

And for what it's worth, once the ruck is over and offside evaporates, he can then place hands/knees on the ground in front of the goal line and still participate in play, as long as part of him is grounded in-goal.

Compare with the equivalent scenario infield, away from the goal line - he must remain behind the offside line of the ruck, but he's not allowed to have knee/hands on the ground and participate in play. Technically, as soon as he lifts said knee/hands to spring forwards he's regained his feet and is back in play - I guess in practice there's some referee judgement involved there. The main thing is that, unlike if he's in-goal, he's not allowed to tackle an advancing ball carrier without first regaining his feet to the ref's satisfaction.

But infield the margins normally aren't as critical, so there's a lot more scope for leeway.

All IMO, as ever.

(And yes, with the advent of the ref mic, commentators' babble is often frustrating - especially when it's in direct contradiction to what the ref can be heard saying.
I watched a number of Six Nations matches with only ref mic and stadium ambience, and hearing refs explain their decisions in real time was a joy.
For the most part I didn't miss the 'special insights' at all.)
 
This comes down to communication.
I think he was clearly offside, but the ref had not called him offside.
So it is hard to then penalize them, post hoc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top