Scrum half offside?

[Robert Burns]

I know the debate has happened many a time, but what does the majority believe?

If the scrum half gets into the gap between the no8 and the flanker, have they gone offside, or do you allow it to play?

 

[Plod]

I know the debate has happened many a time, but what does the majority believe?

If the scrum half gets into the gap between the no8 and the flanker, have they gone offside, or do you allow it to play?

No they are not offside until the ball passes them. To keep them out of that 'block hole' is a management tool as to leave them there is to encourage the nearest flanker to kick out and break his binding and also the 9 to use the flanker as a launch pad to attack the ball. For him to do the later can be deemed as playing the man without a ball, so to reduce and prevent penalties from either side do not allow it. Should the 9 query your management inform him he will receive the same protection on his ball.

 

[Robert Burns]

I appreciate your comments and I agree entirely, but I know a lot of referees deem that to get into that pocket in the first place you must have gone offside, if the flanker blocks the 9, then it's a penalty against the flanker. You do need to watch for naughtyness from the flanker and the 9, but if managed well can this not enourage the team with the ball to use it better, as opposed to giving them the protection to do what they like with it?

 

[Robert Burns]

Also, welcome to the forums Plod.

 

[pricci]

I know the debate has happened many a time, but what does the majority believe?

If the scrum half gets into the gap between the no8 and the flanker, have they gone offside, or do you allow it to play?

Simple. The Laws state that He/She is only offside if they step in front of the ball. There is no Law preventing the No9 from stepping into that pocket. Though, beware of that No9 leaning/touching the scrum and/or the flanker widening his/her stance or trying to interfere with the No9. The first obviously being dangerous to the stability of the scrum, and the latter being a potential flashpoint.

 

[Robert Burns]

Welcome to the forums pricci,

I know the law states that the ball is the offside line for the 9, but some refs do believe that if the 9 gets into the pocket, he must have passed the line of offside.

And do you believe as I tend to believe, that by stopping the 9 getting to the optimum position for him to be in, you are almost certainly allowing the teams to run the scrums without pressure. which is not really in the spirit of the game?

 

[pricci]

Welcome to the forums pricci,

I know the law states that the ball is the offside line for the 9, but some refs do believe that if the 9 gets into the pocket, he must have passed the line of offside.

And do you believe as I tend to believe, that by stopping the 9 getting to the optimum position for him to be in, you are almost certainly allowing the teams to run the scrums without pressure. which is not really in the spirit of the game?

Indeed Robert. The "defending" side should have the right to contest the ball. It is a cop out by the referee if you start bringing in controls such as telling the No9 where they can and cannot stand.

 

[Robert Burns]

Indeed Robert. The "defending" side should have the right to contest the ball. It is a cop out by the referee if you start bringing in controls such as telling the No9 where they can and cannot stand.

We think alike!

 

[Plod]

Indeed Robert. The "defending" side should have the right to contest the ball. It is a cop out by the referee if you start bringing in controls such as telling the No9 where they can and cannot stand.

Is it a cop out of law application to signal to backs to stay onside? Is it a cop out to talk a flanker back around the maul and not loiter? Is prevention better than cure? All sides have the right to contest the ball as all the more experienced referees have the right to manage in order to let the game flow and prevent needless penalties by no 9's becoming offside by entering the block hole,encouraging the flanker to bind out late to prevent interference on his own no 9.

 

[pricci]

Is it a cop out of law application to signal to backs to stay onside? Is it a cop out to talk a flanker back around the maul and not loiter? Is prevention better than cure? All sides have the right to contest the ball as all the more experienced referees have the right to manage in order to let the game flow and prevent needless penalties by no 9's becoming offside by entering the block hole,encouraging the flanker to bind out late to prevent interference on his own no 9.

All valid points Plod, and a reasoned argument from an experienced B1 Referee.

How far do we take "prevention" though ?

I am a purist and feel that we can over complicate matters by introducing our own laws that we then have to police during the game. As if we don't have enough already.

Ye Gods, given time we will eventually move to a point where we don't allow the players on the playing enclosure in case they do something illegal that spoils the flow of the game. (How's that for a self-introduced modification to the laws to cut down the potential for offences ?)

Perhaps, to make our life easier, we should petition a law change and introduce the mini/midi laws where the scrum half has to stand at the back of the scrum, and then for Level 5 and above we can give them a bit more scope and allow them to remain at the tunnel.

Sorry Plod, but I am not up for making my own Laws in order to keep Assessors and Coaches entertained.

But maybe that is why I am a C1.

 

[Robert Burns]

I can see plods view also Pricci, he is saying that there must be some order in the game, and it must be taken game for game, if there is some problems then we must take control, so I suppose if the game requires, then we must use prevention also.

 

[didds]

I know the debate has happened many a time, but what does the majority believe?


Presuming we are playing full IRB rules its the line through the ball that indicates the offside line (for SH's), not other players.

didds

 

[didds]

> To keep them out of that 'block hole' is a management tool

Great. So by allowing squint feeds to the scrum the ciontest for the ball there has been removed, and now by preventing the defending scrumhalf the opportunity to get close to his opposite number you further reduce the contest for the ball (when it comes out) even further.

Tell you what, why don;t we just let the tackled player keep the ball, remove these flankers that might "kick out" and let the scrumhalf put the ball at the no. 8s feet at the feed?


If the players break the laws - penalise them. If they do it again, penalise them and warn them not to repeat. 3rd time stick 'em in the bin. 4th time send them off (ie 2 yellows).

You won't find too many penalties.

didds

 

[didds]

I know a lot of referees deem that to get into that pocket in the first place you must have gone offside

why/how? If the ball is at no. 8s feet and no/minimal wheel, that's not necessarily the case.


didds

 

[Robert Burns]

As stated though, I have heard refs in the past state that to get there you must have gone over line of the ball, which is probably true in some cases, but I watch the scrum, if I think the SH has gone to far i'll tell him, and they normally go back. seems to work ok for me.

 

[Davet]

Surely if the Scrum-half keeps both feet behind the ball then he can legitimately get into the hole between Flanker and No8?

Its not hard, all he does is follow the ball, and when its at No8's feet he can get into the hole. If the flanker takes up a spread position from the start and leaves the hole then there absolutely NO necessity for the 9 to have placed a foot in front at any time.

If the flanker stays close to his 8 and feet well back, then it is much harder for the 9 to get in.

Choices.....its what the game is all about.

I am always wary of making a call because "well, it must have been illegal - I didn't actually see it, but it stands to reason". Or guessing as it may otherwise be known.

 

[Robert Burns]

Indeed, if there is no offense to be seen, let play continue

 

[ydris]

Indeed, if there is no offense to be seen, let play continue

Intrinsically can you say the SH is offside? I see flankers at 45 degrees or more all the time - there is plenty of space for a SH to get past them and still be onside if he chooses to. For me it depends on how much space he has and how nimble.

Management of the game cuts both ways. If you simply don't let him guage where the ball is and stay onside by his judgement you are encouraging flankers to point 90 degrees to the scrum to give the team more of an advantage! So I try to call it on a scrum by scrum basis based on the activities of flanker and SH - along, of course, with where the ball is.

Ydris

 

[Robert Burns]

Indeed,

The flankers can start anywhere they like (within reason) but cannot then spread to obstruct the flanker, as I said before, I put in my briefing that I will decide if the SH is offside or not, if I tell them to get back and they do, no problems, if not, they lose the penalty. Seems to work great for me, never seem to have any problems.

 

[SimonSmith]

Surely if the Scrum-half keeps both feet behind the ball then he can legitimately get into the hole between Flanker and No8?

Unless your genius of a national body edicts that it can't be allowed. Speaking as an ex scrum half, and a combative one at that, I find that directive to be a real disgrace, and unjustifiable. If you can get in the pocket without infringing law, then good luck to you say I.