Chat Forum
It is currently Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:47 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16140
Toro wrote:
Flametop wrote:
Toro wrote:
Flametop wrote:
He was making no effort to get back, he’s a mile offside and gaining a huge advantage as a result, but at the pace of the counter attack few refs are going to have that much awareness to ping him for it.


He had no reason to at first as Jones was just running with the ball, the chip and regather was a split second in which he checked his run but even with all that he was nowhere near affecting the play in the split second he was offside.


He was ahead of his team mate who had the ball. Ergo, he was offside. He ran all the way across the pitch parallel to the half way line. In that time he easily could have chosen to run back to get back onside (by but chose not to by remaining upfield from the ball carrier. You can’t just hang around offside until your team mate maybe puts you back on by padding you out. You have to make an effort to get back onside.

Law 10.10

“An offside player may be penalised if that player:
Fails to retire without undue delay and benefits from being put onside in a more advantageous position; or

Interferes with play; or
Moves towards the ball.”

Hogg did all four.

Time to let this one go yet?


You've quoted the laws referring to offside from a ruck, maul or set piece.


It was from a set piece though, surely the laws apply to quick lineouts too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14494
Just noticed that.
Law 10.4c still stands.

I’m surprised you’re still going with this one, it’s pretty clear. I’m not convinced you’re going to be convinced, whether it’s in the laws or not, so I’ll leave you to it and no hard feelings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:51 pm
Posts: 15902
No, all Hogg had to do was head for the corner flag.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16140
Flametop wrote:
Just noticed that.
Law 10.4c still stands.

I’m surprised you’re still going with this one, it’s pretty clear. I’m not convinced you’re going to be convinced, whether it’s in the laws or not, so I’ll leave you to it and no hard feelings.




By a strict analysis of 10.10,

1 - I can't tell if he retreats as he's off camera, but he looks to be making enough of an effort when he does come on screen.
2 - He doesn't actually affect play until he's been played onside.
3 - He does move towards the ball.

But it's probably not material enough, given the circumstances. I can see your point, but I reckon it's probably gonna fail the sniff test as it just doesn't look illegal on first viewing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
https://streamable.com/adb2t

This happens in most games, Hooper is just waiting for the player to catch him up. I understand what you're trying to argue but unless someone materially affects play while offside it won't be called. What you seem to arguing as black and white certain hasn't been called in one game I've watched, ever.

You could never ref a game the way you're suggesting. There would be a penalty given at the start of every counter attack, there's no way the players in front are busting their nuts to get behind the carrier, they just wait for him go past, and many will run straight to the spot they think he'll end up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
Jay Cee Gee wrote:

It was from a set piece though, surely the laws apply to quick lineouts too.


Quick throw has no offside line as it doesn't have to be straight, it's just open play.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:10 pm
Posts: 3419
Only during an Ireland match could a hypothetical question, about an incident that didn't happen, that would not have mattered that most people have already forgotten about could be 3 pages :yawn:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16140
Toro wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:

It was from a set piece though, surely the laws apply to quick lineouts too.


Quick throw has no offside line as it doesn't have to be straight, it's just open play.


Are you sure about that? So if a defending player were ahead of the point the ball were thrown in he could immediately tackle a receiver of a quick throw? Seems counter intuitive.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
Clive Simms wrote:
Only during an Ireland match could a hypothetical question, about an incident that didn't happen, that would not have mattered that most people have already forgotten about could be 3 pages :yawn:

Oh no! An interesting law discussion on a rugby forum, what next?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Toro wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:

It was from a set piece though, surely the laws apply to quick lineouts too.


Quick throw has no offside line as it doesn't have to be straight, it's just open play.


Are you sure about that? So if a defending player were ahead of the point the ball were thrown in he could immediately tackle a receiver of a quick throw? Seems counter intuitive.


No I'm not sure no haha, but there used to an offside line when the quick throw had to be straight, now it doesn't so I don't see how it couldn't be anything but open play.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34738
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Flametop wrote:
Just noticed that.
Law 10.4c still stands.

I’m surprised you’re still going with this one, it’s pretty clear. I’m not convinced you’re going to be convinced, whether it’s in the laws or not, so I’ll leave you to it and no hard feelings.




By a strict analysis of 10.10,

1 - I can't tell if he retreats as he's off camera, but he looks to be making enough of an effort when he does come on screen.
2 - He doesn't actually affect play until he's been played onside.
3 - He does move towards the ball.

But it's probably not material enough, given the circumstances. I can see your point, but I reckon it's probably gonna fail the sniff test as it just doesn't look illegal on first viewing.

He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out. From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.

Moot point as Scotland never scored from the position.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
camroc1 wrote:
He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out.
From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.


Every single player in the Scottish team was offside once Jones got the ball, and didn't continue to retreat. I don't think there'd be a hope in the world that the TMO would turn it over, but I think this is a really interesting discussion.

Do you think Hooper's try should've been disallowed?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34738
Toro wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out.
From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.


Every single player in the Scottish team was offside once Jones got the ball, and didn't continue to retreat. I don't think there'd be a hope in the world that the TMO would turn it over, but I think this is a really interesting discussion.

Do you think Hooper's try should've been disallowed?

(1) Not every Scottish player showed up, after faffing around , in a position to run in a try. In rugby many offences are only penalised if they have a pertinent effect on the play.

(2) Have you a clip of Hooper's try ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18635
Earls is good and all but Hogg is one of the top finishers in the world. Was never going to catch him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
camroc1 wrote:
Toro wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out.
From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.


Every single player in the Scottish team was offside once Jones got the ball, and didn't continue to retreat. I don't think there'd be a hope in the world that the TMO would turn it over, but I think this is a really interesting discussion.

Do you think Hooper's try should've been disallowed?

(1) Not every Scottish player showed up, after faffing around , in a position to run in a try. In rugby many offences are only penalised if they have a pertinent effect on the play.I'm not sure that getting into a position to take a pass would ever be considering interfering or having an effect on the play, it's a pretty passive action. In this case I think he was certainly moving enough to not be called for loitering. I thought the Jones try against the All Blacks was a better shout if under review, same situation but much closer to the ball.

(2) Have you a clip of Hooper's try ? https://streamable.com/adb2t


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5116
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50001
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.


You do realise we're having a law discussion using Hogg as an example, not actually trying to have a go at Hogg or Scotland?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2148
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.


Its just a bit of fun debating the technical aspects of the laws, not everything on the internetz has to be taken too seriously.

Hoopers try - there was no establishment of an offside line so he would be fine*. There was both the lineout and the kick to technically put Hogg offside. I do agree though that Hogg does make some movement back during the play and I'm sure that would be enough to satisfy any referee if it did go to a referral. I would still argue he does gain an advantage from starting in an offside position though.

I have noticed that all of the bored referees have stayed well clear of this one!

* although, having thought about it, obviously the knock on establishes an offside line for the Sharks - would it not also do so for the Tahs? That's another law that strikes me as weird though. Why should a player playing a knock on from in front be a penalty, when if a player was in front of the passer, passer throws a clear forward pass to him, which he plays - would only be called for a forward pass and a scrum. Seems a little disproportionate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10099
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.

Top referees who didn't notice the knock on just before the Scottish penalty.
Anyway if he makes even a token effort to get back it's deemed enough, or nobody would bother taking quick lineouts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14494
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.


Fûck me but that’s precious.
You’re actually having a swipe at rugby fans, on a rugby forum, debating rugby laws?

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50001
Flametop wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.


Fûck me but that’s precious.
You’re actually having a swipe at rugby fans, on a rugby forum, debating rugby laws?

:lol:


He thinks it's all part of the plan to keep Scotland down and not give them credit for anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:04 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 22, 2016 9:43 am
Posts: 20767
How is this thread still going?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:58 pm
Posts: 18437
Mullet 2 wrote:
How is this thread still going?


It’s like Keith Earls chasing down an Englishman, he’ll never give up.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
PornDog wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.


Its just a bit of fun debating the technical aspects of the laws, not everything on the internetz has to be taken too seriously.

Hoopers try - there was no establishment of an offside line so he would be fine*. There was both the lineout and the kick to technically put Hogg offside. I do agree though that Hogg does make some movement back during the play and I'm sure that would be enough to satisfy any referee if it did go to a referral. I would still argue he does gain an advantage from starting in an offside position though.

I have noticed that all of the bored referees have stayed well clear of this one!

* although, having thought about it, obviously the knock on establishes an offside line for the Sharks - would it not also do so for the Tahs? That's another law that strikes me as weird though. Why should a player playing a knock on from in front be a penalty, when if a player was in front of the passer, passer throws a clear forward pass to him, which he plays - would only be called for a forward pass and a scrum. Seems a little disproportionate.



Hoopers try comes from a quick throw in as well, the Sharks player knocks on from the quick throw. Either way this has to be left out because a quick throw doesn't create an offside line as you can throw the ball in crooked (just not forward) and it's just open play. If they are ever going to call offside at a quick throw it's against the kicking team who run to stop the quick throw after being well in front of the kicker.

Anyhooo, the example was for the argument that even without a kick, a player in front of his teammate running with the ball is 'offside' and should be making the effort to get back, Hooper is clearly not doing this which is why I ask the question as he clearly uses his position ahead of the carrier to his advantage being there to receive a pass and score next to the posts. Players run this support lines on pretty much every counter attack, my point is that they can do this, just like Hogg and Hooper did, as long as they don't interfere in play while in front of the carrier.

You're over complicating things with the forward pass and knock-on. The penalty from the knock-on is clearly when you stop the other team from getting the ball, this wouldn't be called with a pass as until the ref calls it it's play on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1683
Location: Down by the Riverside
camroc1 wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Flametop wrote:
Just noticed that.
Law 10.4c still stands.

I’m surprised you’re still going with this one, it’s pretty clear. I’m not convinced you’re going to be convinced, whether it’s in the laws or not, so I’ll leave you to it and no hard feelings.




By a strict analysis of 10.10,

1 - I can't tell if he retreats as he's off camera, but he looks to be making enough of an effort when he does come on screen.
2 - He doesn't actually affect play until he's been played onside.
3 - He does move towards the ball.

But it's probably not material enough, given the circumstances. I can see your point, but I reckon it's probably gonna fail the sniff test as it just doesn't look illegal on first viewing.

He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out. From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.

Moot point as Scotland never scored from the position.


Agreed, but a player chasing a kick, as Hogg was, can then loiter around behind the oppo defense, if they kick to touch and a quick lineout generates a kick in his general direction? Bit like a wendyball player hanging round the penalty box!
Seems he must/should make a real effort to go behind where the kick was from.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5116
Flametop wrote:
Edinburgh01 wrote:
Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.

Fûck me but that’s precious.
You’re actually having a swipe at rugby fans, on a rugby forum, debating rugby laws?

:lol:


Your first post was that Hogg was offside. You then defended that position. I am having a swipe at of people like you making statements which to be correct, start from the premise that the officials (whose understanding of the laws and their application is streets ahead of anyone on here, and who make mistakes far less often than people think) and a whole raft of other knowledgeable people must be wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50001
So, you've never seen a ref allow the play to continue and then review footage if a try has been scored to check for an offence?

Or to put it even more simply, you've never seen a set of officials make an error?

You are getting your knickers in a twist over nothing, it's just a law discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2148
Trostan wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Flametop wrote:
Just noticed that.
Law 10.4c still stands.

I’m surprised you’re still going with this one, it’s pretty clear. I’m not convinced you’re going to be convinced, whether it’s in the laws or not, so I’ll leave you to it and no hard feelings.




By a strict analysis of 10.10,

1 - I can't tell if he retreats as he's off camera, but he looks to be making enough of an effort when he does come on screen.
2 - He doesn't actually affect play until he's been played onside.
3 - He does move towards the ball.

But it's probably not material enough, given the circumstances. I can see your point, but I reckon it's probably gonna fail the sniff test as it just doesn't look illegal on first viewing.

He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out. From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.

Moot point as Scotland never scored from the position.


Agreed, but a player chasing a kick, as Hogg was, can then loiter around behind the oppo defense, if they kick to touch and a quick lineout generates a kick in his general direction? Bit like a wendyball player hanging round the penalty box!
Seems he must/should make a real effort to go behind where the kick was from.


That reminds me of another one that has puzzled me - bit of ping pong results in a player being well up field when the ball is kicked to touch. Can that player then block the attempted quick lineout? He's certainly gaining an advantage from being offside when the ball was kicked to touch - he wouldn't be in position to stop the quick lineout without it - but does the ball going dead automatically put him onside?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 34738
PornDog wrote:
Trostan wrote:
camroc1 wrote:
Jay Cee Gee wrote:
Flametop wrote:
Just noticed that.
Law 10.4c still stands.

I’m surprised you’re still going with this one, it’s pretty clear. I’m not convinced you’re going to be convinced, whether it’s in the laws or not, so I’ll leave you to it and no hard feelings.




By a strict analysis of 10.10,

1 - I can't tell if he retreats as he's off camera, but he looks to be making enough of an effort when he does come on screen.
2 - He doesn't actually affect play until he's been played onside.
3 - He does move towards the ball.

But it's probably not material enough, given the circumstances. I can see your point, but I reckon it's probably gonna fail the sniff test as it just doesn't look illegal on first viewing.

He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out. From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.

Moot point as Scotland never scored from the position.


Agreed, but a player chasing a kick, as Hogg was, can then loiter around behind the oppo defense, if they kick to touch and a quick lineout generates a kick in his general direction? Bit like a wendyball player hanging round the penalty box!
Seems he must/should make a real effort to go behind where the kick was from.


That reminds me of another one that has puzzled me - bit of ping pong results in a player being well up field when the ball is kicked to touch. Can that player then block the attempted quick lineout? He's certainly gaining an advantage from being offside when the ball was kicked to touch - he wouldn't be in position to stop the quick lineout without it - but does the ball going dead automatically put him onside?

He should have been attempting to move up the pitch whilst the ball was in the air, and the 10m law will come into play, ie. he can't be within 10m of where the ball lands. Once the ball crosses the touchline, there is a new offside line and he can then turn and move to stop the quick lineout.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50001
Found this on rugbyrefs, a post by OB (I presume one and the same):

Quote:
I have now heard back from my RDO.

Here was my question:
Blue 10 kicks to touch. Blue 11 is well in front, but chases after the
ball anyway. It goes into touch. Red 14 gathers it and wants to take a
quick throw to Red 15, but Blue 11 is marking Red 15. Is Blue 11 legal?

And this was the answer:
My view is that he is not legal and he has gained an unfair advantage.
Regardless of the ball in touch, he was offside and would suggest he is
loitering (Law 11.9). It is not specific but think this would cleary be
equitable.

I also posed a corollary:
On similar lines, if the ball is caught in touch after time has expired,
can the catcher take a quick throw? In other words, is the ball dead
merely by being in touch, or only when the lineout is formed? The
definition of "dead" says the ball is dead when it "has gone outside the
playing area and remained there". In the case of a quick throw, it has
not remained, IMHO.

Answer:
Second point is a clear no in my humble opinion. By definition the ball
is dead as soon as it has crossed the line then made contact with
something. You could say then that if the ball crossed the line, hit
the ground and bounced back it did not remain outside the playing area?!
Scenario that player kicks the ball into touch (similar to Gomersall in
Samoa game when time had expired) and it is caught by Samoa who take a
quick throw and score!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14494
You’re now saying that refs don’t make mistakes?

:lol:

Seriously, take a break from the keyboard.

Refs are essential to rugby and even more so than other sports.
There is a far higher duty of care in rugby, with loss of life/paralysis and concussion/brain damage very possible even where a ref has done everything correctly.

But they are players also. Players do make mistakes. Humans make mistakes.
Mistakes are far more likely to be make in a pressurized enviornment where a decision has to be made immediately, in a split second after a play has occurred. There are so many variables for a ref yo get tight it’s almost an impossible job to do correctly.

Why else was the TMO introduced? (Although there are rules in what circumstances it can be used)
The ref doesn’t always have the luxury of multiple replays in slow motion and freeze frames from multiple angles that commentators and supporters do in hindsight.
They doesn’t mean that the ref can’t be wrong and the fans right, particularly in the cold light of day after passions have cooled off.

While some commentators and supporters are quick to get it wrong, I have checked the laws and have asked the question based on doing so. I’m not screaming abuse on WB social media at him.

So calm down and stop being hysterical.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
PornDog wrote:
That reminds me of another one that has puzzled me - bit of ping pong results in a player being well up field when the ball is kicked to touch. Can that player then block the attempted quick lineout? He's certainly gaining an advantage from being offside when the ball was kicked to touch - he wouldn't be in position to stop the quick lineout without it - but does the ball going dead automatically put him onside?


This has also been debated on ref forums as there is no clear definition, but if you interfere with a quick throw after gaining advantage from being in an offside position then you can be sanctioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWyrvW5hYao

Haven't seen this penalised many times, again for the flow of the game materiality would be what most refs will look at. From the quick throw from Scotland you could argue most of the irish team were offside and advancing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
CM11 wrote:
Found this on rugbyrefs, a post by OB (I presume one and the same):

Quote:
I have now heard back from my RDO.

Here was my question:
Blue 10 kicks to touch. Blue 11 is well in front, but chases after the
ball anyway. It goes into touch. Red 14 gathers it and wants to take a
quick throw to Red 15, but Blue 11 is marking Red 15. Is Blue 11 legal?

And this was the answer:
My view is that he is not legal and he has gained an unfair advantage.
Regardless of the ball in touch, he was offside and would suggest he is
loitering (Law 11.9). It is not specific but think this would cleary be
equitable.

I also posed a corollary:
On similar lines, if the ball is caught in touch after time has expired,
can the catcher take a quick throw? In other words, is the ball dead
merely by being in touch, or only when the lineout is formed? The
definition of "dead" says the ball is dead when it "has gone outside the
playing area and remained there". In the case of a quick throw, it has
not remained, IMHO.

Answer:
Second point is a clear no in my humble opinion. By definition the ball
is dead as soon as it has crossed the line then made contact with
something. You could say then that if the ball crossed the line, hit
the ground and bounced back it did not remain outside the playing area?!
Scenario that player kicks the ball into touch (similar to Gomersall in
Samoa game when time had expired) and it is caught by Samoa who take a
quick throw and score!!


Yep, but they're talking about being in front of the kicker upfield and then interfering in play where the quick throw is taken.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50001
Toro wrote:
CM11 wrote:
Found this on rugbyrefs, a post by OB (I presume one and the same):

Quote:
I have now heard back from my RDO.

Here was my question:
Blue 10 kicks to touch. Blue 11 is well in front, but chases after the
ball anyway. It goes into touch. Red 14 gathers it and wants to take a
quick throw to Red 15, but Blue 11 is marking Red 15. Is Blue 11 legal?

And this was the answer:
My view is that he is not legal and he has gained an unfair advantage.
Regardless of the ball in touch, he was offside and would suggest he is
loitering (Law 11.9). It is not specific but think this would cleary be
equitable.

I also posed a corollary:
On similar lines, if the ball is caught in touch after time has expired,
can the catcher take a quick throw? In other words, is the ball dead
merely by being in touch, or only when the lineout is formed? The
definition of "dead" says the ball is dead when it "has gone outside the
playing area and remained there". In the case of a quick throw, it has
not remained, IMHO.

Answer:
Second point is a clear no in my humble opinion. By definition the ball
is dead as soon as it has crossed the line then made contact with
something. You could say then that if the ball crossed the line, hit
the ground and bounced back it did not remain outside the playing area?!
Scenario that player kicks the ball into touch (similar to Gomersall in
Samoa game when time had expired) and it is caught by Samoa who take a
quick throw and score!!


Yep, but they're talking about being in front of the kicker upfield and then interfering in play where the quick throw is taken.


The answer applies to PornDog's question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1201
Easy. No


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
The big question for me is whether Hogg was onside when he received (or not in this case) the pass, which he was. Everything he did before that was not material in influencing play apart from maybe gaining a better position to be in support as some here argue.

As this happens on a regular basis I believe one can only assume that if your team is in possession and you are in front of them, as long as you don't influence play during that time (of being in front) you are all good once that player puts you onside, even if you got into that position by loitering in front.

I think the 10m law isn't clear on what happens once your own player regathers possession and would love to see more input in this one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6498
Location: Madrid
CM11 wrote:
The answer applies to PornDog's question.


Gotcha. :thumbup:

Again, interesting even amongst seasoned referees that rulings in these cases aren't clear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2148
Toro wrote:
The big question for me is whether Hogg was onside when he received (or not in this case) the pass, which he was. Everything he did before that was not material in influencing play apart from maybe gaining a better position to be in support as some here argue.


I think that's the situation in a nutshell. Considering Hogg does make some attempt (half arsed as it might be argued) to retreat, I think it would be very harsh to get it called against him, even if there is technically a case to answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14494
Oh oh.

:lol:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2018 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 50001
:?:

They're not offside unless they interfere with play ahead of the ball as they were onside initially from the scrum.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 161 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armchair_Superstar, assfly, Bindi, Clog50Percent, clydecloggie, crash 669, danny_fitz, de_Selby, Despot, duke, echo, EverReady, eweeg, Farva, Gareth1960, Google Adsense [Bot], handyman, Insane_Homer, Jensrsa, jezzer, Laurent, Leffe, Macrosan, Mog The Almighty, Mullet 2, MunsterMan!!!!!, nardol, nuffsaid, Raggs, Sandstorm, sewa, tazman77, The Native, The Sun God, Toulon's Not Toulouse, toweliechaos, umass and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group