3 replies to this topic

[taniwharugby]

was a comment by one of the commentators (I think in the Blues-canes match)

One of the sides had kicked it, not long, but more than an up and under.

One of the the team mates of the kicker was jogging forward toward where the ball was heading and the ref told him to stop, he didn't, the kicker, then passed him, in theory, putting him on-side.

I thought the rule was (to the letter) if you were in front when a kick was made you had to either

a  stop, and wait until you were put on-side
b  make your way back toward your own goal until you were put on-side

If you followed the kick from in front of the kicker, you were always off-side.

Just the incident I recall, the commentator, probably moron Mexted, said he was not affecting play so should be allowed to carry on.

Which is all well and good, but there are numerous situations in rugby where you can break rules 'but not affect play'

Can someone clarify if my thinking above is right or wrong.

[Godder]

Given the difference in taking off from a standing start and speeding up from jogging, jogging in the direction the ball is going is a significant deviation from the law as written.

[Phooey]

taniwharugby said:

was a comment by one of the commentators (I think in the Blues-canes match)

One of the sides had kicked it, not long, but more than an up and under.

One of the the team mates of the kicker was jogging forward toward where the ball was heading and the ref told him to stop, he didn't, the kicker, then passed him, in theory, putting him on-side.

I thought the rule was (to the letter) if you were in front when a kick was made you had to either

a  stop, and wait until you were put on-side
b  make your way back toward your own goal until you were put on-side

If you followed the kick from in front of the kicker, you were always off-side.

Just the incident I recall, the commentator, probably moron Mexted, said he was not affecting play so should be allowed to carry on.

Which is all well and good, but there are numerous situations in rugby where you can break rules 'but not affect play'

Can someone clarify if my thinking above is right or wrong.

I think the Laws say you must retreat. Standing still used to be sufficient but now I believe you have to make an effort to retreat, especially if you're going to be within 10m of where the ball comes down.

[Goober]

TR (taniwharugby? same guy right?) you are correct. Technically there should have been a penalty and ...

Quote

there are numerous situations in rugby where you can break rules 'but not affect play'

... this is where the issue is. If you threw out a penalty every time someone transgressed, you would not have a rugby game. Best practice is usually to have a word with the offending player at the next stoppage to make sure he doesn't do it again. There are two big issues refs have to look out for if they are going to not penalise an offence ...

1. A creeping of standards to the point where the rules are broken and it does start to affect play, but penalising is inconsistent because of prior rulings, and

2. Assuming there is no impact on play when actually there is. A good example of this is when a defender, say a centre in midfield, is in front of the last foot at a ruck, then the first-five with the ball cuts back in towards the forwards. You might say that the offside guy had no impact (made no tackle and was some distance from the ball at all times), when he actually succeeded in taking an option away from the first-five.

Phooey the law is that you can stand still and not retreat if you're not within 10m of where the ball lands. If you are within 10m you have to actively retreat and cannot be put onside by actions of an opponent.