RugbyRebels

You guys know your stuff far better than me, can anyone tell me the answer to this?

For situations like with the Lawes offside decision, where is the offside line when the ruck is uncontested? Normally the offside line is the rear foot of the last player defending the ruck, right? But in case where no one is defending the ruck, is it then the front player of the attacking rucker?

This is ex-ref Jonathan Kaplan's take (from the Telegraph):


'If England were fortunate to be on the right side of a TMO decision last weekend they were desperately unlucky to have Sam Underhill’s match-winning try chalked off at Twickenham this time.
I was surprised TMO Marius Jonker penalised Courtney Lawes for offside ahead of his charge-down, and although I concede it is a close call I do not agree with his decision.
When looking at the incident we first need to work out whether there was an offside line. In previous years, as no English player was bound, there wouldn’t have been. But that law was changed in the wake of England’s ‘no ruck’ game with Italy, and law 14.10 states that any player over the ball constitutes an offside line.
What that means is that Lawes had to get onside and then be behind the hindmost body part of the tackle as there is no ruck.
Lawes clearly retires behind and in line with the rest of his team-mates before he strays marginally in front of them. However, the crux of the matter is whether the ball is out or not. If you watch the footage again you will see scrum-half TJ Perenara had his hands on the ball for some time before lifting it. That is crucial. To my mind, if the ball is no longer in the ruck and is not covered at all by other players - something I assessed by asking myself whether a bird could s*** on it from above - then it is out and available for all to play. Further illustrating the point, by touching it Perenara ensured it was fair game for anyone else to make a move, not least Lawes. The offside line is not relevant now, which to my mind makes this a fair try.'

Thanks, seems this change in May is important

14.10
"Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line."

I noticed that New Zealand moved the tackled player forwards just before the ball is played by Perenara. I guess then that the offside line moves with the tackled player when he gets shifted forwards. Or maybe it moves with the player in contact with the tackled player... So not clear...

Some calls go for you some don't, less understandable from a tmo who's looking for a clear and obvious mistake from the ref

But England got lucky with other calls. and the tmo didn't miss kicks, miss tackles, lose lineouts, kick a restart out on the full or not look like scoring for over 60 minutes

The issues with scrumhalves holding onto the ball for 10 seconds before it’s “out” of the ruck have been building for a while. It really makes some of these decisions a lot harder.

It does make it difficult. For me the natural order of things is as soon as a player on their feet has a hand on it the ball is out and it's nine smashing time. Simples.

A lot of this stems from whenever the applied law changed from 'you can't play the ball on the floor' to '... Except if you're attacking then so what the hell you like until a defender gets his hands on it '. Still can't really get my head round an 'off-load' to a late arriving support player from a tackled player lying on his belly with a couple of defenders about to get over the ball.

Just throwing this in here because I can't be bothered to quote or capture the image myself.

we wuz robbed!

Well, it was a very tight call that went against us. What was a bit odd was that the ref (and the AR) couldnt have been in a better position and didnt think Lawes was offside during live play. If only Underhill had been tackled and the ball quickly recycled for us to score. Then the TmO wouldnt have come into play at all.

Fine margins and all that......

Frankly I thought our opening score rather lucky and there's almost no focus on that

Ironic that England was the reason that law changed.

And halfbacks these days are forever touching the ball before it’s considered “out.” I’d like to see a crack down in this, but there’s bigger issues out there to deal with first.

Lizard wrote:Ironic that England was the reason that law changed.

Yep. I had a little chuckle to myself about that.

Just in case anyone wasn't feeling sufficiently robbed - this takes out the question of whether Lawes was a centimetre over at the point the scrum-half picked up the ball and notes that it was out for a while before that (and NZ committed a penalty taking it back in, but we'll take the advantage). Let's use Spain and Bruce Craig logic and demand a repla... actually, we'd get d*cked on a replay. Never mind.

Puja

cashead wrote:

Lizard wrote:Ironic that England was the reason that law changed.

And halfbacks these days are forever touching the ball before it’s considered “out.” I’d like to see a crack down in this, but there’s bigger issues out there to deal with first.

Besides, he was already offside before Perenara had even touched the ball with his hands. There shouldn't be any controversy, it was offside. It's the fans just being salty that a call went against them.

See above. Although I'm not denying that we're being salty a call went against us. Frankly, I'd rather have lost to South Africa (and Fazlet finally getting some long overdue obloquy for costing us a match) and won against your lot, but thems are the breaks.

Puja

As long as we get an apology from World Rugby, that'll do for me.

WaspInWales wrote:As long as we get an apology from World Rugby, that'll do for me.

here you go https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/int ... blacks-win

Don’t worry, Liz. Jerry Guscott is saying Lawes was half a metre offside.

Puja wrote:

Just in case anyone wasn't feeling sufficiently robbed - this takes out the question of whether Lawes was a centimetre over at the point the scrum-half picked up the ball and notes that it was out for a while before that (and NZ committed a penalty taking it back in, but we'll take the advantage). Let's use Spain and Bruce Craig logic and demand a repla... actually, we'd get d*cked on a replay. Never mind.

Puja

Genuine question. Is the guy om the ground's foot irrelevant? If so, that is not how it's normally reffed as half of rucks have no one on their feet by the end

Cameo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Just in case anyone wasn't feeling sufficiently robbed - this takes out the question of whether Lawes was a centimetre over at the point the scrum-half picked up the ball and notes that it was out for a while before that (and NZ committed a penalty taking it back in, but we'll take the advantage). Let's use Spain and Bruce Craig logic and demand a repla... actually, we'd get d*cked on a replay. Never mind.

Puja

Genuine question. Is the guy om the ground's foot irrelevant? If so, that is not how it's normally reffed as half of rucks have no one on their feet by the end

Yeah, anyone on the ground in a ruck is supposed to be ignored as they're out of the game. Of course, like a lot of laws of the ruck, it is fudged a lot - as you said, a lot of rucks have no-one on their feet - but the usual consensus is that people who at least were on their feet at one point count. The AB on the floor is the tackled player and was never in the ruck, so he makes no difference.

I've got no problem with Garces not seeing it - as you can see in the footage, he's busy trying to make sure that Hepburn's back onside and isn't looking, but since the TMO insisted on checking ev-er-y-thing in super slow motion and making this the one ruck in the game where we applied the laws, I still feel narked.

Puja

The tackled player is the only one that matters in that ruck isn't he?

England are not contesting the ruck at all, so the off side line is on that tackled player only. There is no hind foot of the ruck to consider, only the tackled player and whether the ball is 'out' before Lawes starts to move.

Mellsblue wrote:Don’t worry, Liz. Jerry Guscott is saying Lawes was half a metre offside.

He also kindly offered Underhill some career advice on how to succeed in the backrow.

What a nice fella.

From the Prince of flankers, or something like that.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Lizard wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:As long as we get an apology from World Rugby, that'll do for me.

here you go https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/int ... blacks-win

Apology accepted.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

WaspInWales wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Don’t worry, Liz. Jerry Guscott is saying Lawes was half a metre offside.

From the Prince of flankers, or something like that.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Ha. Very good.

Gloskarlos wrote:The tackled player is the only one that matters in that ruck isn't he?

England are not contesting the ruck at all, so the off side line is on that tackled player only. There is no hind foot of the ruck to consider, only the tackled player and whether the ball is 'out' before Lawes starts to move.

He makes England's offside line, but the offside line forms because New Zealand players have gone over the ball *and theirs forms at the hindmost foot of their player in the ruck). Once they're no longer over the ball, it is out and the offside line vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Puja

Yes I believe that is what I was saying.

Mellsblue wrote:Don’t worry, Liz. Jerry Guscott is saying Lawes was half a metre offside.

Just read that. He really is useless isn’t. He is always so late to these trends and then so desperate to oversimplify them. Pocock is good at the breakdown. Winning turnovers is good. Cool. How much do they pay him for this stuff?

Also what equation has he done here? “Without flanker Tom Curry's ankle injury, I think he [Underhill] would have started against Japan this autumn and got some minutes as a replacement in the other three matches.”

So he missed SA and NZ because Curry is selected, starts against Japan and then somehow totals 3 appearances off the bench? Either he can’t count or I can’t. We’ve only got one game left after Japan right?