• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

No way was that offside

Was it offside?


  • Total voters
    8
  • Poll closed .
The only person who is remotely upset here is you.

Like I said, we're trying to talk about the game/the laws in the specific instance. If you don't want to read our discussion then simply don't open the threads.
Nothing wrong with analysis and understanding a decision.

*****ing about a decision days on end after all meaningful analysis has been done is pathetic.

I like to understand decision so when I'm watching a game I can make my own judgements.

Your both missing my point... people have tried to raise legitimate issues with decisions that have gone for England on here before and it has gone down like spunk on a kebab. I'm just trying to let you guys see it if the shoe were on the other foot!
 
Thinking about it, if #20 is no longer bound (and like i said, I don't know what does constitute a bind, this is all hypothetical) doesn't that mean the ruck is over?
As it's no longer a contest between the two sides, the ball is technically out as it's beyond the last bound player?
 
As I've said, I have seen 'mainly' Englishmen rip people apart for complaining about refereeing decisions on here... enjoy the **** sandwich!
What **** sandwich? The correct decision by the ref? Or the mechanics of how it came about? And you need to chill out every team moan when a decision hasnt gone there way but take it out on the people moaning if your really that bitter about us doing same as what wales did. But we arnt even moaning or anything we are just discussing the incident with lawes.
 
What **** sandwich? The correct decision by the ref? Or the mechanics of how it came about? And you need to chill out every team moan when a decision hasnt gone there way but take it out on the people moaning if your really that bitter about us doing same as what wales did. But we arnt even moaning or anything we are just discussing the incident with lawes.

Like I said, I have seen 'valid' complaints dismissed with ABSOLUTELY no respect on here before... now the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden it deserves more credence? I think f**king not! HERE endeth the lesson!
 
If you look at the picture presented by Olyy, it is quite obviously 2 or 3 frames too late. The man on the floor no longer counts, neither does the rearmost man on his feet as they are not part of the ruck.
 
Like I said, I have seen 'valid' complaints dismissed with ABSOLUTELY no respect on here before... now the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden it deserves more credence? I think f**king not! HERE endeth the lesson!
Still think you need to chill out abit mate.
 
ETA: Your poll is disingenuous. It shows that you are not interest in the opinions of others.
It was posted with tongue firmly in cheek as a bit of humour. You say it shows I am not 'interest' (sic) in the opinions of others. Does it? A stunning piece of deduction Holmes! The thread was posted with the intention of provoking some discussion which it has done, and so I can read other opinions.

ETA2: Note to mods - noobs should not be allowed to post polls until they have participated in discussion - perhaps 50 posts?
"How dare someone with less than 10,000 posts write anything vaguely controversial or provocative or attempt to do something mildly amusing, when there are very self-important people like me on this forum" (*rant* *rave* cont. ad nauseam)
Aha - I see the thought police are out in force. I'm guessing you're a 'people person' :)
 
@smartcooky - What constitutes a bind at the ruck?
I've seen some people saying that AB #20 wasn't bound and therefore offside should've been about a metre up from where it was,
World Rugby laws don't, currently, have a definition for a ruck bind, but I saw this from an old version online:
Rule 16.2 (c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Is it a case of he did initially bind correctly, but the ruck moved forward so all he has to do is stay in contact?
jeivox6dijx11.jpg

On the point of discussing rugby rules (if keeps annoying Bushytop and his prejudices, all the better), but I have to agree. I'm sure there was a directive to refs about making sure players bind properly and we've seen this where refs have told players to bind properly and they get their shoulder in position. If you look at French teams especially, where they have 2-3 players binding in a straight line backwards, connected with their shoulders (which I think should be against the rules). They do it to protect the kicker. Again the issue is consistency because it happened to us this week, happened to S.A last week. I have no problem with marginal calls, but there clearly are some areas of the ruck that need clarifying to help refs with that consistency.
 
No effing way was that off-side.
@smartcooky - What constitutes a bind at the ruck?


No bind is required to form a ruck, only contact.

LAW 15
FORMING A RUCK
1. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
2. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet
and over the ball which is on the ground.
3. Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower
than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.

However, to join an existing ruck, you have to bind onto a teammate or an opponent. This provision was changed a few years ago to prevent the Bakkies Botha style joining a ruck like an "Exocet Missile".

JOINING A RUCK
5. An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.
6. A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.
7. A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or
be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
8. Players must join the ruck or retire behind their offside line immediately.
9. Players who have previously been part of the ruck may rejoin the ruck, provided they do
so from an onside position.
Sanction: Penalty.

There is a requirement to remain bound but that is only for players alongside the ruck

DURING A RUCK
10. Possession may be won either by rucking or by pushing the opposing team off the ball.
11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their
hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.
12. Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck.
13. All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
14. Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.
15. Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the
ball in the ruck or as it emerges.

I've seen some people saying that AB #20 wasn't bound and therefore offside should've been about a metre up from where it was,
World Rugby laws don't, currently, have a definition for a ruck bind, but I saw this from an old version online:
Rule 16.2 (c) Placing a hand on another player in the ruck does not constitute binding.
Is it a case of he did initially bind correctly, but the ruck moved forward so all he has to do is stay in contact?

Well they are wrong about Black 20 being offside.

- If he is considered to be in the ruck, he can't be offside,

- If he is not considered to be in the ruck, then he is behind the hindmost of his team-mates in front of him, so he still can't be offside. .
 
No bind is required to form a ruck, only contact.

LAW 15
FORMING A RUCK
1. A ruck can take place only in the field of play.
2. A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet
and over the ball which is on the ground.
3. Players involved in all stages of the ruck must have their heads and shoulders no lower
than their hips. Sanction: Free-kick.

However, to join an existing ruck, you have to bind onto a teammate or an opponent. This provision was changed a few years ago to prevent the Bakkies Botha style joining a ruck like an "Exocet Missile".

JOINING A RUCK
5. An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.
6. A player may join alongside but not in front of the hindmost player.
7. A player must bind onto a team-mate or an opposition player. The bind must precede or
be simultaneous with contact with any other part of the body.
8. Players must join the ruck or retire behind their offside line immediately.
9. Players who have previously been part of the ruck may rejoin the ruck, provided they do
so from an onside position.
Sanction: Penalty.

There is a requirement to remain bound but that is only for players alongside the ruck

DURING A RUCK
10. Possession may be won either by rucking or by pushing the opposing team off the ball.
11. Once a ruck has formed, no player may handle the ball unless they were able to get their
hands on the ball before the ruck formed and stay on their feet.
12. Players must endeavour to remain on their feet throughout the ruck.
13. All players in a ruck must be caught in or bound to it and not just alongside it.
14. Players may play the ball with their feet, provided they do so in a safe manner.
15. Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the
ball in the ruck or as it emerges.



Well they are wrong about Black 20 being offside.

- If he is considered to be in the ruck, he can't be offside,

- If he is not considered to be in the ruck, then he is behind the hindmost of his team-mates in front of him, so he still can't be offside. .

I don't believe Oly was saying Black 20 was offside, but that he was not bound properly therefore the players in front have gone beyond the ruck and were no longer part of it. This meant the offside line for England was where Black 20 was, not the AB players in front. Or it was where the other AB players were and so he's not bound properly in which case the ball was out.

Tbh my curiosity is more about is 20 is bound properly because I've seen it in all matches from domestic to international that sometime players bound with their shoulder and other times with their hand. However refs will sometimes tell them to bind properly and other times not.
 
Yeah, I didn't mean 20 was off side but that the offside line would be where he is rather than where Lawes is (Which I then revised to: isn't the ruck over if he's not bound?)

However if he is technically bound that's all irrelevant :)
 
Someone on the match thread mentioned that since no England player was on their feet involved it was a tackle situation not a ruck therefore no offside line - I know that law was changed after the England-Italy match but I don't know the detail of the new law, is it relevant here?

For what it's worth I think on balance it was marginally the right decision given the ruck moved slightly ... but Jesus it's harsh on Lawes and it would never have been picked up on if it didn't result in a try. But them's the rules, fair enough.
 
Like I said, I have seen 'valid' complaints dismissed with ABSOLUTELY no respect on here before... now the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden it deserves more credence? I think f**king not! HERE endeth the lesson!
Why are you the appointed teacher that must be obeyed?
Just like you I have seen many valid complaints from fans of all teams, and some of these are dismissed with no respect quite register too. Surely you cannot be that naive about not seeing this behaviour happening to fans of all sides. Rather than try to derail this thread with ugly behaviour, I hope you either add or don't worry yourself with this.

My view (and first instinct when watching live) was that was offside. Regardless of it may not actually be a ruck as some arguments are saying, the ref had called it as a ruck, so you play to the refs decision. If you are then standing further in front of the line your teammates are setting, then you will be seen as offside.
 
Why are you the appointed teacher that must be obeyed?
Just like you I have seen many valid complaints from fans of all teams, and some of these are dismissed with no respect quite register too. Surely you cannot be that naive about not seeing this behaviour happening to fans of all sides. Rather than try to derail this thread with ugly behaviour, I hope you either add or don't worry yourself with this.

My view (and first instinct when watching live) was that was offside. Regardless of it may not actually be a ruck as some arguments are saying, the ref had called it as a ruck, so you play to the refs decision. If you are then standing further in front of the line your teammates are setting, then you will be seen as offside.

Because I have see so many people shut down for bringing up exactly the same sort of arguments being brought up here.

For clarity I actually thought the try should have stood yesterday but I also thought decisions that were questioned on here previously (& immediately shut down) were incorrect.

What makes things worse is the fact that this forum becomes an echo chamber where you all come to reinforce your own opinions. The crazy thing is if you count the amount of messages from English fans complaining about the amount of 'hard done by fans' from other nations whinging, they would FAR outnumber the actual amount of comments complaining about a dodgy decision in the first place...

until a dodgy decision gets made that goes against you guys and costs you a game, which has led you, inexorably... here!
 
Some like to discuss, is that not what the forum is for? While we are on the subject of dodgy, how did Biggar get away with coming in at the side going off his feet and hands in the ruck at the same ruck then get the benefit of the scrum?
 
My view (and first instinct when watching live) was that was offside. Regardless of it may not actually be a ruck as some arguments are saying, the ref had called it as a ruck, so you play to the refs decision. If you are then standing further in front of the line your teammates are setting, then you will be seen as offside.

Same as a tackle when you are trying to keep the ball carrier and his teammate up to make it a maul and you think you have succeeded, only to have the referee call out "tackle only - release" when it all goes to ground. You think you're right (and you might well be) but the referee has called something else, so you would be a fool to ignore him.
 
Same as a tackle when you are trying to keep the ball carrier and his teammate up to make it a maul and you think you have succeeded, only to have the referee call out "tackle only - release" when it all goes to ground. You think you're right (and you might well be) but the referee has called something else, so you would be a fool to ignore him.
Yes exactly. One of the first things drilled into us a kids playing - respect and listen to the Ref.
 
It's not that easy to listen to the ref sometimes though, it seems really loud because we have the mic but for a player in a loud stadium, it isn't.
 

Latest posts

Top