[RWC2019][Pool B] Round 1 - New Zealand vs. South Africa (21/09/2019)

[TRF_heineken]

I thought you didn't need to form a ruck to have offside lines formed (thanks Italy). So regardless of whether there is a Saffa there or not offside lines are formed and PSDT was never onside as he was still retreating from the earlier play.

There was no ruck formed, as no other SA player apart from the tackler joined the ruck... Therefore, no ruck, no offside...

 

[Paulo]

No, you're incorrect in thinking you need a ruck to form offside lines.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=14&language=EN

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.

At 3.51 on the highlights clip Crotty is clearly on his feet over the ball. Offside lines are then created. PSDT is still way behind the play and never gets back onside.

Im not sure how to make it easier for you to understand. A ruck has not been required to create offside lines since THAT game with Italy and England.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Yeah we had this last year with the Underhill no try v NZ last November. Lawes' toe was offside at after a tackle. Confused the hell out of me back then. Still can't get my head round it during matches when an offside lines can be drawn after a tackle situation and not just a ruck any more.

 

[TRF_heineken]

No, you're incorrect in thinking you need a ruck to form offside lines.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=14&language=EN

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.

At 3.51 on the highlights clip Crotty is clearly on his feet over the ball. Offside lines are then created. PSDT is still way behind the play and never gets back onside.

Im not sure how to make it easier for you to understand. A ruck has not been required to create offside lines since THAT game with Italy and England.

No I get what you are saying. But let's say a ruck was formed and offside lines were made. PSDT did the right thing in retreating, and the other Springboks that rushed up in defence, went passed PSDT who was retreating, making him onside again, and legal to play the ball. Plus there is an argument to be had that Kolbe touched the ball prior to PSDT catching it, so it wouldn't have matter in any case if PSDT was offside or not.

But what irks me is that all you NZ'ers are going on and on about PSDT being offside, none of you are mentioning Sam Cane's illegal clearance of Kitshoff at ALB's tackled area....

 

[Paulo]

No I get what you are saying. But let's say a ruck was formed and offside lines were made. PSDT did the right thing in retreating, and the other Springboks that rushed up in defence, went passed PSDT who was retreating, making him onside again, and legal to play the ball. Plus there is an argument to be had that Kolbe touched the ball prior to PSDT catching it, so it wouldn't have matter in any case if PSDT was offside or not.

But what irks me is that all you NZ'ers are going on and on about PSDT being offside, none of you are mentioning Sam Cane's illegal clearance of Kitshoff at ALB's tackled area....

I thought it was Read with the side entry? Anyway, we did get away with a bit, so too did the Boks. I've never argued the ABs are Saints, but I also don't see them as the villains and thugs others claim them to be either. They are just a rugby team trying to win, just like every other team. But that is a deflection. PSDT was not out back onside before he touch caught the ball. We won't agree on this so let's move on.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I thought it was Read with the side entry? Anyway, we did get away with a bit, so too did the Boks. I've never argued the ABs are Saints, but I also don't see them as the villains and thugs others claim them to be either. They are just a rugby team trying to win, just like every other team. But that is a deflection. PSDT was not out back onside before he touch caught the ball. We won't agree on this so let's move on.

Sorry, Read with another illegal infringement... Not Cane

But go and look at that phase. Faf rushed up, PSDT was retreating, even before Scott Barrett Passed the ball which was intercepted, PSDT was already back onside because of Faf's run on BB.

If you pause the video, you will see Faf is lying about 5m inside the 22 while PSDT catches the ball on the 22 or just before the 22. Plus it does seem like a bit of a deflection from Kolbe's hand before PSDT catches it...

You don't have to agree with me on this, that's fine. But there is enough there to prove a point...

 

[Geralt_]

Well the only way du Toit was ever going to be onside from that interception was if ALB was not held, which he was.

du Toit undeniably offside.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well the only way du Toit was ever going to be onside from that interception was if ALB was not held, which he was.

du Toit undeniably offside.

Seriously??!! is that all you're going to add to the discussion?? A bunch of dislikes to all my posts and then just this?? No rebuttle, or provision of more evidence to substantiate your claim??

I mean, are we wrong with saying that Faf and other onside players such as Kolbe who ran past PSDT while he was retreating, put him back onside during broken play??? That it's not like an SA player had kicked an up-and-under where the players in front of him has to retreat at least 10 metres back before they can play the man/ball...

 

[unrated]

Seriously??!! is that all you're going to add to the discussion?? A bunch of dislikes to all my posts and then just this?? No rebuttle, or provision of more evidence to substantiate your claim??

I mean, are we wrong with saying that Faf and other onside players such as Kolbe who ran past PSDT while he was retreating, put him back onside during broken play??? That it's not like an SA player had kicked an up-and-under where the players in front of him has to retreat at least 10 metres back before they can play the man/ball...

The troll can't comprehend logic, he's only here to dish out dislikes until the time comes for his ban. He has no interest to have a discussion with the posibility of an agreement in the end.

 

[Hydraulxx]

he even went and looked at posts i made last year to dislike them...

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Sigh...... Whilst some are at the bigger picture stage there's still a question on minutiae to be resolved. If I may offer my services between the Boks and the Blacks as a neutral(ish) observer. As I said before I'm somewhat of a laws aficionado and really enjoy these kinds of topics. I've looked at the footage several times and as stated before struggle to see how PSDT is ever onside. Here we go.

Effectively the whole question of offside is settled within a single second and it's not without its complexity



ALB at this point is "held and brought to ground" by Steven Kitshoff. ALB's knee in in contact with the ground and Kitshoff is holding him. Law 14 is thus satisfied

From the laws

1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

The next image brings into the question whether offside lines are established The law reads:

"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."

Apologies the image is the best I can do but it very much appears as per the red arrow (His hands) that Kitshoff has managed to get to his feet (very nicely done by the way) and is over the ball which is on the ground. Thus offside lines are established for both teams (I've approximated these in blue)



However, should you disagree (and you may,) there's a further consideration. First can we deal with the question of Read's angle of entry? At time in question. There is no ruck as the following condition has not been met

"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. ".

The rule for "other players" in a tackle states the following. Other players must

"Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball."

There is no "gate" (a term not used in law). I believe that Read is joining a "tackle" rather than a "ruck" and is thus legal.

Then things get really interesting. As in the following image Read and I believe it's Crotty make near simultaneous contact with Kitshoff. However, not quite so. Read makes contact first and then Crotty touches Kitshoff's back. At this point Kitshoff is on his feet. Crotty is on his feet and the ball is on the ground. See above for the ruck law...........



So even if you don't accept that the tackle creates an offside, a ruck 100% does. As follows:

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

Again my rubbish blue line don't do it justice but they are about there.............

Just as an aside after the ball is passed away Faf appears..... I doubt he's onside either..... But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However the next person in question is PSDT......... If you accept that either the tackle or the ruck has created an offside line he's never been onside since either action



So what? Well the laws say this

"A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended."

Interestingly (well for me a laws nerd at least) I can't see "tackle" there......

So PSDT is offside unless one of the following are met

1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
3. An opposition player kicks the ball.

1) Nope, 2) hmmmm maybe! 3) nope. But before we get our hopes up the law is very specific in this regard:

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

Now there is an element of judgement about whether PSDT has been subject to "an undue delay" but he's pretty much in the NZ attacking line and at that point he's in jeopardy. The "lazy runner" thing being the usual issue here. However, there's then the question of "benefiting". So even if under clause 2 (5 metre carry) he's not in the clear. He may be onside but he's passed the ball and us such clearly gains an advantage.

So if you believe a tackle was made. PSDT was offside at that point. I believe the laws are deficient in this regard so much as it's then not referred to in Law 10. However, if you believe a ruck was formed (I believe Crotty and Kitshoff momentarily do this) then PSDT is offside, He may be put onside by NZ carriers but this is irrelevant as he regains position in an advantageous position.

All of that said it's not as black and white as people want to make it. Most of the important actions happen in less than 1 second. Refs are fallible. I'd say most refs seeing an opposition player stealing the ball in the offensive line would immediately think "hold on, how can he be onside". Garces may have thought differently.

Just for fun. If Kitshoff had simply knocked ALB to the floor (not held and grounded) and not contested the ball (no ruck). PSDT would have been onside...... Strange game

 

[Shimano]

No I get what you are saying. But let's say a ruck was formed and offside lines were made. PSDT did the right thing in retreating, and the other Springboks that rushed up in defence, went passed PSDT who was retreating, making him onside again, and legal to play the ball. Plus there is an argument to be had that Kolbe touched the ball prior to PSDT catching it, so it wouldn't have matter in any case if PSDT was offside or not.

But what irks me is that all you NZ'ers are going on and on about PSDT being offside, none of you are mentioning Sam Cane's illegal clearance of Kitshoff at ALB's tackled area....

thats not how it works sir. What your saying here only works in open play (or "general play" for old timers). When offside lines appear at a breakdown or other phases, offside players are still offside even after they overtaken by an onside team mate. Find a law book and look at the bit in Offside (Law 11?) about retiring from rucks and the like. From what I remember, the only ways are for the player to get behind the offside line, or if an opponent kick the ball or carries it some distance (5m?)

 

[Zerobound]

Sigh...... Whilst some are at the bigger picture stage there's still a question on minutiae to be resolved. If I may offer my services between the Boks and the Blacks as a neutral(ish) observer. As I said before I'm somewhat of a laws aficionado and really enjoy these kinds of topics. I've looked at the footage several times and as stated before struggle to see how PSDT is ever onside. Here we go.

Effectively the whole question of offside is settled within a single second and it's not without its complexity

View attachment 7455

ALB at this point is "held and brought to ground" by Steven Kitshoff. ALB's knee in in contact with the ground and Kitshoff is holding him. Law 14 is thus satisfied

From the laws

1. For a tackle to occur, the ball-carrier is held and brought to ground by one or more opponents.
2. Being brought to ground means that the ball-carrier is lying, sitting or has at least one knee on the ground or on another player who is on the ground.
3. Being held means that a tackler must continue holding the ball-carrier until the ball-carrier is on the ground.

The next image brings into the question whether offside lines are established The law reads:

"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."

Apologies the image is the best I can do but it very much appears as per the red arrow (His hands) that Kitshoff has managed to get to his feet (very nicely done by the way) and is over the ball which is on the ground. Thus offside lines are established for both teams (I've approximated these in blue)

View attachment 7456

However, should you disagree (and you may,) there's a further consideration. First can we deal with the question of Read's angle of entry? At time in question. There is no ruck as the following condition has not been met

"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. ".

The rule for "other players" in a tackle states the following. Other players must

"Arrive at the tackle from the direction of their own goal line before playing the ball."

There is no "gate" (a term not used in law). I believe that Read is joining a "tackle" rather than a "ruck" and is thus legal.

Then things get really interesting. As in the following image Read and I believe it's Crotty make near simultaneous contact with Kitshoff. However, not quite so. Read makes contact first and then Crotty touches Kitshoff's back. At this point Kitshoff is on his feet. Crotty is on his feet and the ball is on the ground. See above for the ruck law...........

View attachment 7458

So even if you don't accept that the tackle creates an offside, a ruck 100% does. As follows:

Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.

Again my rubbish blue line don't do it justice but they are about there.............

Just as an aside after the ball is passed away Faf appears..... I doubt he's onside either..... But we'll give him the benefit of the doubt. However the next person in question is PSDT......... If you accept that either the tackle or the ruck has created an offside line he's never been onside since either action

View attachment 7459

So what? Well the laws say this

"A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended."

Interestingly (well for me a laws nerd at least) I can't see "tackle" there......

So PSDT is offside unless one of the following are met

1. That player immediately retires behind the applicable offside line; or
2. An opposition player carries the ball five metres in any direction; or
3. An opposition player kicks the ball.

1) Nope, 2) hmmmm maybe! 3) nope. But before we get our hopes up the law is very specific in this regard:

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

Now there is an element of judgement about whether PSDT has been subject to "an undue delay" but he's pretty much in the NZ attacking line and at that point he's in jeopardy. The "lazy runner" thing being the usual issue here. However, there's then the question of "benefiting". So even if under clause 2 (5 metre carry) he's not in the clear. He may be onside but he's passed the ball and us such clearly gains an advantage.

So if you believe a tackle was made. PSDT was offside at that point. I believe the laws are deficient in this regard so much as it's then not referred to in Law 10. However, if you believe a ruck was formed (I believe Crotty and Kitshoff momentarily do this) then PSDT is offside, He may be put onside by NZ carriers but this is irrelevant as he regains position in an advantageous position.

All of that said it's not as black and white as people want to make it. Most of the important actions happen in less than 1 second. Refs are fallible. I'd say most refs seeing an opposition player stealing the ball in the offensive line would immediately think "hold on, how can he be onside". Garces may have thought differently.

Just for fun. If Kitshoff had simply knocked ALB to the floor (not held and grounded) and not contested the ball (no ruck). PSDT would have been onside...... Strange game

Thanks for the effort. Its hard to really provide a decent picture of what happened without a wide angle. There is no doubt du Toit was offside initially. The question is whether he got back onside.

A lot of us have watched it a few times now. I can see both sides of the argument. I am of the belief he got back onside by the time he received the ball. Mostly a benefit of the doubt scenario. I don't think he was obviously offside as some believe. Its a pretty close thing.

The four man overlap the All Blacks had were well behind du Toit by the time he got the ball, definitely not him loitering in the line as people believe. Really it was probably Scott Barrett's fault by passing the ball straight to du Toit rather than to the support behind him, he actually passed it beyond Whitelock who was right beside him in support and with open space in front of him. Was actually a poor decision by Whitelock not to take the pass. I can't believe how passionate people have got about these calls!

 

[Yoshimitsu]

Thanks for the effort. Its hard to really provide a decent picture of what happened without a wide angle. There is no doubt du Toit was offside initially. The question is whether he got back onside.

A lot of us have watched it a few times now. I can see both sides of the argument. I am of the belief he got back onside by the time he received the ball. Mostly a benefit of the doubt scenario. I don't think he was obviously offside as some believe. Its a pretty close thing.

The four man overlap the All Blacks had were well behind du Toit by the time he got the ball, definitely not him loitering in the line as people believe. Really it was probably Scott Barrett's fault by passing the ball straight to du Toit rather than to the support behind him, he actually passed it beyond Whitelock who was right beside him in support and with open space in front of him. Was actually a poor decision by Whitelock not to take the pass. I can't believe how passionate people have got about these calls!

I like the cut of your Jib........... But you'd have to believe that PSTD was imbued with super powers to belive he's somehow onside. The only way in which he is onside is if a tackle or more pertinently a ruck never occurred. At least one is undeniable.

Here's the offender at 3:43 mere seconds before (7 max) lying on his arse in goal before the issue of offside is settled:



That's PSDT lying on the floor as Beauden "no slouch" Barrett runs out of in goal. Are you seriously suggesting that PSTD is quicker than both a full throttle BB and a somewhat pacy ALB? Personally I'd argue it's physically impossible (if a tackle or ruck occurs involving ALB) for PSDT to get onside according to the laws. It's impossible for any Bok player to play him onside and the laws quoted in my previous post have him squarely in outlaw territory............

I will now duck out. I'm less abrasive than some posters regarding the laws. However in my view if you accept that ALB and Kitshoff create a ruck then PSDT can't be onside because basically he's not a superhero........

 

[Zerobound]

So I'm going to do something different here and analyse the play itself. No talk of offsides blah blah blah..

S Barrett is in possession here. Kolbe has come in off his wing in an attempt to disrupt the play. Though at the same time creating an overlap for NZ. Which he does successfully as it turns out Barrett ended up passing the ball directly to du Toit. Well done Kolbe!

Barrett was attempting to pass the ball directly to Bridge. If this happened then I believe the Boks would have snuffed the attack out very quickly.

Now if Barrett had managed to pass the ball to Whitelock who was right on his shoulder. Whitelock would have had open space in front of him. Whitelock would have drawn in du Toit taking out the key South African defender. Whitelock may also have been able to draw in de Allende who was the next closet cover defender. A simple offload to Bridge. Would have seen a foot race between him and le Roux.

 

[Zerobound]

I like the cut of your Jib........... But you'd have to believe that PSTD was imbued with super powers to belive he's somehow onside. The only way in which he is onside is if a tackle or more pertinently a ruck never occurred. At least one is undeniable.

Here's the offender at 3:43 mere seconds before (7 max) lying on his arse in goal before the issue of offside is settled:

View attachment 7460

That's PSDT lying on the floor as Beauden "no slouch" Barrett runs out of in goal. Are you seriously suggesting that PSTD is quicker than both a full throttle BB and a somewhat pacy ALB? Personally I'd argue it's physically impossible (if a tackle or ruck occurs involving ALB) for PSDT to get onside according to the laws. It's impossible for any Bok player to play him onside and the laws quoted in my previous post have him squarely in outlaw territory............

I will now duck out. I'm less abrasive than some posters regarding the laws. However in my view if you accept that ALB and Kitshoff create a ruck then PSDT can't be onside because basically he's not a superhero........

The reason I think it's a lot closer call than others believe is because of this. You can see where the ruck was and you can see the point where du Toit takes possession.

Therefore I would give the benefit of the doubt. There had already been sufficient time and distance to bring a bit of doubt into the equation. Plus the fact Barrett passed it straight to him. You can't be too harsh on a second rower. But a bit of patience (rather than trying to get it wide straight away) and vision would have meant no one would have been discussing this offside thing at all!

 

[Yoshimitsu]

The reason I think it's a lot closer call than others believe is because of this. You can see where the ruck was and you can see the point where du Toit takes possession.

Therefore I would give the benefit of the doubt. There had already been sufficient time and distance to bring a bit of doubt into the equation. Plus the fact Barrett passed it straight to him. You can't be too harsh on a second rower. But a bit of patience (rather than trying to get it wise straight away) and vision. Would have meant no one would have been discussing this offside thing at all!
View attachment 7462

Again I like the argument. However, annoyingly (or so my wife says) I have a ready made answer. It's not about where PSDT is at 46:15...... It's where he's at at 46:11 that counts. Now without a wide angle I concur that I am guessing to a degree. However at 46:13 PSDT is still behind Beauden Barrett who receives the ball. Now given the laws of physics (the ball must be passed backwards) and discounting the multiverse for a moment there's no way that PSDT can be behind Beauden Barrett at 46:13 but onside by 46:15. That's simply not how the laws or temporal flow works.

If you wish to advance your argument far more fruitful territory is to be found in the tackle / ruck laws. If you concede either has happened PSDT needs to be able to time travel to not be offside......

On edit....wrong awesome fullback... It's still Beauden at this point.

 

[Zerobound]

I

Again I like the argument. However, annoyingly (or so my wife says) I have a ready made answer. It's not about where PSDT is at 46:15...... It's where he's at at 46:11 that counts. Now without a wide angle I concur that I am guessing to a degree. However at 46:13 PSDT is still behind Beauden Barrett who receives the ball. Now given the laws of physics (the ball must be passed backwards) and discounting the multiverse for a moment there's no way that PSDT can be behind Beauden Barrett at 46:13 but onside by 46:15. That's simply not how the laws or temporal flow works.

If you wish to advance your argument far more fruitful territory is to be found in the tackle / ruck laws. If you concede either has happened PSDT needs to be able to time travel to not be offside......

On edit....wrong awesome fullback... It's still Beauden at this point.

Don't know maybe du Toit should be showing up in the Arrowverse in the coming months. He was the one that ended up scoring the try after all that as well!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

No I get what you are saying. But let's say a ruck was formed and offside lines were made. PSDT did the right thing in retreating, and the other Springboks that rushed up in defence, went passed PSDT who was retreating, making him onside again, and legal to play the ball. Plus there is an argument to be had that Kolbe touched the ball prior to PSDT catching it, so it wouldn't have matter in any case if PSDT was offside or not.

But what irks me is that all you NZ'ers are going on and on about PSDT being offside, none of you are mentioning Sam Cane's illegal clearance of Kitshoff at ALB's tackled area....

no...we're not...you're arguing with a couple of people, the rest of us are looking forward to the next game

 

[BigJono8]

The Kiwi's seem to cop a fair bit on these boards! Surprised there's any posters from down under left!

Fascinating game of rugby, South Africa really came out off the blocks in both halves. The AB's as usual managed to weather the storm then score a couple of beautiful tries in typical AB sucker punching fashion and you find yourself rolling your eyes expecting the inevitable. Both teams have their weaknesses that I feel can be exploited by a disciplined side. The Kiwi's are definitely not shoe-ins for the tournament like the last 2 previous world cups, which gives some of us a little more hope

Garces seems to be a contentious subject on this board. I felt he was consistently inconsistent both ways .