Fri 18th Aug: SL: Wakefield Trinity v Castleford Tigers KO 20:00 (Sky)

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

To my surprise a 20m tap restart was given to the defending team but it was surprising how few people actually knew what the correct decision should have been.

Doesn't happen much, to be fair.

[Chris22]

Must say I'm a little surprised by the idea that Jack Smith should have simply ignored the laws of the game last night. If we pick and choose which laws we want to enforce, then why bother having any at all?

[Griff]

40 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

To my surprise a 20m tap restart was given to the defending team but it was surprising how few people actually knew what the correct decision should have been.

Point for that in CFL.  Three for a field goal, one for missing.

[Barry Badrinath]

4 hours ago, LeeF said:

Irrelevant. They were within the 10 so are deemed to be interfering. It has been that way for many many years 

Within 10 metres of an opposite player collecting the kick though, no cas player was collecting it

[north yorks trinity]

3 hours ago, LeeF said:

I’m not using a different explanation. The 10metres is not arbitrary. It is in black & white in the laws

Now I wonder if you are deliberately missing the point although I apologise if I contributed to the confusion. The word arbitrary wasn't at all relevant and I'm aware that 10 metres is used in various aspects of the laws of the game. I hadn't intended to suggest otherwise. Try re reading the post as though I'd left that word out and hopefully my point will be more clear. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[LeeF]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

Now I wonder if you are deliberately missing the point although I apologise if I contributed to the confusion. The word arbitrary wasn't at all relevant and I'm aware that 10 metres is used in various aspects of the laws of the game. I hadn't intended to suggest otherwise. Try re reading the post as though I'd left that word out and hopefully my point will be more clear. 

I’m not deliberately or otherwise missing the point. 

At the end of the day the decisions were spot on and in line with the laws of the game. There is no need for any arbitrary interpretation of the incidents. 

If you really think they were wrong or that the referee “cost” you the game then you are either being deliberately awkward or don’t know the laws of the game. 

[north yorks trinity]

18 minutes ago, LeeF said:

I’m not deliberately or otherwise missing the point. 

At the end of the day the decisions were spot on and in line with the laws of the game. There is no need for any arbitrary interpretation of the incidents. 

If you really think they were wrong or that the referee “cost” you the game then you are either being deliberately awkward or don’t know the laws of the game. 

I accept that I don't know the exact wording of the law. Are you able to quote the relevant wording or point me in the right direction?

For example was it relevant whether Ashurst was moving toward the ball or not as I gather the VR implied that it was? Would it make a difference if a lead runner was within 10m if the opposition player didn't touch the ball and didn't impede a defender? If the defender touches the ball does it make a difference whether ball plays man or man plays ball? Is the offside player played onside once an onside member of his own team advance past him? 

Not sure how many of those questions are relevant to last night without rewatching but it would be good to be informed by one with full knowledge of the laws. 

BTW I don't think that the game swung on that incident, though obviously impossible to say with hypotheticals. The incorrectly disallowed "forward" pass try could well have been a game changer though IMO.

[Griff]

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/laws-of-the-game

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/laws-of-the-game

Thank you. Will have a proper look when I have time but on a quick glance now there seems to be plenty to suggest the officials got it wrong e.g. rule 3b under the heading "Offside". I'd expect better but hey it happens, they're only human. Frustrating though when it could have a big bearing on the future viability of the club you support.

Edited August 19, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[bobbruce]

55 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Thank you. Will have a proper look when I have time but on a quick glance now there seems to be plenty to suggest the officials got it wrong e.g. rule 3b under the heading "Offside". I'd expect better but hey it happens, they're only human. Frustrating though when it could have a big bearing on the future viability of the club you support.

Yes but none of that applies if you are inside the 10. 

[north yorks trinity]

8 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Yes but none of that applies if you are inside the 10. 

My understanding of what I've just read is that it does apply in that once you are played onside I can't see any reason why you can't take an active part in the game. Did you check Griff's link?

Edited August 19, 2023 by north yorks trinity
Additional clarification

[The Blues Ox]

Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage.

 

Interesting that the above law makes no reference towards a player moving towards the ball like was mentioned on this incident and is very black and white, if you are within 10 mteres you are deemed to be interfering with play.

But.....the rule I have posted below seems to suggest that it is up to the ref to deem if they are interfering or not.

 

Catcher claiming off side 1. A player who catches the ball near an off side opponent must not go out of their way to make interference in play by the offside player unavoidable. They should proceed with normal play and rely on the Referee to penalise the off side player if the latter interferes with play. If the catcher deliberately and unnecessarily runs into the off side player then play should proceed.

 

I think that pretty much clears it up. 

Now can someone point me to the section where it talks about the stupid obstruction rule where players can take a legal voluntary tackle because I can't seem to find it.

Edited August 19, 2023 by The Blues Ox

[north yorks trinity]

3 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage.

 

Interesting that the above law makes no reference towards a player moving towards the ball like was mentioned on this incident and is very black and white, if you are within 10 mteres you are deemed to be interfering with play.

But.....the rule I have posted below seems to suggest that it is up to the ref to deem if they are interfering or not.

 

Catcher claiming off side 1. A player who catches the ball near an off side opponent must not go out of their way to make interference in play by the offside player unavoidable. They should proceed with normal play and rely on the Referee to penalise the off side player if the latter interferes with play. If the catcher deliberately and unnecessarily runs into the off side player then play should proceed.

 

I think that pretty much clears it up. 

Now can someone point me to the section where it talks about the stupid obstruction rule where players can take a legal voluntary tackle because I can't seem to find it.

I think Ashurst was actually onside under rule 3b where he is played onside by an opponent touching but not retaining the ball, making all the rest of the discussion redundant as to what an offside player can and can't do!

Regarding "giving oneself up" after crossing, I haven't checked but would be surprised if this is covered in our famously (not) black and white rules. However given that the ref has not penalised said player for whatever reason, I don't believe that follows is a voluntary tackle. Anyone is allowed to fall to the floor at any time. What they're not allowed to do is play the ball without being declared to have been tackled. That would be a voluntary tackle. The most famous example was when a penalty for a voluntary tackle was correctly NOT awarded against Chris Joynt in the grand final all those years ago.

[LeeF]

13 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage.

 

Interesting that the above law makes no reference towards a player moving towards the ball like was mentioned on this incident and is very black and white, if you are within 10 mteres you are deemed to be interfering with play.

But.....the rule I have posted below seems to suggest that it is up to the ref to deem if they are interfering or not.

 

Catcher claiming off side 1. A player who catches the ball near an off side opponent must not go out of their way to make interference in play by the offside player unavoidable. They should proceed with normal play and rely on the Referee to penalise the off side player if the latter interferes with play. If the catcher deliberately and unnecessarily runs into the off side player then play should proceed.

 

I think that pretty much clears it up. 

Now can someone point me to the section where it talks about the stupid obstruction rule where players can take a legal voluntary tackle because I can't seem to find it.

It isn’t in the laws. It will be part of the “extras” but they circulate each season which covers interpretations etc. It is though, as you state, stupid and should be the first thing amended/ dropped. Even before the 1st tackle six again law!!

[north yorks trinity]

6 hours ago, Chris22 said:

Must say I'm a little surprised by the idea that Jack Smith should have simply ignored the laws of the game last night. If we pick and choose which laws we want to enforce, then why bother having any at all?

I don't think Jack Smith should ignore the laws of the game, but if he decides to go out of his way to look for reasons to disallow a try given as a try by the onfield ref he could at least apply the laws correctly.

[LeeF]

7 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

I think Ashurst was actually onside under rule 3b where he is played onside by an opponent touching but not retaining the ball, making all the rest of the discussion redundant as to what an offside player can and can't do!

Regarding "giving oneself up" after crossing, I haven't checked but would be surprised if this is covered in our famously (not) black and white rules. However given that the ref has not penalised said player for whatever reason, I don't believe that follows is a voluntary tackle. Anyone is allowed to fall to the floor at any time. What they're not allowed to do is play the ball without being declared to have been tackled. That would be a voluntary tackle. The most famous example was when a penalty for a voluntary tackle was correctly NOT awarded against Chris Joynt in the grand final all those years ago.

Ashurst was within the 10 when the Cas player went to play the ball therefore he is deemed to have interfered and is offside. There is no further discussion required.

If Ashurst has been 11 metres away from the Cas player who didn’t retain the ball then he could have become involved/ played onside.

And this is from just below rule 3b

Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage.

A best practice with the laws is to always read the notes below the laws

[LeeF]

9 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

I don't think Jack Smith should ignore the laws of the game, but if he decides to go out of his way to look for reasons to disallow a try given as a try by the onfield ref he could at least apply the laws correctly.

Which law did he not apply correctly?

[north yorks trinity]

In the other controversial offside decision when Cas knocked near Wakey's line and the offside Wakey player was holding his hands up to say "I'm not involved in play", the Notes section in Griff's link state that if the referee believes the offside player to be interfering, albeit accidentally, the game should restart with a scrum. I infer from that that if he isn't interfering it should be play on. The fact that a penalty was awarded implies that the ref felt he was: 

a. interfering and

b. doing so deliberately.

Really??!!

Does everyone still think the ref's got everything spot on?!

[north yorks trinity]

4 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Ashurst was within the 10 when the Cas player went to play the ball therefore he is deemed to have interfered and is offside. There is no further discussion required.

This is just plain wrong. This would basically do away with lead runners! He is played onside immediately the ball deflects from the Cas player. I haven't checked, and so could yet have to eat humble pie, but I'd make pretty hefty wager that Ashurst doesn't change direction till after he is played onside.

[north yorks trinity]

11 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Which law did he not apply correctly?

Offside 3b in conjunction with 2, in that Ashurst didn't interfere with play and neither encroached nor had time to retire before being played onside.

Edited August 19, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[LeeF]

6 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

In the other controversial offside decision when Cas knocked near Wakey's line and the offside Wakey player was holding his hands up to say "I'm not involved in play", the Notes section in Griff's link state that if the referee believes the offside player to be interfering, albeit accidentally, the game should restart with a scrum. I infer from that that if he isn't interfering it should be play on. The fact that a penalty was awarded implies that the ref felt he was: 

a. interfering and

b. doing so deliberately.

Really??!!

Does everyone still think the ref's got everything spot on?!

Putting your hands up doesn’t mean it’s accidental offside. That’s most likely from a knock on that hits a team mate who was in front but I think you really already know that.

And yes the ref did get everything correct unlike your good self who even when presented with clear evidence from a number of posters & a link to the laws of the game that proves the decisions were correct still believes otherwise. 

[LeeF]

4 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

This is just plain wrong. This would basically do away with lead runners! He is played onside immediately the ball deflects from the Cas player. I haven't checked, and so could yet have to eat humble pie, but I'd make pretty hefty wager that Ashurst doesn't change direction till after he is played onside.

No it’s not plain wrong. Read the full post or even the laws of the game that I quoted. 

[LeeF]

4 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

Offside 3b

No he didn’t as previously explained.

No doubt you will respond with some further made up nonsense but you have now passed the point of legitimate debate and have moved onto trolling. 

[north yorks trinity]

9 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Putting your hands up doesn’t mean it’s accidental offside. That’s most likely from a knock on that hits a team mate who was in front but I think you really already know that.

And yes the ref did get everything correct unlike your good self who even when presented with clear evidence from a number of posters & a link to the laws of the game that proves the decisions were correct still believes otherwise. 

I think we're going round in circles so probably best to leave it here but just so I can understand your interpretation, are you saying that any lead runner should always be more than 10 metres away from an active defender (or potentially active defender) whenever the ball is kicked by a team mate?

If that's the correct interpretation, I look forward to seeing it consistently applied!!!

Edited August 19, 2023 by north yorks trinity

[The Blues Ox]

51 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

I think Ashurst was actually onside under rule 3b where he is played onside by an opponent touching but not retaining the ball, making all the rest of the discussion redundant as to what an offside player can and can't do!

Regarding "giving oneself up" after crossing, I haven't checked but would be surprised if this is covered in our famously (not) black and white rules. However given that the ref has not penalised said player for whatever reason, I don't believe that follows is a voluntary tackle. Anyone is allowed to fall to the floor at any time. What they're not allowed to do is play the ball without being declared to have been tackled. That would be a voluntary tackle. The most famous example was when a penalty for a voluntary tackle was correctly NOT awarded against Chris Joynt in the grand final all those years ago.

This is where the paradox comes in as the player who has decided to fall to the ground, if not touched, can't stand up and continue otherwise the ref would have to award a penalty for the original obstruction.