Do we really need to change this law...

[north yorks trinity]

...or just implement the current law as it is worded?

This is in relation to a disallowed try in the Wakey v Cas game because an offside player who did not influence play was within the 10.

John Kear says "The letter of the law says the referee is correct":

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/wakefield-trinity-try-disallowed-crazy-27552897

I agree with JK's sentiment that this needs clearing up and fast but I disagree that the referee was correct by the letter of the law. By the letter of the law the try JK is referring to should have stood. The current laws don't state that you concede a penalty just by being "in the 10" although it appears to be the current custom to interpret them as though they did. The relevant sections of wording are:

An off side player shall not take any part in the game or attempt in any way to influence the course of the game. They shall not encroach within ten metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball and shall immediately retire ten metres from any opponent who first secures possession of the ball. 

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.

So you are only interfering if you remain within 10 metres or encroach (i.e. advance toward the opponent), not just because you are there (unless of course by being there you are influencing the course of the game). If you retire 10 metres from an opponent... it would seem to be OK, also implying that just being there per se shouldn't draw a penalty. Of course it then becomes a judgement call whether a player has retired too slowly and therefore remained within 10 metres too long. In the example which provoked the article, about 0.2 seconds elapsed between a kick being put in and the offside player being played onside when the ball hit an opponent, which I would suggest does not challenge any grey areas!! (Before you ask, yes, I am that sad and did time it, as well as I could, with the stopwatch app on my phone!)

Some more wording that makes it clear that just being in the 10 and not interfering was never meant to be an offence is:

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.

The offside player by definition must have been in the 10, because once the catcher has run more than 10 metres everyone is onside, yet this explicitly states that it is up to the referee to decide if the offside player is interfering with play.

So it seems clear to me that we don't need a law change but we do need some urgent clarification. While we're at it though, might it be a good idea to redefine "interfering" as "actually interfering"?!

P.S. If anyone is concerned I have quoted selectively, here's a link to the actual laws. The Offside section is around a 2 minute read.

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

 

[Adelaide Tiger]

A quick question about the disallowed try.

If the Wakey player HAD RUN over the dead ball line before the ball was touched down, but was within 10m of the touchdown, would a try have been awarded?

[StandOffHalf]

I'm pretty much on-board with the current interpretations, to be honest.

If a player runs towards the catcher and is inside the 10, it's a penalty and has been for a long time.

The grey area that I would like clarified/cleared up is around a player in the 10 and not advancing. Is ''within the 10'' an automatic penalty under current adjudications or is it open to the ref/video ref to interpret player's actions.

[north yorks trinity]

2 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

Is ''within the 10'' an automatic penalty under current adjudications or is it open to the ref/video ref to interpret player's actions.

It would appear to be regarded as an automatic penalty, but only because of either: a.) force of habit or b.) a directive at a referees' meeting which hasn't been updated in the laws of the game. If we're happy for things to continue as currently, we should re write the laws to reflect that. 

I'm happy with the current laws as written, which puts the onus on the offside player to take specific action not to interfere if they are offside within the 10, and allows the referee to judge if they are interfering, but doesn't force the referee to penalise someone who is clearly not interfering.

Edited August 22, 2023 by north yorks trinity
clarification

[bobbruce]

5 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

A quick question about the disallowed try.

If the Wakey player HAD RUN over the dead ball line before the ball was touched down, but was within 10m of the touchdown, would a try have been awarded?

No

[bobbruce]

3 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

I'm pretty much on-board with the current interpretations, to be honest.

If a player runs towards the catcher and is inside the 10, it's a penalty and has been for a long time.

The grey area that I would like clarified/cleared up is around a player in the 10 and not advancing. Is ''within the 10'' an automatic penalty under current adjudications or is it open to the ref/video ref to interpret player's actions.

It isn’t an automatic penalty but you are classed as interfering with play (Which you are). So the receiving player needs to gain an advantage or you will be penalised. If as on this occasion and the other one in the game the recieving player makes a mistake you will be penalised if it’s spotted. 

[Ackroman]

Maybe it would be better to allow Trinity to score tries regardless of the rules? Save all this wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Reminds me of Stevo's description of the French approach in the 1973 world cup against GB, in one case they didn't even feed the scrum, they just passed it to a 3/4. GB still won BTW.

[The Blues Ox]

This has been discussed at length in the match thread. There is a contradiction in the rules, there is one part that says it is up to the ref's discretion but there is another part that over rules this almost as a catch all by saying anyone inside the 10 is deemed to be interfering.

The decision to disallow the try was correct as soon as it were sent upstairs and to the letter of the law, the problem I have is that in a normal game without a VR the try is given 100% of the time so there is an issue there when you can have two polar opposite results for something that shouldn't be anywhere near that.

Just as a side note on this in the second half one of the teams full backs knocked on and his teammate who was within 10 made a move towards the ball but avoided contact with the ball and because he avoided contact this was just given as a knock on but again the player should have been deemed to be offside as soon as he moved towards the ball. Its the inconsistancies that cause the outcry and personally I would have no problem with the ref and VR been allowed to use some common sense. There would have been far less of an outcry if the try had been allowed than there has been for it been disallowed because most people can use common sense.

[sentoffagain2]

7 hours ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

A quick question about the disallowed try.

If the Wakey player HAD RUN over the dead ball line before the ball was touched down, but was within 10m of the touchdown, would a try have been awarded?

I would say yes.If Ashurst had stayed in position and put his hands on his head the ref could interpret him as inactive.And if he had walked away from the ball with his back to it that could be interpreted as inactive.Ashurst has been playing long enough to know he was within the ten.So to walk towards the ball was stupid and cost Wakey a try at a crucial stage of the game.

[north yorks trinity]

1 hour ago, bobbruce said:

It isn’t an automatic penalty but you are classed as interfering with play (Which you are). 

So you appear to be saying that it is an automatic penalty as currently interpreted. Don't you agree that this is at odds with the current laws though?

[north yorks trinity]

51 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

This has been discussed at length in the match thread.

You're not wrong there!!! Largely my fault but I thought it worth putting this out there as a more general point to the majority who probably aren't that interested in Wakey or Cas.

53 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

The decision to disallow the try was correct as soon as it were sent upstairs and to the letter of the law sense.

Happy to agree to disagree as we seem to agree that the situation needs to change to avoid another fiasco like last Friday. Whether that needs a change in the letter of the law or simply a clarification of the current law isn't that relevant in the long run.

The rest of your post I thought was spot on.

[north yorks trinity]

36 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

I would say yes.If Ashurst had stayed in position and put his hands on his head the ref could interpret him as inactive.And if he had walked away from the ball with his back to it that could be interpreted as inactive.Ashurst has been playing long enough to know he was within the ten.So to walk towards the ball was stupid and cost Wakey a try at a crucial stage of the game.

But until Gale kicked the ball, Ashurst wasn't "within the ten", he was simply a dummy runner. As I said earlier, he didn't have time to decide anything, let alone do anything, in the fraction of a second that he was offside and within the ten. No amount of playing experience can give you those sort of reaction times!!

[sentoffagain2]

1 minute ago, north yorks trinity said:

But until Gale kicked the ball, Ashurst wasn't "within the ten", he was simply a dummy runner. As I said earlier, he didn't have time to decide anything, let alone do anything, in the fraction of a second that he was offside and within the ten. No amount of playing experience can give you those sort of reaction times!!

   He had put himself in an offside position so the wisest thing to do would have been to keep on over the dead ball line.He was within the ten so the ref had to make the decision he did.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

This has been discussed at length in the match thread. There is a contradiction in the rules, there is one part that says it is up to the ref's discretion but there is another part that over rules this almost as a catch all by saying anyone inside the 10 is deemed to be interfering.

The decision to disallow the try was correct as soon as it were sent upstairs and to the letter of the law, the problem I have is that in a normal game without a VR the try is given 100% of the time so there is an issue there when you can have two polar opposite results for something that shouldn't be anywhere near that.

Just as a side note on this in the second half one of the teams full backs knocked on and his teammate who was within 10 made a move towards the ball but avoided contact with the ball and because he avoided contact this was just given as a knock on but again the player should have been deemed to be offside as soon as he moved towards the ball. It’s the inconsistancies that cause the outcry and personally I would have no problem with the ref and VR been allowed to use some common sense. There would have been far less of an outcry if the try had been allowed than there has been for it been disallowed because most people can use common sense.

There is no contradiction like all offsides it is down to the refs discretion but the team in possession has to gain an advantage. So as soon as an error is made it forces the refs hand. 

[bobbruce]

28 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

So you appear to be saying that it is an automatic penalty as currently interpreted. Don't you agree that this is at odds with the current laws though?

No 

[bobbruce]

29 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

So you appear to be saying that it is an automatic penalty as currently interpreted. Don't you agree that this is at odds with the current laws though?

Just to add I literally said the opposite that it isn’t an automatic penalty. 

[north yorks trinity]

8 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Just to add I literally said the opposite that it isn’t an automatic penalty. 

But you also literally said that

 

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

you are classed as interfering with play (Which you are). 

so forgive me for putting words into your mouth but I interpreted that as an automatic penalty. Apologies if that isn't what you meant.

[north yorks trinity]

23 minutes ago, sentoffagain2 said:

   He had put himself in an offside position so the wisest thing to do would have been to keep on over the dead ball line.He was within the ten so the ref had to make the decision he did.

Is it sensible to expect every dummy runner near the opposition line to head for the dead ball line, just in case? Come to think of it, might this be a solution, i.e. to write this expectation into the laws or the accompanying notes as it would help guide players' actions and also referees' judgements

[Barley Mow]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

But until Gale kicked the ball, Ashurst wasn't "within the ten", he was simply a dummy runner. As I said earlier, he didn't have time to decide anything, let alone do anything, in the fraction of a second that he was offside and within the ten. No amount of playing experience can give you those sort of reaction times!!

I haven't seen the incident you're discussing, but in general terms:

If a player is a dummy runner, their aim is to make the defence think they're involved in play and thereby attract defenders and leave a gap elsewhere. By doing that they are influencing play, and if off-side shouldn't they therefore be penalised?

Edited August 22, 2023 by Barley Mow

[daz39]

Question, if it was your opponents who had a try ruled out this way would yuo still want the rule changed?

Remember, your team could benefit from it at some point, as it will with all laws of the game at  some point.

 

Move on!!!!

[The Blues Ox]

38 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

There is no contradiction like all offsides it is down to the refs discretion but the team in possession has to gain an advantage. So as soon as an error is made it forces the refs hand. 

From the other thread:-

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.

The above rule leaves it to the ref's interpretation. Chris Kendall I am presuming did not deem the lead runner to be interfering as he sent it upstairs as a try.

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.

The 2nd rule leaves no room for the ref's interpretation and when sent upstairs is a catch all for anyone inside the 10 metres and the try is correctly ruled out using this rule.

[north yorks trinity]

33 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I haven't seen the incident you're discussing, but in general terms:

If a player is a dummy runner, their aim is to make the defence think they're involved in play and thereby attract defenders and leave a gap elsewhere. By doing that they are influencing play, and if off-side shouldn't they therefore be penalised.

But wouldn't that apply to every dummy runner on every occasion, so the minute they went forward of the ball carrier they would always be pinged. Currently I believe the interpretation is to only penalise a dummy runner who obstructs a defender and I'm happy to leave it that way, even accepting that there will inevitably be controversial judgement calls to be made. 

[north yorks trinity]

37 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Question, if it was your opponents who had a try ruled out this way would yuo still want the rule changed?

Remember, your team could benefit from it at some point, as it will with all laws of the game at  some point.

 

Move on!!!!

It's not about that, it's about having laws and interpretations which are consistent with each other and fit for purpose. 

As for moving on, it's a debate, you didn't have to move in!!!!

But happy that you did. 

[Barley Mow]

2 minutes ago, north yorks trinity said:

But wouldn't that apply to every dummy runner on every occasion, so the minute they went forward of the ball carrier they would always be pinged. Currently I believe the interpretation is to only penalise a dummy runner who obstructs a defender and I'm happy to leave it that way, even accepting that there will inevitably be controversial judgement calls to be made. 

I don't think it would be necessary for every off-side dummy runner - The closer the dummy runner is to the ball the more impact their presence has on the defence's setup and therefore on play. If they are within 10m, there is a good chance the defenders will react to them being there. Outside the 10, less of an impact - isn't that why the law exists as it does?

[north yorks trinity]

18 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I don't think it would be necessary for every off-side dummy runner - The closer the dummy runner is to the ball the more impact their presence has on the defence's setup and therefore on play. If they are within 10m, there is a good chance the defenders will react to them being there. Outside the 10, less of an impact - isn't that why the law exists as it does?

I think I get what you are saying and presume you are only referring to the position of the dummy runner after a kick has been put in. (Otherwise, to risk stating the obvious, they will always be within 10m of an opponent once they run past the ball carrier). I also get that proximity to the ball will be a factor but not an absolute one, as each case is different. In this case, given that the dummy runner had already passed the entire defensive line, it seems to be widely accepted that he wasn't having an effect on play. The debate, I think, centres around whether the letter of the law allows the referee to make this judgement and decide whether or not to penalise the player anyway. 

Based on this thread and the previous one, it appears that most don't feel the letter of the law allows the referee this discretion. We're all reading the same words and I'm happy to stand by my, apparently minority, view that the wording does give the referee the necessary discretion.