Our 'non-try'

[Sourdust]

I think I'm shaky on the laws here.

Firstly, Davies is clearly offside when the ball is kicked.

BUT Roberts, not Davies, plays the ball. He plays it backwards with hands, onto the shoulders of the Scottish jumper, from whom it rebounds backwards (relative to Scotland) - thus no knock-on has taken place, but a Scottish player touched the ball last. At this point both jumpers have moved to a position in-line with Davies. As it's come off an opponent, in open play, how is Davies offside there (which is what all studio pundits seem to claim)? And as Davies didn't originally "interfere" from his offside position, wasn't he put onside by the advancing Roberts? Or is merely being in front of the kicker sufficient for a penalty, even though he was passive?

I don't follow this logic. Roberts wasn't the kicker was he? Why would Roberts' involvement put Davies, who never really retreated, onside? Equally, why does Duncan Taylor touching the ball put Davies onside either? That would be an awfully strange hole in the laws. If you're offside from a kick and clatter the defender when they catch it, you're still offside. Maybe i've misunderstood you.

No, I don't think so. As (I think) I acknowledged later after a re-watch, Davies was offside (and interfering) from the kick, so that's that. Penalty to Scotland. My confusion was that the TV pundits didn't seem to be talking about that, but about him being offside from the Roberts / Taylor play. Which (a) is irrelevant, because the play should not have been valid, due to the penalty, and (b) he clearly wasn't, anyway.

[UKHamlet]

I think I'm shaky on the laws here.

Firstly, Davies is clearly offside when the ball is kicked.

BUT Roberts, not Davies, plays the ball. He plays it backwards with hands, onto the shoulders of the Scottish jumper, from whom it rebounds backwards (relative to Scotland) - thus no knock-on has taken place, but a Scottish player touched the ball last. At this point both jumpers have moved to a position in-line with Davies. As it's come off an opponent, in open play, how is Davies offside there (which is what all studio pundits seem to claim)? And as Davies didn't originally "interfere" from his offside position, wasn't he put onside by the advancing Roberts? Or is merely being in front of the kicker sufficient for a penalty, even though he was passive?

I don't follow this logic. Roberts wasn't the kicker was he? Why would Roberts' involvement put Davies, who never really retreated, onside? Equally, why does Duncan Taylor touching the ball put Davies onside either? That would be an awfully strange hole in the laws. If you're offside from a kick and clatter the defender when they catch it, you're still offside. Maybe i've misunderstood you.

No, I don't think so. As (I think) I acknowledged later after a re-watch, Davies was offside (and interfering) from the kick, so that's that. Penalty to Scotland. My confusion was that the TV pundits didn't seem to be talking about that, but about him being offside from the Roberts / Taylor play. Which (a) is irrelevant, because the play should not have been valid, due to the penalty, and (b) he clearly wasn't, anyway.

He would only be offside if he hadn't made any effort to retreat and played the ball immediately from the kick. If an opposition player subsequently plays the ball, then he is played onside as a consequence. I don't see any offence, but whether I did or didn't is immaterial, because the ref, assistants and TMO didn't.

[hawkaye]

This interpretation is right.
Davies was offside at the moment of the kick ahead - this is not an offence. He was put on side by JD who travelled beyond Roberts and Taylor (and the ball)

“Action by the kicker or other onside player. When the kicker, or team-mate who was level with or behind the kicker when (or after) the ball was kicked, runs in front of the offside player, the player is put onside.”
The location of the ball is irrelevant here.

The only question then is whether Davies travelled forward towards the ball before being put onside. He tracked forward and across the field like every back row forward does from an offside position and who are never penalised for doing so.

[Mikey Brown]

That makes sense in those terms. It didn't seem there could be any way he was inside watching it at the time, because he doesn't seem to make any effort to get onside at any point, but as I say that didn't decide the game anyway.

[Sandydragon]

Im not convinced that the offside was spotted by the match officials anyway. So it was less a case of certain rules being ignored and more that the ref didn't notice it and didn't ask the video ref to check.

Id personally review the offside rule where players are deemed to be offside following a kick. You could penalize every eventuality but frankly thats going to ruin the game. Id rather give the benefit of the doubt and only penalize when a player is offside and is attempting to influence the game.

[Son of Mathonwy]

This interpretation is right.
Davies was offside at the moment of the kick ahead - this is not an offence. He was put on side by JD who travelled beyond Roberts and Taylor (and the ball)

“Action by the kicker or other onside player. When the kicker, or team-mate who was level with or behind the kicker when (or after) the ball was kicked, runs in front of the offside player, the player is put onside.”
The location of the ball is irrelevant here.

The only question then is whether Davies travelled forward towards the ball before being put onside. He tracked forward and across the field like every back row forward does from an offside position and who are never penalised for doing so.

He was in an offside position (as were many other players) at the moment of the kick (and this is not an offence). However, he immediately moved forwards, towards the ball - and this is what makes him "liable to sanction". Nothing that happens after this point matters - he can get back onside, but he can't undo his offence.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Im not convinced that the offside was spotted by the match officials anyway. So it was less a case of certain rules being ignored and more that the ref didn't notice it and didn't ask the video ref to check.

Id personally review the offside rule where players are deemed to be offside following a kick. You could penalize every eventuality but frankly thats going to ruin the game. Id rather give the benefit of the doubt and only penalize when a player is offside and is attempting to influence the game.

I wish the referees would give us their rulebook - the one which lists the laws they actually apply, and those they don't. And the extra rules they use to decide whether they will use a certain law or not.

Re Garces and the Francis penalty, I'd like to know if he gave the penalty 1) just because Francis moved forward (albeit marginally before being put onside), or 2) because he moved forward AND THEN later caught the ball.

I do get the impression that refs only really pay attention to offsides if a player actually interferes with the game (and usually quite blatantly - merely blocking another player off the ball is not enough). It would be nice if the laws could be altered to reflect what is actually being applied.

I actually don't agree that it would necessarily ruin the game to penalise every player moving forward while offside - it would just mean that players would do it a lot less.

[hawkaye]

SoM,
Davies tracks sidewards and forwards from an offside position. It makes him liable to sanction but liability is not certainty. He does not have to be sanctioned and given that JD had put him on side and the ball appears to have be tapped back by Roberts off the hand of an opposition player it is unsurprising officials did not apply a sanction. From set pieces most back row forwards track forward and across the field towards the ball from an offside position when it is kicked upfield. I cannot recall one being sanctioned.

[Son of Mathonwy]

SoM,
Davies tracks sidewards and forwards from an offside position. It makes him liable to sanction but liability is not certainty. He does not have to be sanctioned and given that JD had put him on side and the ball appears to have be tapped back by Roberts off the hand of an opposition player it is unsurprising officials did not apply a sanction. From set pieces most back row forwards track forward and across the field towards the ball from an offside position when it is kicked upfield. I cannot recall one being sanctioned.

liable: adjective
1. responsible by law; legally answerable.
"the credit-card company is liable for any breach of contract"
synonyms: responsible, legally responsible, accountable, answerable, chargeable, blameworthy, at fault, culpable, subject, guilty, faulty, censurable
"he held the defendants liable for negligence"
antonyms: exempt, unaccountable
subject by law to.
"non-resident trustees are liable to the basic rate of tax"
2. likely to do or to be something.
"patients were liable to faint if they stood up too suddenly"
synonyms: likely, inclined, tending, disposed, apt, predisposed, prone, given; informalon the cards
"my income is liable to fluctuate wildly"

This is a law - here the word "liable" here takes the legal meaning, ie 1. above: ie guilty, culpable etc. so it doesn't mean "at the whim of the ref". He does have to be sanctioned if the ref is following the laws. Otherwise what are we saying, any law (and this isn't the only one) which says "liable" can be applied at the whim of the ref?

What happened re picking up the ball tapped back by Roberts is actually irrelevant, although I'm still surprised no one picked up on the fact that Davies would not have been in a position to catch the ball if he hadn't gone forwards after the kick in the first place.

As for how much this gets picked up in reality, I agree there's a lot which gets missed or ignored. But ignoring this means the ref is ignoring the law.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Id personally review the offside rule where players are deemed to be offside following a kick. You could penalize every eventuality but frankly thats going to ruin the game. Id rather give the benefit of the doubt and only penalize when a player is offside and is attempting to influence the game.

and you'd find every team sitting back and kicking.

As for attempting to influence the game, if someone is on a rugby pitch and isn't trying to influenece the game then somethings gone very wrong.

[Sandydragon]

Id personally review the offside rule where players are deemed to be offside following a kick. You could penalize every eventuality but frankly thats going to ruin the game. Id rather give the benefit of the doubt and only penalize when a player is offside and is attempting to influence the game.

and you'd find every team sitting back and kicking.

As for attempting to influence the game, if someone is on a rugby pitch and isn't trying to influenece the game then somethings gone very wrong.

I disagree. If defenders aren't getting back into the line quick enough then it may encourage an attacker to run. Equally, in the Francis scenario, where the offside player isn't interfering with play, it shouldn't be an automatic penalty.