Was Alberts offside for the try?

Not trying to moan here, but just wanted a clarification. The South African try came after Youngs hacked the ball into Pietersen. It rebounded off him and when Wood fumbled it Alberts picked up and scored. The camera angle isn't clear, but it looks like Alberts was ahead of Pietersen when the ball rebounded. If so, does anyone know if that counts as offside, or does that not apply for charge downs/deflections like that?

No it was a fair try...

Why doesn't offside count in this case then?

I don't think it was mate....I was shouting at the screen...but on the.highlights it was a try...

yes but what do you mean 'I don't think it was'? That he wasn't ahead of the ball? That Wood touching it plays everyone onside? That offside doesn't count for charge downs? That's what I'm asking.

The kick bounced off a saffer...Morgan got.his.hands on it but.couldn't catch it so played everyone.onside. Try.

But why does an English player touching it play everyone onside? That's not true when a player catches a high ball and the chaser is offside.

Again - I'm not asking this to moan. I've calmed down about the result already but watching this I genuinely couldn't think of a consistent reason why this wouldn't be offside.

Alberts was in front of the man that blocked Youngs hack - thus he was inb an offside position.

I am not sure looking at the laws - with how close he was to wood, how Wood knocking on can suddenley make him onside.

Here go:

IRB rule 11.3 (c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Combined with:
IRB rule 11.4 (f) The 10-metre offside Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball.

So, I think that all means Alberts was doubly not offside!

Ok maybe I'm just a little grumpy that we lost again...

That was a crucial moment...but I don't want it to the reason we lost. We had some good.moments but some very bad stuff aswell. Frustrating is.the word.

We just need to keep going. Next week will be tough and I expect a big.defeat...but things are falling.into place.....albeit slowly

Mr Fishpaste

Fair enough - thanks for that. The second part actually refers to players on the kickers team though.

thomh wrote:Mr Fishpaste

Fair enough - thanks for that. The second part actually refers to players on the kickers team though.

Ah yes, shows how well I can read....

That doesn't sound right to me. Law 11.3 doesnt apply when the 10m rule applies. Alberts must have been within 10m of Morgan when the ball came off Pietersen so he should have retired. He ddn't so was offside. Not a try in my book, unless for some reason the rebound off Pietersen is not considered a kick (which I dont think is the case).

You're right actually. Hadn't read it closely enough before. NO TRY.

I was watching it on a stream which died for all the replays and analysis, but from seeing it live, i thought the SA knocked it on, then it got hacked on but charged down. Surely thats advantage over, england scrum?

There was no knock on, Steenkamp drop the ball even before he was tackled, the ball clearly went backwards, Pietersen kicked it forward and it was touched by an england player (similar to a chargedown, firngertip stuff) which put Alberts on side.

The TMO had three looks at it, and saw nothing wrong.

Fair enough biltong, guess the quality in my stream wasn't there, thought an england player kicked it on afterwards but it was blocked and fell to Alberts.

Ridiculous piece of luck for england though, but then again it meant that you guys just sat back and kicked the ball to us the rest of the game.

I agree the try was fortuitous, but then we deserved a bit of luck this year.

Biltong wrote:There was no knock on, Steenkamp drop the ball even before he was tackled, the ball clearly went backwards, Pietersen kicked it forward and it was touched by an england player (similar to a chargedown, firngertip stuff) which put Alberts on side.

The TMO had three looks at it, and saw nothing wrong.

As discussed above, though, why does an England player getting a hand to it (a fumble, not a charge down - and pietersen didn't kick it, it rebounded off him) affect Alberts' offside status?

The way I understand it was Alberts was played on side by the English player who touched the ball.

At the time of the try I immediately thought it was a try, based on that understanding.

The TMO agreed.

Wasn't the TMO just asked "Try yes or no?"

No indication that he was looking for offsides - that's usually just the grounding of the ball.

However in the preceding phase Pietersen WAS offside after an England kick rebounded off another SA player that he was in front of and he carried on running forwards and got involved in the breakdown. Plus the scrum before that from the restart should not have been given as an English knock on as the ball came off the player's chest.

I actually didn't think Pietersen was ahead of the ball there, even taking the rebound into account.

The player nearest wasn't but I'm pretty sure Pietersen was ...

It was very borderline for the previous one...no way it would ever have been called even if he were

Biltong, you are not applying the 10m rule. If Albert was within 10m of Morgan (which he clearly was) then Morgan can not play him onside by playing the ball, whatever he does with it. The only question is whether Peitersen actually 'kicked' the ball within the definition of the kick. I thought he did at the time but i haven't been able to see a replay to check it out. If he did, NO TRY. If he didn't then the TMO got it right.

Cancel that. Have now seen replay and looks like ball came off Petersen above knee, so no kick, so no offside. It was a try!

Fair enough.

Bit late I know but it seems to me according to the laws that as soon as the ball touched Pietersen everyone in front of him was in an offside position and should have attempted to retire 10 yards. Any move forwards when in an offside position is a penalty offence.

Heaf wrote:Bit late I know but it seems to me according to the laws that as soon as the ball touched Pietersen everyone in front of him was in an offside position and should have attempted to retire 10 yards. Any move forwards when in an offside position is a penalty offence.

Law 11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.



He didnt kick the ball, it hit him above the knee and it bounced off, following a deliberate action by Wood which had played them all onside.



Law 11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.



No penalty

But by 11.1 (a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

Even in a charge down he was in an offside position and he did move towards the ball. So he should have been offside, probably....maybe.

Do you know some people consider Rugby to be complicated!

Alberts is so big he was Similtaniously offside and onside at the same time....

Good point...he wouldve been offside very briefly before being played onside by Wood.

So far as I can see the debate is a bit pointless under the current TMO rules he can only assess on the grounding.

What happened in the freakish bagatelle second or two before then was neither here nor there.
However had the incident occurred in a Jeff game the protocol would have been different - and an enormous test of any ref's rugby knowledge - partly because it's impossible to codify every infinite circumstance that can possibly occur.

As it happens (to my mind) the better team won. And ultimately isn't that what we all want?

Aside form the better team ( on the day) thing quite agree

If anyone still needs clarification I asked my mate Doug if it was offside & he said "nope".

Good enough for me, if Doug says so then it's FACT.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But by 11.1 (a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

Even in a charge down he was in an offside position and he did move towards the ball. So he should have been offside, probably....maybe.

Do you know some people consider Rugby to be complicated!

Precisely my point thanks.

Doesn't matter now of course but as you say shows how complicated it can be.

You're all missing the point. Offside shmoffside - that try was so damn lucky lucky lucky.

You tell 'em Effervescing Elephant, that's the way to clear up spats. FACT.

Just re-watched it on YouTube.

In addition to no 7&1/2's quote of section 11.1, the general definition of offside includes:
"In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."

Now, while there is an exemption to the knock-on Law for charge downs, there does not appear to be anything in the Law for off-side following a charge down (which I think is the best decription for Pietersen's act in this case, although it was more an inadvertant block than an intentional charge down).

As such (as long as you consider what Pietersen did as 'played the ball' - I know in RL this would not count as an intentional attempt to play the ball and so would not reset the tackle count, but I don't think that difference is identified within the Laws of RU, so the ball is played whether intentionally or not), Alberts was in an offside position from the ball striking Pietersen until mis-handled by the England player (Wood?) on the goal line. During this time he moved forward by a step or two, so technically contravened the second of the three bullet points in 11.1.

Not at all surprised that it wasn't given as offside, given the chaotic nature of the passage of play, but my understanding of the Laws is that Alberts should have been penalised.

Oh, and of course the TMO is not supposed to make a judgement on this anyway, only to rule whether the ball was touched down correctly (which it clearly was).

Anyway, rugby isn't complicated - simply every time a marginal decision goes against you the ref was clearly and utterly wrong, and every time he misses something that works in your favour it's the only time you've ever had a lucky decision

And that's a FACT* (maybe).

* Is inclusion of 'FACT' in any post second only to Godwin's Law in showing that you have lost the argument?

That's just the kind of thing the Nazis would have said. FACT.

Godwin'd the thread

Galted wrote:That's just the kind of thing the Nazis would have said. FACT.

Best post ever. 1000 Internets to you Sir.

You are far too kind. I shall use my internets for flashing messages congratulating people on being the millionth visitor.