Marland Yarde Try - Anything dodgy or fair play?

Here it is if you havn't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U8wNPqIdss

Basically, Yarde is offside being treated for cramp. Well not technically offside since he's not actively participating.

The play then heads his direction and he gets up to take a pass and score.

Now, I know that technically he did nothing wrong and only joined in when played onside by his teammates.

My question is this though, defence is a very technical thing these days and so Can you not argue that because he wasn't part of the backline from the ruck, the defending team didn't have a fair chance at arranging their defence.

Simply put, maybe players committed to tackles because they believed there was a one-on-one, two-on-two, only to find that in another five yards, the other team suddenly find themselves with an extra man.

Yarde was out of the game I always thought and still in an offside position when he rejoined the game. I don't know what the laws say on this, but I consider that a player receiving on-field treatment shouldn't rejoin the game whilst in front of the ball carrier.

I wouldn't have been surprised had the try been disallowed as it just 'looked wrong'.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Yarde was out of the game I always thought and still in an offside position when he rejoined the game. I don't know what the laws say on this, but I consider that a player receiving on-field treatment shouldn't rejoin the game whilst in front of the ball carrier.

I wouldn't have been surprised had the try been disallowed as it just 'looked wrong'.

I agree on that. I think I would have blown up for offside, maybe even forward pass.

Crikey, makes me glad I'm not a ref....
 
Anyway my completely unqualified two pence worth is that it is okay.  He's not obstructing or otherwise interfering with play before he is played onside.  I take the argument on the defence not allowing for him - however there was similar debate about the use of dummy runners about 10 years ago, and the preceedent from that seems to be that it is okay to confuse the defence when offside provided you don't physically obstruct them.  In this case I also think that there is a flip side to the argument in that Saracens had an extra man in defence before Yarde got back up.  So you could argue that they had an advantage defensively while Yarde was down and should have used that to stop Irish making the initial half break.
 
It's a tough call though and I'm interested to see what the general view is.

Point noted on the pass. The pass to Yarde looked fine to me, but the one before that definitely looks forward.

Great call about the possible forward pass. But even allowing for the (imo fatuous) momentum rule, the 10m line is there to make an objective decision.

But on the vid I couldn't give any subjective view on the 'shape of his hands' in the pass  .

I would say it was dodgy - Yarde was down with cramp he shouldn't be doing that.

When he saw he could score a try he jumped up and didn't seem to have any cramp anymore.

It hasn't been much of a talking point because it didn't affect the result. If that happened in a bigger match and crucial time.....

Doesn't bother me too much though as long as it doesn't lead to more of the same in other matches.

I think I'd agree with Big - I struggle to find an infringement if he didn't participate in play until he was played onside

so you think he was just down for cramp for the sake of it?!

PS in terms of confusing the defence I think the ref did a better job of that at one point by signalling a penalty for LI and then changing his mind and allowing Sarries to play on instead

stnick88 wrote:so you think he was just down for cramp for the sake of it?!

Well he did seem to brush it off when convenient. When racing away for his try there didn't seem to be affected did he?

he went off injured afterwards.

dont see why someone would just pretend to be injured. the ball was over the other side of the pitch. if it was all a planned move then thats pretty inventive!

Not saying it was a planned move. I am saying it was unsportsmanlike and opportunistic.

One Definition of opportunistic -

"Exploiting chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to moral principle."

He went from "injured" to not injured before racing away for a try.


Look I know you want to back your man. That's fair enough but what he didn't wasn't right in my opinion.

I think that he gets up he is offside. He is ahead for a second or so. It isn't as though they go past him and then he gets up.

Though no one seems upset but saying that if it was tigers sarries it might have been different.

Not sure about that Brendan I think the lack of discussion and controversy is because it was irrelevant to the result, it doesn't affect bonus points or the table in any way.

If it was the winning try for London Irish......

Not for example like the Saints-Gloucester game which has attracted a lot of attention for the final moments of that match. That result could be crucial for both teams.

beshocked wrote:Not sure about that Brendan I think the lack of discussion and controversy is because it was irrelevant to the result, it doesn't affect bonus points or the table in any way.

If it was the winning try for London Irish......

Not for example like the Saints-Gloucester game which has attracted a lot of attention for the final moments of that match. That result could be crucial for both teams.

I agree with you. I want to know how it wasn't called for offside as he clearly is running ahead of the ball and as result should have been blown up. Suprised the comentators don't really mention anything.

It has attracted no attention as it did not contravene any laws of the game.

Opportunistic - Yes
Unsporting - Possibly
Illegal - No

Move on people, nothing to see here.

Brendan wrote:
I agree with you.  I want to know how it wasn't called for offside as he clearly is running ahead of the ball and as result should have been blown up.  Suprised the comentators don't really mention anything.

Simply running ahead off the ball is not, of itself, offside.

At the ruck before the ball swings right, he is being treated in an offside position, but is not offside as not participating in play. When he stands up it is open play. In open play you cannot be offside unless the ball is played forward - ie by kicking or passing forward.

I really am not sure that the offside law was breached at all -- but it does look wrong

Ozzy3123 if people want to continue talking about it they are welcome to surely? Some people actually think it was illegal.

It's more like

Opportunistic - Yes
Unsporting - Yes
Illegal - Debatable

LondonTiger wrote:

Brendan wrote:
I agree with you.  I want to know how it wasn't called for offside as he clearly is running ahead of the ball and as result should have been blown up.  Suprised the comentators don't really mention anything.

Simply running ahead off the ball is not, of itself, offside.

At the ruck before the ball swings right, he is being treated in an offside position, but is not offside as not participating in play. When he stands up it is open play. In open play you cannot be offside unless the ball is played forward - ie by kicking or passing forward.

I really am not sure that the offside law was breached at all -- but it does look wrong

Well in that case its fine. It does bring up the problem of players on the pitch. I think for cuts and cramp they should have to make an effort to get off the pitch. Its removes problems and posdible extra injury as the play surrounds them.

Ozzy3213 wrote:It has attracted no attention as it did not contravene any laws of the game.

Opportunistic - Yes
Unsporting - Possibly
Illegal - No

Move on people,  nothing to see here.

I don't know, Oz. It's quite entertaining. Like old dogs learning new tricks whilst pawing over cold cases.

Brendan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Brendan wrote:
I agree with you.  I want to know how it wasn't called for offside as he clearly is running ahead of the ball and as result should have been blown up.  Suprised the comentators don't really mention anything.

Simply running ahead off the ball is not, of itself, offside.

At the ruck before the ball swings right, he is being treated in an offside position, but is not offside as not participating in play. When he stands up it is open play. In open play you cannot be offside unless the ball is played forward - ie by kicking or passing forward.

I really am not sure that the offside law was breached at all -- but it does look wrong

Well in that case its fine.  It does bring up the problem of players on the pitch.  I think for cuts and cramp they should have to make an effort to get off the pitch.  Its removes problems and posdible extra injury as the play surrounds them.

It still wouldn't have stopped this incident happening, Yarde would have just popped up on the wing instead.

If running in front of the ball was offside then dummy running would result in a lot of penalties ...

So basically it looks wrong so it must be wrong.
Yarde may have been simulating cramp, although given that there was no guarantee that play would come back to him seems a bit of a risky strategy as for most of the game Saracens were dominant.
He may have got over the cramp by the time play came back to him, sometimes cramp sort of frees itself.
Or he may have decided that regardless of the cramp play was coming back so he'd better get up and join in.

Irish Londoner wrote:So basically it looks wrong so it must be wrong.
Yarde may have been simulating cramp, although given that there was no guarantee that play would come back to him seems a bit of a risky strategy as for most of the game Saracens were dominant.
He may have got over the cramp by the time play came back to him, sometimes cramp sort of frees itself.
Or he may have decided that regardless of the cramp play was coming back so he'd better get up and join in.

I think it's more of a question about is it technically legal to get up from an injury and not retreat behind the ball carrier before joining in play. Like I said in my first post it looked like a forward pass to me, as Yarde seemed to be infront of the carrier when the ball was passed. If that was the case, and I am not 100% it was not just a camera angle trick, then the question is whether Yarde was then technically offside or not.

I don't think anyone is really saying that it was a cunning peice of Dean Richards style underhanded tactics.

Spiderman - then the issue is about the forward pass, was the try sent to the TMO?

Irish Londoner wrote:Spiderman - then the issue is about the forward pass, was the try sent to the TMO?

Ain't got a clue, I've only seen the clip at the top of the thread, which is why I am not sure if it was a camera angle trick or not. If it did go to the video ref though, wouldn't they have had the power to decide if it was offside or not too?

beshocked wrote:Not saying it was a planned move. I am saying it was unsportsmanlike and opportunistic.

One Definition of opportunistic -

"Exploiting chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to moral principle."

He went from "injured" to not injured before racing away for a try.

And then went back to injured after scoring... I strongly suspect he ran despite it being seriously painful to do so. Shows good commitment if you ask me - though given that it didn't effect the outcome of the game and could have aggravated the injury he may regret doing it now.

It's definitely opportunistic, but rugby is a game of opportunism. Who doesn't take advantage when they benefit from an odd bounce of the ball, someone slipping over, or even someone going down injured. If Sarries had turned over the ball and had an opportunity to score would they have held back as it would be "unsporting" to score while Irish were a man down?? I seriously doubt it, and on the same basis I don't think it's unreasonable for him to take advantage if he's in a position to score when he gets up. I do think there's fair complaint over a forward pass, but with respect to Yarde's actions the more I think about it the more I think it was perfectly reasonable for him to get up and go for it.

Big You are either injured or not. Yarde didn't seem to look at all injured when scoring the try.

This is different to most situations because this was a player who was allegedly injured popping up to a score a try when the defence wasn't set to deal with him.

The only good thing is it didn't affect the game. If he aggravated the "injury" the action it would have been poetic justice.

I don't particularly like it when tries are scored when players are injured on the pitch. Sure it happens but it's not something that should be celebrated as you seem to think. No it's not same to the bounce of a ball or someone slipping over.

Next time there is something that goes against your team I'll remind you of this....

Injuries vary in duration and level of debilitation surely ... cramp is a temporary condition and something it's not unreasonable to think a player could ignore enough to run 20 yards ... frankly I find the idea that he was faking it just on the off-chance that play would come in his direction a bit odd

Heaf didn't say it was planned. It was still opportunistic and wrong thing to do in my opinion.

Just because something isn't planned before hand doesn't make it right.

If a player is on the pitch, being treated or not, he's allowed to rejoin play though surely? Only thing you could really do is carry the player off for treatment and ask to rejoin like football.

Well. I've trawled the laws for references of terms like
medical attention
inured
injury
out of play
spirit (of the game)
rejoin
etc.

I can't find anything that satisfactory covers the specific point of 'inured players receiving attention' (sanctioned) and his 'rejoining the game'.

So to my mind Yarde's try was fair and good even if to me it still looks wrong.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If a player is on the pitch, being treated or not, he's allowed to rejoin play though surely? Only thing you could really do is carry the player off for treatment and ask to rejoin like football.

Injured players with the ref's permission, 7½

No 7&1/2 wrote:If a player is on the pitch, being treated or not, he's allowed to rejoin play though surely? Only thing you could really do is carry the player off for treatment and ask to rejoin like football.

In theory yes but in my opinion not the way Yarde did.

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If a player is on the pitch, being treated or not, he's allowed to rejoin play though surely? Only thing you could really do is carry the player off for treatment and ask to rejoin like football.

In theory yes but in my opinion not the way Yarde did.

Not so
[quote="IRB laws"
A player who leaves a match because of injury or any other reason must not rejoin the match until the referee permits the player to return. The referee must not let a player rejoin a match until the ball is dead.
[/quote]If the injured player is treated off it.*
Does that mean the hooker or other thrower in is out of the game?

Ah. I misinterpreted that. You meant treated on-field.  

Does leaving the match mean going off the pitch tho Portnoy? I would assume it refers to blood bins and concussion checks.

Personally don't think there's much wrong with what Yarde did. It obviously wasn't planned and like you say he risked aggravating it so it's a risk.

I'd agree. It would take a lot of balls to plan it and take a huge gamble.

I'd hate to see it happen in a major final though. Just imagine the debate between Biltong and  

no 7 and 1/2 not sure how it being planned or not makes a jot of difference.

E.g. I don't think Nick Wood planned stamping on Jacques Burger's head but he did it.

I'm still struggling with what the big issue is to be honest ... I don't think it was illegal (or deliberate) and conversely I doubt there is a single team that hasn't scored a try at some point after a deliberate illegal act eg hands in the ruck turning a ball over, grounding a ball short of the line and rolling it over illegally

There's no issue for me. It's just interesting to see an incident so exposed to open view and to be able to compare and contrast the hues of grey.

Heaf your justification is that because other sides have done it makes it fine?

Of course it was deliberate -he got up when "injured" and scored a try. It's obvious he knew what he was doing.

Jeez, 'shocked. Are you seriously suggesting that if the coin was flipped you wouldn't have taken it and argued the toss?

All I ever seem to read is Sarries right or wrong from a fundamentally extremely intelligent and knowledgeable poster.

If the coin was flipped I still wouldn't think it was right. Of course I can't prove that but it's what I think.

Plus if someone like Ashton did this imagine the uproar.....

It was golden boy Marland Yarde - he can do no wrong of course.....

Anyway it's just my opinion on the subject - I don't think Yarde should have done it.

No I'm saying getting up if you are able and not contravening any laws is fine - which is what he did ....

The other examples I mentioned are not fine at all ...

That's why I'm struggling with why there is so much attention on an act that I believe was OK in the first place. It seems to me he was genuinely receiving treatment but was not that badly injured that he wasn't able to get up and take part in play - if he wasn't acting illegally why shouldn't he be able to?

What about players getting up from being treated and joining the defensive line - it that also wrong as it closes a gap the attacking team may have thought was there?

Heaf

Look we are never going to agree. You want to heap praise on your boy. That's fine. Let's just agree to disagree.

I can't be bothered arguing. You obviously cannot see what is wrong with what Yarde did.

beshocked wrote:Ozzy3123 if people want to continue talking about it they are welcome to surely? Some people actually think it was illegal.

It's more like

Opportunistic - Yes
Unsporting - Yes
Illegal - Debatable

Not debatable at all. The laws are clear and what Yarde did does not infringe them, therefore not debatable whether it was illegal or not.

I understand that your narked that somebody had the audacity to be opportunistic against your team fella, but you really ought not let it spoil your day as it appears to be.

BS - yes I think we will have to agree to disagree as you obviously can't see he did nothing wrong  

Heaf I already explained it to you but obviously you are finding it far too difficult to understand.

Ozzy well it is debatable hence we are still talking about it. Was there a forward pass for example?

I know you want to act all high and mighty but get off your high horse.

This dodgy try (in my opinion) didn't make much difference to the result.

Does this incident make me a lose a bit of respect for London Irish and Marland Yarde? Yes.

Look I understand Marland Yarde is a London Irish player and you believe he can do no wrong. That's fair enough I suppose but not very balanced.

beshocked wrote:If the coin was flipped I still wouldn't think it was right. Of course I can't prove that but it's what I think.

Plus if someone like Ashton did this imagine the uproar.....

It was golden boy Marland Yarde - he can do no wrong of course.....

Anyway it's just my opinion on the subject - I don't think Yarde should have done it.

In a sporting sense, Yarde's case is debatable.
Under the laws, he doesn't appear to have violated any.

My opinion it looked 'wrong' and possibly the law needs clarifying for players needing on-field treatment and when they rejoin play.