Gareth Davies try was correct decision

by PotNoodleMiner Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:18 am

First topic message reminder :

Hi just something thats been annoying me a little since the game yesterday was how many people thought davies was offside, they have either not taken the time look at the replay close enough or dont understand the offside law

If you go to bbc iplayer and watch the 6 nations forum, fast forward to 12.50 and you can see initially davies is in an offside position but then when roberts plays the ball back, roberts then moves forward and davies moves slightly back into an onside position as roberts is infront of him before he plays the ball

by No 7&1/2 Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:01 pm

Nothing to do with nationality (suspect the op isn't Welsh) but theres no real argument on the try being legal.

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:03 pm

It was a good decision.

by Heaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:05 pm

There you go again with your persecution complex ... last week I commented on bad calls costing the Italians versus the French - but I didn't get anyone claiming it was anti-French.

It's perfectly possible to discuss officiating errors without being anti-whichever country it applies to ...

by Heaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:09 pm

Seagultaf wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Wow this thread really blew up. Anyway the rules are perfectly clear..

Just a couple of highlights:

(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.
(a)
The offside player must retire behind the imaginary 10-metre line across the field, otherwise the player is liable to be penalised.
(b)
While retiring, the player can be put onside before moving behind the imaginary 10-metre line by any of the three actions of the player’s team listed above in 11.2. However, the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.
By not immediately retreating behind the 10m line he should've been pinged. Roberts running ahead of him would only have played him onside if it happened while he was in the act of retiring which is obviously not the case. Even if he was stood still it should've been a penalty, the fact that he ran forward and towards the ball just made it a shocking decision.

I think you have just demonstrated how complex the Laws are, after a dozen slow motion replays and forensic examination if the Laws I think that Davies was probably offside, well maybe anyway but I Would hardly call it a shocking decision............I suspect a few Scots might though?

Not being funny segultaf but for anyone that knows the laws (and you have to assume the TMO and ref should) it was a pretty easy spot - I managed to spot it during play (as he was well ahead of the ball) before it was even mentioned in the half-time review and I'm not a trained professional ...

by No 7&1/2 Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:11 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:It was a good decision.

I'm not sure I understand this? It wasn't a correct decision by the laws. It doesn't diminish the win to acknowledge that but it does show your ignorance or bias.

by Guest Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:21 pm

Seagultaf wrote:
I think you have just demonstrated how complex the Laws are, after a dozen slow motion replays and forensic examination if the Laws I think that Davies was probably offside, well maybe anyway but I Would hardly call it a shocking decision............I suspect a few Scots might though?

Maybe Seagul, but I just can't see any complexity here. The reason I'm so interested in this discussion is that I genuinely cannot see any ambiguity about the legality of the try whatsoever. If anything the rules become a bit boring in their repetitiveness just how often they make the exact same point about not moving towards the ball.

Had he been stood still it would've still technically been a penalty, but I wouldn't have described it as a shocking decision or anything like that. The reason it becomes one, for me, is that he is so clearly running forward towards the ball and is only in the position to get it because of that.

Edit: Just for the benefit of MD, I think even without this try Wales would've won, and I can't recall anyone else saying otherwise.

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:35 pm

Yeah it was a good decision in other words wasn't it fuzzy.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Feb 14, 2016 5:38 pm

I'm just going with intentional bias/wum mikey.

by Seagultaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:06 pm

Heaf wrote:
Seagultaf wrote:
Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Wow this thread really blew up. Anyway the rules are perfectly clear..

Just a couple of highlights:

(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.
(a)
The offside player must retire behind the imaginary 10-metre line across the field, otherwise the player is liable to be penalised.
(b)
While retiring, the player can be put onside before moving behind the imaginary 10-metre line by any of the three actions of the player’s team listed above in 11.2. However, the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.
By not immediately retreating behind the 10m line he should've been pinged. Roberts running ahead of him would only have played him onside if it happened while he was in the act of retiring which is obviously not the case. Even if he was stood still it should've been a penalty, the fact that he ran forward and towards the ball just made it a shocking decision.

I think you have just demonstrated how complex the Laws are, after a dozen slow motion replays and forensic examination if the Laws I think that Davies was probably offside, well maybe anyway but I Would hardly call it a shocking decision............I suspect a few Scots might though?
Not being funny segultaf but for anyone that knows the laws (and you have to assume the TMO and ref should) it was a pretty easy spot - I managed to spot it during play (as he was well ahead of the ball) before it was even mentioned in the half-time review and I'm not a trained professional ...

Actually I don't think that the officials actually know the Laws of the game, certainly not all of them all of the time. This is why we see so many curious descisions even from the video ref (with the obvious benefit of slow motion replay) and even the citing commissions who not only have video evidence but also the opportunity to consult the written Laws of the game.

This was a typical example the ref asked the video ref to look to see if there was a knock on which he did. It's my understanding that he then could not comment on any other possible technical offences as he had not been asked to. Gareth Davies did what all scrum halfs do he followed the ball towards the next potential breakdown, I suspect that if you look at any kick by a outside half you will see the scrum half do the same, have you ever seen a ref blow up for this?

by Heaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:27 pm

Well I agree it certainly seems sometimes they don't know the laws but it would be worrying if that is actually the case as that's their job - although for sure it seems sometimes the players don't, which I also feel is odd given they do this for a living.

I've seen plenty of penalties given for advancing when offside in front of the kicker or not retreating to outside of 10m - this is just the same - I think the problem was they looked to see if Roberts had come from behind the kicker as he was the one that got to the ball first but missed Davies who was a long way in front but off to the side.

by Seagultaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 6:56 pm

I still think the problem is that the Laws are too complex, which is why the refs consistently get it wrong.

I have just finished watching Munster v Ospreys and every time the 10 kicked the 9 started running upfield immediately despite being ahead of the kicker, not surprisingly this wasn't penalised once.

by Heaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:08 pm

I agree there is too much open to 'interpretation' ....

Pro12 reffing must be pretty lax then if they constantly get away with that as it's a clear penalty - unless it's a question of degree e.g. if the kick is long and the 9 is not far in front and quickly run onside by another player they might let it go even though it's still an offence - otherwise that's pretty shoddy officiating ...

by Gwlad Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:19 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:Hammer, that's a fair and accurate comment aimed at English posters on here. What is anti-English about it? To be anti-English I would have to wake up every morning with a hatred for England in my heart, right? I lived in England for a few years and still have many friends there. To call someone who points out the blatantly obvious anti-English is just childish and unnecessary.

What you are failing to realize Mikey is that being welsh and making a comment about England that is not entirely complimentary and is a critical observation is , by definition, anti English and any reasoning to the contrary is reductio ad absurdum. thumbsup

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:24 pm

Gwlad wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Hammer, that's a fair and accurate comment aimed at English posters on here. What is anti-English about it? To be anti-English I would have to wake up every morning with a hatred for England in my heart, right? I lived in England for a few years and still have many friends there. To call someone who points out the blatantly obvious anti-English is just childish and unnecessary.

What you are failing to realize Mikey is that being welsh and making a comment about England that is not entirely complimentary and is a critical observation is , by definition, anti English and any reasoning to the contrary is reductio ad absurdum.

Yeah I have noticed.

Anyway, I've just watched the highlights on Scrum V and in that brief reel alone there were a couple of offsides by Scotland not picked upon. Also I could clearly see Gareth Davies making an effort to retreat when Biggar had kicked the ball, and by the time Roberts was competing for the ball with the Scottish player who might have touched it, he began to advance - therefore it was a good try. As I've said all along these sort of 'offsides' are common place in rugby anyway, so it has always been a non-issue. France next up, I just hope we can bribe the referee like we bribe all others.

by Gwlad Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:25 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing to do with nationality (suspect the op isn't Welsh) but theres no real argument on the try being legal.

Wrong again. Clearly there is.

by No 7&1/2 Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:28 pm

Gwlad wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Nothing to do with nationality (suspect the op isn't Welsh) but theres no real argument on the try being legal.

Wrong again. Clearly there is.

In regards to the decision and actual laws I meant.

by BamBam Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:32 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:God you English are so boring. Wales U20 played Ireland last week, and the Irish were awarded a try that was clearly held up. Not a pip squeak from the English on that one, yet when an Irish player got carded English posters waded in commenting how much we benefitted from it.
Even after we swept you aside in the world cup you started blaming the ref, get some humility and you might start to enjoy rugby once again. Funnily enough Gareth Davies also scored a good legitimate try in that game!

How many English fans do you think watched Wales v Ireland U20s?

Stands to reason the higher profile game gets more reaction

But let's not let that get in the way of Wales always being the victims

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:35 pm

There were probably quite a few (I don't know the official number), but I know some on here had been because they commented. What are you saying is a higher profile game? I don't think Wales are always the victims, I do happen to find a lot of English are obsessed with Wales though. The knit-picking is surely embarrassing for all of you.

by Seagultaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:37 pm

Heaf wrote:I agree there is too much open to 'interpretation' ....

Pro12 reffing must be pretty lax then if they constantly get away with that as it's a clear penalty - unless it's a question of degree e.g. if the kick is long and the 9 is not far in front and quickly run onside by another player they might let it go even though it's still an offence - otherwise that's pretty shoddy officiating ...

Same happens every game, including Italy v England today again not penalised, so it's not just Pro 12 refing (but Pro12 refs are rubbish). In fact I can't remember seeing a 10 kick and the 9 not immediately start following up, after all it's his job to get the the next breakdown. How often do you see crooked put ins to the scrum and lineout, hands in the ruck, etc etc., but how many times are these offences penalised?

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 7:59 pm

In the highlights via Scrum V - Denton tackled Davies in the air, before North's length of the field break where when he was tackled some Scottish players entered the ruck from an 'offside' position, the same thing happened after James' break. Clancy gave an easy 3 points against Samson Lee for not rolling away when he had 5 Scottish players lying on top of him. These things happen each week, I've no idea that when people think it might have worked in Wales' favour this on going knit picking comes out. Just last week Wales had an advantage because of an Irish knock-on, the advantage wasn't given to us and Ireland were awarded a penalty to draw - nobody batted an eye-lid.

by Heaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:02 pm

I'm not saying everything is picked up and penalised but that based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed after being reviewed - as opposed to the statement made by the title of this thread.

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:10 pm

Heaf wrote:I'm not saying everything is picked up and penalised but that based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed after being reviewed - as opposed to the statement made by the title of this thread.

If the officials seen nothing wrong at the time then why should it have been disallowed? I've also read some pathetic comments from Laidlaw, claiming that his players were waiting for the offside to be given when the reality is they just weren't quick enough. If it should have been disallowed then maybe these others things I alluded to should have gone in Wales' favour, who knows how that would have turned out? Maybe these apparent offsides should be called upon in every game, or maybe just the games where you think Wales benefit from it?

by The Great Aukster Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:16 pm

The problem with the decision was that the TMO was asked and got it wrong. That faux pas had an affect on the result and the Championship.

by majesticimperialman Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:17 pm

According to Johnathan Davies. he was off side.

by Guest Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:21 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:The problem with the decision was that the TMO was asked and got it wrong. That faux pas had an affect on the result and the Championship.

Impossible to predict, surely?! By suggesting that this affected the result and championship you're implying that had Davies not scored that try in the 6th minute of the game Scotland would have won. How can you jump to that conclusion?

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:26 pm

Griff wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:The problem with the decision was that the TMO was asked and got it wrong. That faux pas had an affect on the result and the Championship.

Impossible to predict, surely?! By suggesting that this affected the result and championship you're implying that had Davies not scored that try in the 6th minute of the game Scotland would have won. How can you jump to that conclusion?

Only an idiot would do that. What you could argue though, is that Irish penalty that I mentioned has cost Wales a grand slam - assuming they don't lose again, but who's to say they would lose when they'd have more momentum being two from two? It's probably a top 3 (not saying in this order) of Wales, England and France in this year's 6 Nations.

by Guest Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:33 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
Griff wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:The problem with the decision was that the TMO was asked and got it wrong. That faux pas had an affect on the result and the Championship.

Impossible to predict, surely?! By suggesting that this affected the result and championship you're implying that had Davies not scored that try in the 6th minute of the game Scotland would have won. How can you jump to that conclusion?

Only an idiot would do that. What you could argue though, is that Irish penalty that I mentioned has cost Wales a grand slam - assuming they don't lose again, but who's to say they would lose when they'd have more momentum being two from two? It's probably a top 3 (not saying in this order) of Wales, England and France in this year's 6 Nations.

Bit harsh calling him an idiot, Mikey!

To be honest I too thought/think it was offside. I was sketchy on the rules at the time but have seen some detailed ref analysis online and they're pretty adamant that it was offside so I'm happy to go with their expertise.

I just don't think it affected the result as it was so early. Actually, Scotland went into the lead after this so had the opportunity to win it. It was Wales' next tries that affected the result, and they were fine.

by Heaf Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:42 pm

mikey_dragon wrote:
Heaf wrote:I'm not saying everything is picked up and penalised but that based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed after being reviewed - as opposed to the statement made by the title of this thread.

If the officials seen nothing wrong at the time then why should it have been disallowed? I've also read some pathetic comments from Laidlaw, claiming that his players were waiting for the offside to be given when the reality is they just weren't quick enough. If it should have been disallowed then maybe these others things I alluded to should have gone in Wales' favour, who knows how that would have turned out? Maybe these apparent offsides should be called upon in every game, or maybe just the games where you think Wales benefit from it?

I thought what I said was quite clear - based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed. Just because the officials didn't spot it doesn't mean it's wrong to say that based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed.

I've not said that Scotland should have won etc etc as we don't know how the game would have panned out had the correct decision been made - I was commenting on the laws and the fact that the decision wasn't correct in response to the thread title. But you always have to take it as an attack on Wales for some reason.

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:43 pm

Well I'm not. I'm suggesting that only an idiot is stupid enough to make the assumption that you've alluded to. Whether or not anyone chooses to do that is their choice.

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:46 pm

Heaf wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:
Heaf wrote:I'm not saying everything is picked up and penalised but that based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed after being reviewed - as opposed to the statement made by the title of this thread.

If the officials seen nothing wrong at the time then why should it have been disallowed? I've also read some pathetic comments from Laidlaw, claiming that his players were waiting for the offside to be given when the reality is they just weren't quick enough. If it should have been disallowed then maybe these others things I alluded to should have gone in Wales' favour, who knows how that would have turned out? Maybe these apparent offsides should be called upon in every game, or maybe just the games where you think Wales benefit from it?
I thought what I said was quite clear - based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed. Just because the officials didn't spot it doesn't mean it's wrong to say that based on the laws of the game the try should have been disallowed.

I've already said what I thought, but what I'm saying here is that the officials seen nothing wrong.

Based on the laws of the game England gave away several scrum penalties against Wales in the world cup game. You were all quiet on that front.

by The Great Aukster Sun Feb 14, 2016 8:52 pm

No prediction involved Griff just logic. Wales got 7 points that they shouldn't have - that affects how players play and approach the game such as whether to take a shot at goal or not.
As for the championship being affected, last year showed how big a bearing points difference can have on the winner.

by Guest Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:00 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:No prediction involved Griff just logic. Wales got 7 points that they shouldn't have - that affects how players play and approach the game such as whether to take a shot at goal or not.
As for the championship being affected, last year showed how big a bearing points difference can have on the winner.

You could also argue that going behind early on spurred Scotland on, gave them a kick up the backside, etc. That theory has some backing as Scotland came back strongly and actually went in front. So could it be argued that had Wales NOT been awarded the try, Scotland wouldn't have had the kick up the backside they needed, wouldn't have been chasing a score and therefore wouldn't have got any points at all?! Of course not! It would be pure guess work!

So yes, I think it could be argued that the try changed the course of the game, but not necessarily the outcome. Semantics, maybe.

by The Great Aukster Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:14 pm

Griff wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:No prediction involved Griff just logic. Wales got 7 points that they shouldn't have - that affects how players play and approach the game such as whether to take a shot at goal or not.
As for the championship being affected, last year showed how big a bearing points difference can have on the winner.

You could also argue that going behind early on spurred Scotland on, gave them a kick up the backside, etc. That theory has some backing as Scotland came back strongly and actually went in front. So could it be argued that had Wales NOT been awarded the try, Scotland wouldn't have had the kick up the backside they needed, wouldn't have been chasing a score and therefore wouldn't have got any points at all?! Of course not! It would be pure guess work!

So yes, I think it could be argued that the try changed the course of the game, but not necessarily the outcome. Semantics, maybe.

Obviously any "what might have been" could be argued for. However what actually happened was that Wales got 7 points from a try that the TMO called wrong. The "outcome" is measured in points - it is a fact that Wales got 7 points for that try, it is speculation what influence it had on players psyche. Scotland may have been spurred on or Wales boosted - alternatively Scotland may have been deflated or Wales made complacent. What is indisputable is that the points had an affect on the game and by extension the Championship.

by Gwlad Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:05 pm

BamBam wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:God you English are so boring. Wales U20 played Ireland last week, and the Irish were awarded a try that was clearly held up. Not a pip squeak from the English on that one, yet when an Irish player got carded English posters waded in commenting how much we benefitted from it.
Even after we swept you aside in the world cup you started blaming the ref, get some humility and you might start to enjoy rugby once again. Funnily enough Gareth Davies also scored a good legitimate try in that game!

How many English fans do you think watched Wales v Ireland U20s?

Stands to reason the higher profile game gets more reaction

But let's not let that get in the way of Wales always being the victims

Gareth's tries are always memorable.

by PotNoodleMiner Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:30 pm

If davies was offside because he did not retreat back behind the kicker then basically every time a kick up field is made and a player infront of the kicker is moving forward or staying in the same place then he should be penalised then far more penalties would be given away every game especially when teams make clearance kicks in their own half and every forward infront of the kicker makes their way up field it should result in them getting penalised as they clearly dont all retreat back, their all played onside by the backs who came from an onside position and run infront of them, the same thing happened with davies' try

by Cardiff Dave Sun Feb 14, 2016 10:49 pm

Gwlad wrote:
BamBam wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:God you English are so boring. Wales U20 played Ireland last week, and the Irish were awarded a try that was clearly held up. Not a pip squeak from the English on that one, yet when an Irish player got carded English posters waded in commenting how much we benefitted from it.
Even after we swept you aside in the world cup you started blaming the ref, get some humility and you might start to enjoy rugby once again. Funnily enough Gareth Davies also scored a good legitimate try in that game!

How many English fans do you think watched Wales v Ireland U20s?

Stands to reason the higher profile game gets more reaction

But let's not let that get in the way of Wales always being the victims

Gareth's tries are always memorable.

Only coz Quinnell's pass was miles forward.

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:00 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Griff wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:No prediction involved Griff just logic. Wales got 7 points that they shouldn't have - that affects how players play and approach the game such as whether to take a shot at goal or not.
As for the championship being affected, last year showed how big a bearing points difference can have on the winner.

You could also argue that going behind early on spurred Scotland on, gave them a kick up the backside, etc. That theory has some backing as Scotland came back strongly and actually went in front. So could it be argued that had Wales NOT been awarded the try, Scotland wouldn't have had the kick up the backside they needed, wouldn't have been chasing a score and therefore wouldn't have got any points at all?! Of course not! It would be pure guess work!

So yes, I think it could be argued that the try changed the course of the game, but not necessarily the outcome. Semantics, maybe.

Obviously any "what might have been" could be argued for. However what actually happened was that Wales got 7 points from a try that the TMO called wrong. The "outcome" is measured in points - it is a fact that Wales got 7 points for that try, it is speculation what influence it had on players psyche. Scotland may have been spurred on or Wales boosted - alternatively Scotland may have been deflated or Wales made complacent. What is indisputable is that the points had an affect on the game and by extension the Championship.

So in other words, without that try Wales could have gone on to win by 20 points.

by mikey_dragon Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:00 pm

PotNoodleMiner wrote:If davies was offside because he did not retreat back behind the kicker then basically every time a kick up field is made and a player infront of the kicker is moving forward or staying in the same place then he should be penalised then far more penalties would be given away every game especially when teams make clearance kicks in their own half and every forward infront of the kicker makes their way up field it should result in them getting penalised as they clearly dont all retreat back, their all played onside by the backs who came from an onside position and run infront of them, the same thing happened with davies' try

Yeah exactly. But when it happens for Wales they feel they have to mention it.

by Guest Sun Feb 14, 2016 11:51 pm

PotNoodleMiner wrote:If davies was offside because he did not retreat back behind the kicker then basically every time a kick up field is made and a player infront of the kicker is moving forward or staying in the same place then he should be penalised then far more penalties would be given away every game especially when teams make clearance kicks in their own half and every forward infront of the kicker makes their way up field it should result in them getting penalised as they clearly dont all retreat back, their all played onside by the backs who came from an onside position and run infront of them, the same thing happened with davies' try

If they advance towards the ball before being played onside then they absolutely are offside. You are correct that these happen often when the ball is smashed upfield and are very rarely penalised.

However when the offside player is within 10m of where the ball will land (as was the case with this try) there are a few extra rules and they are much more strictly enforced. The situations are quite different tbh.

Also many different infringements are frequently ignored if the ref feels it didn't really have an impact - some people like this, some (including me) don't. Do you honestly think that Davies would've been there to pick up the ball if he had retreated until being played onside, as he should've done?

by doctornickolas Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:43 am

So what about rule 11.3 (c) - Being put onside by an opposition player. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Roberts taps the ball back (not a knock on as some have said) , the Scottish player then also plays at the ball tapping it back , Davies according to this rule is then played onside even if he was offside originally.

by Gooseberry Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:52 am

mikey_dragon wrote:There were probably quite a few (I don't know the official number), but I know some on here had been because they commented. What are you saying is a higher profile game? I don't think Wales are always the victims, I do happen to find a lot of English are obsessed with Wales though. The knit-picking is surely embarrassing for all of you.

KNit picking

by Gooseberry Mon Feb 15, 2016 7:53 am

majesticimperialman wrote:According to Johnathan Davies. he was off side.

So he was onside after all...

by No 7&1/2 Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:17 am

doctornickolas wrote:So what about rule 11.3 (c) - Being put onside by an opposition player. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Roberts taps the ball back (not a knock on as some have said) , the Scottish player then also plays at the ball tapping it back , Davies according to this rule is then played onside even if he was offside originally.

The ball definitely goes forward, there's no argument to that.

by Fanster Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:25 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
doctornickolas wrote:So what about rule 11.3 (c) - Being put onside by an opposition player. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Roberts taps the ball back (not a knock on as some have said) , the Scottish player then also plays at the ball tapping it back , Davies according to this rule is then played onside even if he was offside originally.

The ball definitely goes forward, there's no argument to that.

Forward from who, the contestor to Roberts?

by doctornickolas Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:27 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:
doctornickolas wrote:So what about rule 11.3 (c) - Being put onside by an opposition player. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Roberts taps the ball back (not a knock on as some have said) , the Scottish player then also plays at the ball tapping it back , Davies according to this rule is then played onside even if he was offside originally.

The ball definitely goes forward, there's no argument to that.

Roberts tapped the ball back to the Welsh side the Scottish player tapped back to his side, so who knocked it forward?

by No 7&1/2 Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:28 am

No Roberts hits the ball 'back' and it lands in a position further forward. Now there is the argument for momentum etc but the speed of the ball and the players and given the situation I don't think thats relevant. Also given the amount of flat passes made at speed which get pinged I'm not sure half the refs follow that direction anyway.

by No 7&1/2 Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:29 am

Think you're seeing what you want to see doc.

by Exiledinborders Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:32 am

doctornickolas wrote:So what about rule 11.3 (c) - Being put onside by an opposition player. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Roberts taps the ball back (not a knock on as some have said) , the Scottish player then also plays at the ball tapping it back , Davies according to this rule is then played onside even if he was offside originally.

No. Davies by moving towards the ball and not retiring had already committed a penalty offence. Whether he was later put onside is irrelevant.

by Shifty Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:33 am

majesticimperialman wrote:According to Johnathan Davies. he was off side.

Well that should settle the entire debate for all the Welsh people, God has spoken! laughing

by doctornickolas Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:35 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Think you're seeing what you want to see doc.

Not at all. I think you have an agenda to fill. Roberts clearly plays the ball backwards and immediately the Scottish player gets the same. There is no knock on. That part is not even being debated by anyone. It's after that that is open for debate.

by Sponsored content