Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:14 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

Incorrect.

He was in the vicinity of the Wakey player attempting to catch it. Regardless of whether the Wakey player actually caught it or touched it, Turner's close presence is deemed to have effected play/player.

Do you honestly believe he was interfering with the play at that point? Can you 100% say Smith would have caught it if Turner wasn't there? No, you can't, because he was in no way involved in the play, and he was over 10 metres away when Hall actually played at the ball.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:32 am  

On the Turber try, the ref handed upstairs but saiid he had it as a try. The video ref then has to have 100% evidence not to give the try. The only way he couid do that it be mesauring the 10 meters and that's impossible to get 100% right on the pictures he had so had no option.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 11:37 am  

I think we need to rest Roby next week if he is carrying an injury.

We don't want him knackered before the tough part of the season.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:46 pm  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

I thought the Turner try decision was fair. It's true you have to be further than ten metres from the receiver when he touches it, if you start from an offside position. However, that's ten metres in a circle with the centre of that circle being the receiving player. In other words, the offside player must be at least ten metres in any direction. So when a man collects the ball, as soon as he's run 10m in any direction -sideways and backwards too - he is onside and can be tackled.

So Turner didn't have to be 10m further down the pitch. He just had to be 10m away from the catcher. As he was off to one side, the distance between him and the catcher was greater than 10m. Hence he was not penalised for offside even though he'd started in front of the kicker.

Then, of course, the wakey player touched the ball and lost possession, at which point everyone is instantly inside no matter where they started from.

Ah, that's interesting. I'd always assumed that you couldn't be within 10m in a north/south direction (if that makes sense). Fair try then, if that's the case.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:47 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Do you honestly believe he was interfering with the play at that point? Can you 100% say Smith would have caught it if Turner wasn't there? No, you can't, because he was in no way involved in the play, and he was over 10 metres away when Hall actually played at the ball.

No I don't think he was interfering with the play and don't think Smith would've caught it......but the rules still state that he can't be within 10 of him when he tries to catch it, that Smith completely misses it is irrelevant, he attempted to catch it is what matters. (Remember Sam Tomkins dropping one for England in a 4 Nations Final vs Aus and an Aussie player was about 8/9m away from him not really affecting him but it was disallowed). Even then looking at the reply I'd say it's questionable that he's 10m away when Hall touches it.

The reason is was given imo was because of this new rule of making the ref make an on-field decision and he went with try. Had he gone no try or if this was last year it probably would've been ruled out.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 12:52 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

No I don't think he was interfering with the play and don't think Smith would've caught it......but the rules still state that he can't be within 10 of him when he tries to catch it, that Smith completely misses it is irrelevant, he attempted to catch it is what matters. (Remember Sam Tomkins dropping one for England in a 4 Nations Final vs Aus and an Aussie player was about 8/9m away from him not really affecting him but it was disallowed). Even then looking at the reply I'd say it's questionable that he's 10m away when Hall touches it.

The reason is was given imo was because of this new rule of making the ref make an on-field decision and he went with try. Had he gone no try or if this was last year it probably would've been ruled out.

No the rules state he can't interfere if offside. As you say, he'd miss the ball regardless. If he's of encroached the 10 when Hall played at the ball, it would of been a penalty to saints for the late hit on the kicker (which would of been the decision had the try not been scored). Simple way to avoid these situations is to catch the kick in the first place!

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 1:33 pm  

I thought he was offside. That said, the angle was terrible because of the unusually low camera positioning at Wakefield.

Re: Hohaia : Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:22 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

I thought he was offside. That said, the angle was terrible because of the unusually low camera positioning at Wakefield.

He was offside, decision should have been no try but penalty to Saints for the late tackle on the kicker. It'll probably get reviewed in @asktheref on twitter on Tuesday.

Re: Hohaia : Sun Mar 08, 2015 12:27 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

He was offside, decision should have been no try but penalty to Saints for the late tackle on the kicker. It'll probably get reviewed in @asktheref on twitter on Tuesday.

He wasn't offside. See my explanation above. The 10 metres in those situations is not drawn in a straight-up-and-down-the-pitch way. It's a 10m radius from the player catching the ball. Hard to tell exactly from the TV (which is why the video refs couldn't disallow it - they'd have had to be certain), but while Turner was less than 10m away on the Y-axis of the pitch, he was also some distance away o the X-axis. Apply a bit of maths, and he's further than 10m away from the player - hence not interfering.


The formal rule is here. I've highlighted the relevant bits. The italics are mine, as sometimes the rulebook isn't entirely clear, but this is standard refereeing stuff.

When off side 1. A player is off side except when he is in his own ingoal if the ball touches, is touched, held or kicked, by one of his own team behind him.

Out of Play 2. An off side player shall not take any part in the game or attempt in any way to influence the course of the game. He shall not encroach within ten metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball [in any direction] and shall immediately retire ten metres from any opponent who first secures possession of the ball.

Placed onside 3. An off side player is placed onside if:

(a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball. [in any direction]

(b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.

(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.

(d) one of his own team kicks or knocks the ball forward and takes up a position in front of him in the field of play.

(e) he retires behind the point where the ball was last touched by one of his own team.

NOTES


Catcher claiming off side 1. A player who catches the ball near an off side opponent must not go out of his way to make interference in play by the offside player unavoidable. He 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.

Accidental off side Where the Referee is satisfied that interference with play by
an off side player is accidental he should order a scrum.

Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent [in any direction] 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.

Essentially, Turner isn't deemed to be offside and interfering as long as a line drawn between him and the Wakey catcher is longer than 10m. The fact that he was in front of the kicker is irrelevant as long as he does not encroach within 10 metres of the man. The ten metres does not apply to a simple Y-axis of the field, but to the actual distance from man to man.

Hope that helps clarify things.

Re: Hohaia : Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:22 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

He was offside, decision should have been no try but penalty to Saints for the late tackle on the kicker. It'll probably get reviewed in @asktheref on twitter on Tuesday.

When watching I thought it was no try but its in the paper so I'll take it. Speaking of taking it , did Cas use vas???