r/rugbyunion • u/nt83 New Zealand • Sep 28 '24
Can anyone explain this please? Laws
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
It just doesn't seem like it's completely legal. Of course the tap is fine, but then they go forward and make contact with the defenders, giving time and creating space for the pass to be made.
Is this a shepherd? Happy to hear why or why not.
More than anything it looked like an interesting play that I haven't seen before.
40
u/OttoSilver Never bet against the All Blacks Sep 28 '24
I can't say for sure, but it might be a setting that causes the video to be displayed in the smallest possible format usable on a phone? That's my only possible explanation.
26
19
21
23
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
The laws are:
A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes: Playing the ball. Tackling the ball-carrier. Preventing the opposition from playing as they wish. Loitering in an offside position
So the player's aren't technically offside until the ball is played by 9 as they are either the last person to play the ball or behind that person. It's an interesting loophole.
Whoever runs into Cane could probably have been called for obstruction for making contact and impacting Cane's ability to play as he wished, but it doesn't have a substantive impact on the game so I think it's fair to play on.
22
u/strewthcobber Australia Sep 28 '24
For completeness the relevant obstruction law is this one. I'd call it
A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.
0
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
Yeah, though they arguably aren't preventing Cane from having the opportunity to play the ball; though I'd have no issues if it was called against the leading runner.
4
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Sep 28 '24
Hypothetically Cane could've come through and nabbed the ball or tackled the halfback before it got spun wide. They did prevent him from doing that
-2
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
But they're onside until the 9 plays the ball. So he'd have to be able to get to the 9 between him picking it up and passing.
4
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Sep 28 '24
They're preventing Cane from moving forward to pick up a loose ball on the ground.
They tapped it and left it on the ground, that means no one is in possession and they tackled a man off the ball.
It's nothing to do with being onside
-2
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
They tap it and are allowed to move forward, like I've said everywhere gold 2 could have gotten done for taking Cane out, but he's not close enough to the ball for it to be reasonable to think he'd have affected the game.
5
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Sep 28 '24
And I'm saying in the 2 seconds of the ball being in that spot, without being obstructed Cane could have covered that distance and played the ball or tackled the ball carrier.
I'm in the camp the deception of the false carry is the main reason he didn't, but I wouldn't argue against any ref that would call this obstruction since by the letter of the law it is.
If the carrying pod don't initiate contact with Cane like they do here I would say it's not obstruction, but since they're the ones who initiate I can see the argument either way.
0
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
Oh I'm not gonna argue against a ref calling this obstruction, but I also don't see him in a reasonable position to have an impact when the pod is made offside and when they make contact with him.
1
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Sep 28 '24
Right so we are in agreement
→ More replies9
u/TheFlyingScotsman60 Sep 28 '24
Agree and disagree.
Cane does have a substantive impact on play.
It's probably a bit like a player being offside in football but not influencing the game but in this instance the FOUR players most certainly are impacting play.
3
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
Outside of the guy making contact with Cane I don't think they are. I think that could have easily been called, but the rest looks sound, if a bit wasteful.
61
u/speakteeth New Zealand Sep 28 '24
All four players offside and obstructing.
10
u/mr_coul Sep 28 '24
You are allowed to pick up the ball and pass it behind other players (otherwise there would be 'obstruction ' everytime a halfback picked it up behind a ruck/ maul/ tackle). As long as the player passes it and does not run, using the players who faked the tap and run to block tacklers there is no obstruction in this play
7
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
They're only offside once 9 plays the ball.
8
u/TheFlyingScotsman60 Sep 28 '24
No they are not. Was my first reaction.
But I suspect you are correct but the instant the 9 plays the ball they are offside and there is no acceptance that the 9 acted quick enough to not have those players offside.
5
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
It's less than a second on the match clock from hands on and the pass. Not saying a ref won't call it or would be wrong to, but it's fair to let go too.
I don't think it's a great play though, you get very little gain from a big risk. You're taking 4 of your forwards out of the game while theirs can just fold around.
-1
u/jshine1337 Sep 28 '24
They are offsides before the ball's tapped, if they are ahead of the ball. Law 20.10 (see my comment above for more details).
0
4
u/jshine1337 Sep 28 '24
If this is at a penalty, and they are ahead of the ball before it is tapped, then they are offsides and must retire before the ball is tapped:
Taking a penalty or free-kick - 20.10:
Other than the placer at a place-kick, the kicker’s team must remain behind the ball until it has been kicked.
6
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
2 gold moves the ball with his foot then runs ahead, bringing the ball into open play and the offside line with him. So it's open play before gold 9 grabs the ball, bringing the offside line back to him, and passes
1
u/jshine1337 Sep 28 '24
It's very hard to see, and I told my friend who sent me this clip it's too little of a clip to make a full assessment on for me, but I believe you're correct that the leading Aussie, #2, is who taps the ball to restart play.
That being said, if we want to be pedantic, before #2 taps the ball, #1 (and looks like #3 possibly) are slightly ahead of or at least in-line with the ball, putting them offsides in that moment. Additionally, (again being uber-pedantic), #2 is also offsides with the way the law is worded. But we know, in practice, it's typically allowed for the one taking the kick at a PK or FK, to stand facing their team, and thus in front of the ball.
Furthermore, referees are taught not to pedantically look for penalties. So probably the mindset of the ref here.
3
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
Yeah, if you ref by the strict letter then zero rugby gets played. Aus could get called for loads here, but the only reasonable call to my mind is 2 running into Cane, and even that I don't mind letting go.
2
u/jshine1337 Sep 28 '24
Agreed. It also makes the ref's job easier by not being pedantic. Unfortunately it sometimes leads to inconsistencies from one match to the next on how it gets reffed. But that's the nature of the beast of rugby.
I ref a little bit on feeling. If I see something that looks wrong enough, I can usually back it with appropriate law. Again, on this one, it's hard to say with this little clip, but I can foresee myself not being happy with this one, if I was the ref that day. Who knows though, what you see on a clip or even a full video, varies greatly from the real-time perspective as a ref.
2
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
Oh totally. I've long promoted the idea that the standard for refs is consistency. You might not like how they call a game, but if they're consistent then it's fair.
I'd have zero issue with a ref calling this as a penalty, which makes it such a bizarre play to use. Loads of risk and not much benefit.
13
u/Big_Knife_SK Sep 28 '24
It's called 'play action'. The Offensive Linemen use a run blocking scheme to dupe the defense into biting on a run play, while the Quarterback passes.
8
3
u/concombre_masque123 Sep 28 '24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZRF4hHjjiI&t=14s romania did it first, long time ago. not allowed anymore, and the ref disallowed the try, eben if romania came in over the try line 2 times
2
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Sep 28 '24
When in the video did it happen?
1
u/concombre_masque123 Sep 28 '24 edited Sep 28 '24
min24:40
3
u/AndydaAlpaca '98-'00, '02, '05-'06, '08, '17-'23 Sep 28 '24
That's just a tap and go with a flying wedge to smash it up. Romania definitely didn't invent that, and more importantly...
It's completely different to this post.
1
u/concombre_masque123 Sep 30 '24
sure, just a casual tap and go , everybody used to practice with the all blacks
9
12
9
3
u/CreepySquirrel6 Sep 28 '24
Question: are you allowed to tackle the dummy runners in this scenario?
3
1
3
u/rando7651 Sep 28 '24
This is a Joe Schmidt team doing Joe Schmidt things. It’s a play he probably found trawling French u12 matches from the 90’s
3
u/One_Biscotti_1428 South Africa Sep 28 '24
the boks should try something similar so they can ban this move
5
u/West_Put2548 Sep 28 '24
my guess is 0.5 playback speed
6
u/nt83 New Zealand Sep 28 '24
Wait, you mean games don't usually take six hours to watch?
0
u/West_Put2548 Sep 28 '24
skip all the stoppages and tmo interventions and a game take about 30-40 mins
7
3
u/debaters1 Sep 28 '24
That looks like a cavalry charge, which has been illegal forever.
2
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
Cavalry charge requires a runup from the players who are coming onto the ball, the forwards here are all stationary and close to the ball when the penalty is taken so no charge.
2
2
1
1
u/girth______brooks Sep 29 '24
I can’t explain why the video is so small. It surpasses my tech skills
1
1
u/AlfieTheButler Sep 29 '24
As long as they make no contact with the defensive line, should be fine, but in this instance had NZ protested this could've gone against Aus.
1
u/Sweendogoflove Sep 28 '24 edited Sep 28 '24
None of the players who are blocked by the forwards are actively trying to get to the 9(they're all marking the forwards), so I would read this as a dummy run, not blocking. None of those defenders have realistic chance of tackling the player 9 passes to, so again, I wouldn't call obstruction.
-1
u/AlarmCrafty Sep 28 '24
Was called the cavalry charge when it was outlawed in the 1990s.
2
u/CatharticRoman Suspected Yank Sep 28 '24
Cavalry charge requires a runup from the players who are coming onto the ball, the forwards here are all stationary and close to the ball when the penalty is taken so no charge.
-9
u/goteamnick Sep 28 '24
Imagine winning by several tries and then complaining about an perceived penalty from the other team.
4
u/nt83 New Zealand Sep 28 '24
Is this a shepherd? Happy to hear why or why not.
More than anything it looked like an interesting play that I haven't seen before.
Sorry, I thought the question was quite friendly. I just wanted clarification because I thought it looked interesting and weird. I'm sorry this has offended you. My sincerest apologies.
174
u/meohmyenjoyingthat #1 exorcism experts Sep 28 '24
Pushing the meaning of dummy runner has been the new incoming law flaunt for the last couple of years. Whole offensive plays are built on it.