Rule Confusion

[Nathan Aboud]

Can someone please help me to understand this....

All I hear yesterday from all experts is that the Latrell Mitchell No Try should have been given a try, but I was under the opinion that if an offside player comes within 10 minutes of the play then it is a penalty.

But now the rule states if a player in an on side position touches it before the defense then it puts that offside player back on side. The rule also states that the offside player cannot come within 10 meters of the play if the opposition touches the ball. Canberra let the ball bounce in which Latrell is the only player to touch it and score so therefore it is play on...

If you all recall the same video referee made a different call in the Souths vs Broncos game with Korbin Sims and was told that it was the right call after the fans believed it wasn't, so my question is how can the same person made two completely different calls on the same situations especially having a rule book right next to him whilst watching it on the screen?

I am so confused about this, first I though it was the right call but now I am strongly convinced it isn't....

[Maxy Walker]

Well eee the NRL is one giant conspiracy against easts. So the NRL will interpret that rule whatever way disadvantages us.

Intellectual giants such as John Tobin and Eddie will be along to confirm this shortly.

[ism22]

I think the rule's pretty clear... if somebody is in front of the kicker then the ref can blow a penalty. The offside player can be anywhere on the field and they don't need to be involved in the play... they just need to be offside.

Where the inconsistency comes in is that refs sometimes use their discretion to determine that the penalty was so minor that it can be ignored. IMO there's no exact science and multiple factors can influence such decisions. Some of these include:
- If the defenders have already committed to the offside attacker before the ball has been kicked
- How close it is to the play (based on context too... e.g. if an attacker is on the opposite edge of the field but 20m offside, forcing defenders to slide over then maybe no try)
- Whether the offside was unpreventable (e.g. due to injury)
- Whether the defending team surrendered and tried to milk a penalty (that tactic can go either way but e.g. if Cam Smith refuses to tackle or Cronk intentionally passes to the tackler while he's getting up then it's a penalty. I doubt we'd risk it and Robbo definitely wouldn't coach us to play negative footy like that).

[Maxy Walker]

Can someone please help me to understand this....

All I hear yesterday from all experts is that the Latrell Mitchell No Try should have been given a try, but I was under the opinion that if an offside player comes within 10 minutes of the play then it is a penalty.

But now the rule states if a player in an on side position touches it before the defense then it puts that offside player back on side. The rule also states that the offside player cannot come within 10 meters of the play if the opposition touches the ball. Canberra let the ball bounce in which Latrell is the only player to touch it and score so therefore it is play on...

If you all recall the same video referee made a different call in the Souths vs Broncos game with Korbin Sims and was told that it was the right call after the fans believed it wasn't, so my question is how can the same person made two completely different calls on the same situations especially having a rule book right next to him whilst watching it on the screen?

I am so confused about this, first I though it was the right call but now I am strongly convinced it isn't....

Actually I think in the raiders game the video ref ruled Latrell in front of the kicker

[The ticket]

No he didnt.

We had players in front of the kicker (matto, not latrell) who came inside the ten and, according to the video ref, were "active" in the play. The "active" bit is where the discretion comes in.

I thought it was a fair decision and poor discipline by matto. If you stay 10 metres from the ball you are fine.

[Guest]

as it was with pearce against the warriors poor discipline and poor situation awareness the players should know when they're offside and if so to stay out of the play

[The Brain]

Its becoming an area of inconsistency - you see offside is offside ...but for several years now if a player doesnt interfere then they let the try go .This time they pinned it ????? if active means "moving" they got me farked.
Make one clear rule and eliminate doubt ...going on the games modern history that was a try. Going strictly by the rules -no try.(Thats if I know the rule my self)

At a scrum a defending player is also offside if he is less than 5m away from the base of the scrum. An attacking player is offside if he is in front of the ball: if he is in front of a ball which is then kicked, he can be put onside if the kicker subsequently moves ahead of him before the ball is caught.
10 METRES All defending players except those who have taken up a position as Marker[s] must ‘retire 10 metres from the point at which the ball is played or to their own goal line’. Section 11 (10) (g) All defending players are required to be ‘in line’ with the Referee marking the 10 metres. The Referee will call “go” when the ball is clear of the ruck and then the defensive line is entitled to move forward. If the defensive line is within 10 metres of their own goal line, the players: 1. Must be touching the goal line with a foot; and 2. The defenders cannot place their front foot past the centre of the ruck. Offside A player is offside if he has one foot (either on or off the ground) in front of a teammate who ‘last touches, is touched, held or kicked the ball’. Section 14 (1) Out of Play A player from the team in possession is out of play if he does not “retire behind his own players involved in the play the ball or to their own goal line.” Section 11 (10) (g) An ‘out of play’ players(s) may again participate in the play if he retreats to a position where he has both feet behind the point where the ball was placed on the ground in the prior play the ball. Where an ‘out of play’ player becomes involved in the ensuing play, he is to be penalised with the penalty being awarded in line with the previous play the ball, at the point where the player became out of play. Downtown Chasers A player is considered downtown when: A player who is in front of the kicker in general play who intentionally advances beyond the point of the previous play the ball before the ball has gone past him. Section 14 (3) note

[ism22]

No he didnt.

We had players in front of the kicker (matto, not latrell) who came inside the ten and, according to the video ref, were "active" in the play. The "active" bit is where the discretion comes in.

I thought it was a fair decision and poor discipline by matto. If you stay 10 metres from the ball you are fine.

Yeah I thought it was Matto... some people were saying SST in another thread but I'm pretty sure it was Matto.

I agree... poor discipline and end of the day if he was onside the ref wouldn't have called offside. But, a poor decision in context because it was just such a good try! IMO that ahould be a KEY consideration... did it make ANY difference that he was offside by a hairline? The answer is NO we started off strong, caught them offguard and marched down the field. The defenders were dazzled and the try had nothing to do with Matto.

[player 1]

Well eee the NRL is one giant conspiracy against easts. So the NRL will interpret that rule whatever way disadvantages us.

Intellectual giants such as John Tobin and Eddie will be along to confirm this shortly.

You are awfully fond of using the conspiracy word - if you believe there's a conspiracy why do you even bother watching the NRL? Very sad indeed....

[liver1971]

If the ref didn't ask to check for offside and ruled a try.
I bet Archer would have come out on Monday and defended the decision by saying that Matterson was passive
Ohhh actually No he wouldn't, once he learnt it was us, he would change his mind
There lies the problem!

[Johnny Tobin]

Well eee the NRL is one giant conspiracy against easts. So the NRL will interpret that rule whatever way disadvantages us.

Intellectual giants such as John Tobin and Eddie will be along to confirm this shortly.

Back under the bridge. Hopefully there is no wifi there.

[Johnny Tobin]

On the subject of rules.

In the Warriors game Klein let the clock run after that Pearce penalty for 2.5 minutes and didn't call time off at all. We got the ball back to kick off with 30 seconds left.

A total and utter breach of the rules that gave us no real chance of scoring even if we got the ball back from a short kickoff:

TIME OFF Time should be taken off by the Referee: 1. (a) After 1 minute and 20 seconds from the time which any try has been awarded up until the time the conversion is taken or (b) After 1 minute and 20 seconds from the time which a penalty has been awarded up until the penalty kick for goal is being attempted. 2. In the last five minutes of the second half: (a) Following a conversion, a successful penalty kick at goal or field goal until the play is restarted at the centre of the half way or (b) Following a unsuccessful a penalty kick at goal or field goal that goes touch in goal or over the dead ball line. Section 7

[Maxy Walker]

You are awfully fond of using the conspiracy word - if you believe there's a conspiracy why do you even bother watching the NRL? Very sad indeed....

Very disingenuous mate. Not particularly funny either.

[ROC181]

I think it was actually Matto that was offside but thats in mm cause how can the bunker guy actually measure that on the screen. It was never conclusive. Maybe he had an algorithmic table in his pocket. There used to be the benefit of the doubt to the scoring side before as people want to see points scored but now they have gone back to finding ways to disallow points. Unless it's a team scoring against us like Rapanas try which they tried hard to see it overturned. There is always a side on camera on the try line in games... if there was one, why wasn't it used or if there wasn't, why? Conspiracy galore!!!

[Waylander]

Matto was definitely offside, whether he was active or passive is debatable. I honestly don't think we can complain about that one. If the roles were reversed we would be spewing if that was awarded.