The official statement could have supported the ref more & not bowed to initial public emotional reactions.--------article now copied below------------------
Why would you ever become a referee? A team gives away 10 penalties and nobody bats an eyelid, but you give away one and everyone loses their minds! Players yell at you. Coaches roast you post match. Fans abuse you to the point where it has crossed from verbal to physical in some cases.
The only solace that you have is that your employers know the difficulty of your position and will back any decision you make to the hilt, always arguing the effects of perspective, feel for the game, and grey areas in the rule book to stem the torrent of criticism levelled at you.
It is incredible therefore to see the World Rugby match official selection committee come out and state, in no uncertain terms, that:
“On review of all available angles, it is clear that after the knock-on, the ball was touched by Australia’s Nick Phipps and Law 11.3(c) states that a player can be put on-side by an opponent who intentionally plays the ball.
“The appropriate decision, therefore, should have been a scrum to Australia for the original knock-on.”
This undermining of a leading referee in a public statement is as big a kick in the teeth as Shane Smeltz gave Mark Birighitti in the A-League last week. Last time we saw treachery of this kind the victim had a crouton-laden salad named after him.
The thing that really gets to me is that I, the humble punter with an unprecedented sense of self-importance, believe that the committee have actually got it wrong.
Let’s dive into the rule book, shall we?
Law 11 – Offside
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a teammate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a teammate who last played the ball.
Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.
In general play, a player can be put onside either by an action of ateammate or by an action of an opponent. However, the offside player cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.
From the first sentence we know that at the point where John Hardie knocks the ball on, the reserve prop who eventually catches the ball was offside.
Let’s focus on the last statement though. To paraphrase a general statement to read specifically to this situation; a player can be put onside by an action of an opponent. However the offside player cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with the play or moves towards the ball.
Curious. Reading further:
11.1 Offside in general play
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
This is reinforcing the major points from section 11, while highlighting the fact that a player who interferes with the play (by catching a loose ball perhaps) is liable to be sanctioned (penalised in this instance).
“But Nick Phipps played at the ball!” I hear you shout. Let’s look at why this is of relevance:
11.3 Being put onside by opponents
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.
(a) Runs five metres with ball.
When an opponent carrying the ball runs five metres, the offside player is put onside.
(b) Kicks or passes.
When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside.
(c) Intentionally touches ball.
When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.
This is the clause which the committee has chosen to focus on. They have stated that by playing at the ball, Phipps has put the opposing player onside.
I have two problems with this. Firstly, as mentioned above, a player cannot be put onside if the offside player moves towards the ball. Yes, Phipps is making a play at the ball, but guess who else is? Our lovely little offside friend, the Scottish number 18.
Secondly, this clause refers directly to being offside in general play, as outlined in Section 11.1. But wouldn’t this situation more closely resemble the following?
11.7 Offside after a knock-on
When a player knocks-on and an offsideteammate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.
There isn’t much of a point to be made here, apart from the fact that perhaps section 11.3(c) doesn’t necessarily apply to this situation at all, seeing as the rule book specifically separates “offside in general play” from “offside after a knock-on”.
This is only a side note, and not essential to prove my original thesis.
I only have one more section of the rule book discuss, and it is the one that puts the Scottish forwards in an awkward position by being in front of the ball. At the point where Hardie touches the ball, the Scottish lineout forwards must retreat behind Hardie. Unfortunately, this direction of travel leads them to be moving towards the ball, meaning they cannot be put onside by the actions of the opposition under the terms of section 11.
This leaves me with one small hole to fill, the possibility that the Scottish player is standing still until the point Phipps touches the ball, then he reacts from an onside position to claim the loose ball.
If he has made no attempt to move onside he is determined to be:
11.9 Loitering
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.
CSI-mode activated. Zoom. Enhance. What do we have?
The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.
And so the referee did.
