RE: Rgw Rallepele "Try"
March 01, 2013, 08:59:28
Thanks Mike for the link. Half wits like windpomp and saSUE should take a look. These clowns think they know more than than top professionals.
I am posting what was said on the SAReferee website so ou windpomp in particluar can try and get to grips with the issue. He clealry had little clue but pretended to know it all as a classic windpomp always does.
Hougaard's grubber was a kick.
Kick: a kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, and from knee to toe, but not including the knee. A kick must move a visible distance out of the hand.
Law 11 DEFINITIONS
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate 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.
Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard when he kicked the ball. He was in an offside position. He took part in the game all right. So he was liable to be penalised unless he had been put onside.
There are three ways that an offside player can be put onside by an opponent. The third one is relevant.
Law 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 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 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.
It is debatable whether Malherbe intentionally touched the ball. He was trying to tackle Hougaard. But leave that aside.(General consensus - it did not touch malheber and was not intentional)
When Hougaard kicked the ball Ralepelle was to his left a metre in front of Hougaard. Let's look at offside under the 10-metre law.
Law 11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(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. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick
Hougaard kicked the ball.
Ralepelle was in front of Hougaard.
The ball landed immediately.
Ralepelle was in front of the line 10 metres from where the ball landed.
Does Malherbe's toe put Ralepelle onside.
Law 11.5 BEING PUT ONSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(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.
The player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.
But it is stated even more clearly.
Law 11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(f) The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.
Malherbe's toe could not have put Ralepelle onside. It certainly did not charge down the ball. (The rules say nothing about charging down bleats ou WINDPOMP!!!! Bwahahahahahaha)
It would seem that the referee should not have asked the TMO the question he asked him and the TMO should not have given the advice that he gave him: that the ball had been touched by 176 Blue [Malherbe] and that Ralepelle had thus been put on side and the try should have been awarded.
It would seem that the correct decision would have been a penalty to the Stormers.
So there we have it but do not be surprised if these two half wits try and still insist nothing was amiss. windpomp is of course a one eyed bulle supporter after all and only imagines he knows something about rugby. saSUE is very immature and likes to gain say everything I say regardless and thus this very unfortunate (for him) outcome. Please grow up saSUE and listen when the adults are discussing issues - especially Beeno!!!