IRB offside ruling should be changed!

[JohanMel]

After the weekends game against the Bulls and Stormers there was a massively controversial try scored by Chilliboy where he was in an offside position when Hougaard tried to grubber the ball through but it had hit one of the Stormers players and Chilliboy was automatically in an onside position and he picked up the ball and dotted it down for a 5 pointer.* As I am an avid Stormers supporter I was enraged by the call as I believe that it an absolutely stupid call and the IRB should revisit that law and change it and here is my explanation for it:
*
Let’s say for instance that the Stormers are on the attack in the Bulls 22 and in the buildup one of the Bulls players got injured and is lying on the halfway line with no Stormers defender in sight, and then the Bulls get a quick turnover and try and punt the ball down field only for it to be partially charged down by a Stormers player and the ball goes straight to the Bulls player that was injured and he picks the ball up and runs and score a try for the Bulls with no Stormers player having a chance to catch him!*
*
Now would that be considered a legitimate try or not?*
*
I said this to one of my friends who is a Bulls supporter but he said to me that there is a massive difference between 1 meter and 50, but is there really?* I mean the rules obviously state that if you are in front of a kicker whether it is 1 cm or 100 meters it’s still offside.* Now a lot of people would say that I am just a bitter supporter trying to pin the loss of my team over the weekend onto the ref and the silly IRB rules, but what if this scenario that I just mentioned happened to your team, even worse what if it happened in a final where you were 5 points behind and that try resulted in you losing the final?
*
Yes it is a scenario that is highly unlikely to happen but if it did how much different is it actually from the try that Chilliboy scored over the weekend? *In my view it is a massive disadvantage to the defending team and one thing that the IRB should urgently address.* If you look at football they have a rule which states that if you are in an offside position whether the ball falls at your feet after a deflection from a defending player you are still offside, I reckon that the same rule should be implemented in rugby as I just feel that the current rule allows another team to ‘cheat’ the offside ruling in rugby.
*
Please leave your thoughts as I would love to know whether you think I’m correct in this matter or if in just crazy!

 

[Solitude]

I didn't read your post, sorry. I'm at work and there isn't enough time. I do think you will like this article though:
http://www.rugby365.com/article/52276-law-discussion-ralepelle-s-try

It basically states that it's not a legitimate try.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I would have also given that try and I’m born Province.

There is nothing wrong with that try, except that Chilliboy got lucky.

 

[Solitude]

I would have also given that try and I’m born Province.

There is nothing wrong with that try, except that Chilliboy got lucky.

I take it you didn't read the article that I posted.

 

[Dean]

Yea the referee board (or whatever its official name is) has stated that it wasn't the right call by the ref and he must take responsibility (whatever that may entail).

 

[phoneJunky]

We got lucky last year with a try like that against England and I can't remember people complaining about it then.

I am a Stormers supporter but, but being a Stormers supporter shouldn't be influencial in your argument. I would have taken that try if it was there, so why shouldn't it be conceded as well

 

[Fulcrum29]

I take it you didn't read the article that I posted.

Yes I did,

You should also know that the Bulls were playing advantage at the time.

Chilliboy also “only” moved towards the ball when he was put onside, this is also in regard to rule 11.4 (10m rule).

I will also have to wait to see another view on this scenario, not only on Rugby365.

 

[phoneJunky]

Just read the article above. Looks like the England one wasn't the same.

 

[Solitude]

We got lucky last year with a try like that against England and I can't remember people complaining about it then.

I am a Stormers supporter but, but being a Stormers supporter shouldn't be influencial in your argument. I would have taken that try if it was there, so why shouldn't it be conceded as well

The try against England was a legitimate try. This one wasn't.

That article that I posted is great. I really recommend it.

*edit*
Damn, lots of posts suddenly appeared.

 

[phoneJunky]

Yes I did,

You should also know that the Bulls were playing advantage at the time.

Chilliboy also “only” moved towards the ball when he was put onside, this is also in regard to rule 11.4 (10m rule).

I will also have to wait to see another view on this scenario, not only on Rugby365.

The whole point in the article was that he was never put onside

 

[Fulcrum29]

The whole point in the article was that he was never put onside

That is why I want to read another article, not only Rugby365, I believe Hougard past him.

 

[Solitude]

It's something that I really like about rugby. That the rules are so complex that it makes for interesting discussions.

I must admit that I'm a Stormers supporter and that the try was really annoying at the time. If I was the referee I would probably have given it too. I wish it wasn't given though and that the Stormers won in the end but it wasn't our day.

 

[frailty]

We got lucky last year with a try like that against England and I can't remember people complaining about it then.

I am a Stormers supporter but, but being a Stormers supporter shouldn't be influencial in your argument. I would have taken that try if it was there, so why shouldn't it be conceded as well

Too bad that people like you, with the right attitude are few and far between, which leaves the question, will this thread have been started if the Stormers scored the try and not the Bulls?.

 

[phoneJunky]

That is why I want to read another article, not only Rugby365, I believe Hougard past him.

If I remember correctly he was tackled backwards, so he didn't run past him. But then again I was in the stands and the big screen was a bit difficult to see.

 

[Solitude]

Too bad that people like you, with the right attitude are few and far between, which leaves the question, will this thread have been started if the Stormers scored the try and not the Bulls?.

I doubt that the thread would have been created. Bulls supporters can't put as much thought into a situation like the OP did.

 

[Wyzak]

Chilliboy stood still until the kicker caught up to him - which placed him on side. The ball hit the stormer players on the hand and foot - which placed him on side. Nothing wrong with that try.

If ever there was a controversial try in that game it was the Stormers try. Scrumhalf knocked the ball on, then passed to Habana who held the ball on the ground for ages after being tackled. Kirchner was also touching the ball at that time and his feet was clearly out. Then only was the ball picked up and dotted down.

 

[phoneJunky]

Chilliboy stood still until the kicker caught up to him - which placed him on side. The ball hit the stormer players on the hand and foot - which placed him on side. Nothing wrong with that try.

If ever there was a controversial try in that game it was the Stormers try. Scrumhalf knocked the ball on, then passed to Habana who held the ball on the ground for ages after being tackled. Kirchner was also touching the ball at that time and his feet was clearly out. Then only was the ball picked up and dotted down.

Did you read the article that was posted on the first page. But I do agree that the Stormers try was controversial as well.

 

[Devill]

I think you do not understand the offside rule.

If Chilliboy made any effort to interfere with play while being in front of the ball it would have been a penalty, but it came of the stormers player and THEN only did Chilliboy play the ball / make an attempt to join play.

I think it was an extremely unlucky try to concede, but shlt happens.

 

[Solitude]

I think you do not understand the offside rule.

If Chilliboy made any effort to interfere with play while being in front of the ball it would have been a penalty, but it came of the stormers player and THEN only did Chilliboy play the ball / make an attempt to join play.

I think it was an extremely unlucky try to concede, but shlt happens.

From the article:
"Law 11.4 (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 was not charging the kick down!"

He was still offside when he played the ball. Someone here said that the kicker passed him before he went for the ball but that's not how I remember it. Will have to go watch it again.

 

[phoneJunky]

I think you do not understand the offside rule.

If Chilliboy made any effort to interfere with play while being in front of the ball it would have been a penalty, but it came of the stormers player and THEN only did Chilliboy play the ball / make an attempt to join play.

I think it was an extremely unlucky try to concede, but shlt happens.

I am happy to concede the try. We didn't deserve to get that close in any case. But the law says intentionally kick or charge down, neither of which happened and in the article they also explain why the England try was different.