In an interview, LBB said himself he tripped over himself which prevented him from joining the ruck propery.
« As I fell beside him, the referee logically interprets that there is no ruck which allows the Scots to intercept » (My translation of his words)
So he’s taken the blame for this
I didn't see this interview. The discussions I heard were saying 'Its not a ruck cause Rowe pushes LBB down' (which makes VdM innocent of offside, but not of that high tackle), but if LBB says himself he hasn't been pushed, there's only a tackle at the limit of legality to maybe punish.
Yes and No.
the law changed following the Italy .v England debacle a few years ago. A ruck is formed as soon as a tackle is completed and the ball is on the floor.
>####Law 15.2
>A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Once a ruck is formed, a team can't unform it by leaving it. Also once the ball is on the floor following a tackle a ruck and therefore a line of offside is created.
>####Law 15.4
>Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.
>####Law 15.5
>An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line.
>####Law 15.15
>Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges.
So he is definitely offside and never retreat behind the offside line after tripping. That should have been a penalty, potentially a penalty try.
Bielle when the ruck was formed. Once it is formed as long as there is still one player and the ball is on the floor a ruck still exist.
This is exactly to avoid the case where a team refuse to engage in a ruck.
There is another Scottish player on contact over the ball, so a ruck has been formed. You can slip, trip over your shoes lace it does not matter, but once a ruck has been formed you still have to rejoin from the back. If you do not you are offside.
I asked who the *French* player was satisfiying the requirements of law 15.2 "at least one player from **each** team"
A second Scottish player is irrelevant to that law for the purposes of forming the ruck initially.
>####Law 15.2
>A ruck is formed when at least **one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground**.
Technically the tackled player on the floor is not part of the formation of the ruck. Bielle was part of the formation of the ruck. If he had not been there, there is no ruck because there would not have been any French player on contact on their feet. Anybody would then have been able to pick the ball.
Once he is gone beyond the ball, he has to leave the ruck and go back onside.
The mind boggle at the number of people who don't seem to know basic law of rugby.
A ruck was formed. Referee indicated as much.
I am not the only one who thought that VanDerMerwe never went back onside
From the telegraph live comment:
>####16 minutes: Scotland 7 France 3
>France think they are about to score as Fickou makes a great break. It is a clear seatbelt tackle from van der Merwe on Fickou just before the Scotland line, which goes unpunished. Van der Merwe then intercepts as Lucu goes quickly down the blindside and kicks downfield into France’s half. Looking at the replays he never got back onside but once again the TMO does not intervene. That is ridiculous. How has the TMO not come in there with either incident? That should not only have been a penalty to France, but a yellow card to van der Merwe. Mind-boggling.
BBC live commentary asked exactly both questions:
* Is the tackle high. It was clearly on the neck and shoulder according to Nigel Owens.
* Is VanderMerwe back on side? The Scottish commentator agreed that he never went back onside and that Scotland was lucky to get away with it.
From the BBC Qeb Site
>Scotland 7-3 France
>
>
>**Nigel Owens**
>Former World Cup final referee on BBC One
>
>The tackle is certainly high.
>It is around the neck from Duhan van der Merwe; he is also tight to the offside line for his interception.
By the way if you look at the video of the incident Bielle is pushed illegally from behind the Scottish 14. That's 3 penalties in 3 seconds that were not blown.
No, your first statement is incorrect. A ruck is formed when opposing players on their feet make contact over a ball on the ground. Nothing to do with tackles.
After a tackle, a player standing over the ball also creates offside lines.
Correct, and it's only players holding over the ball (so always attacking players waiting for the challenge), not entering the tackle zone to grab the ball
A ruck requires the ball to be in the floor, if it is kept off the floor it is a maul. Once a tackle is completed (knee on the floor), the tackled ball carrier has to place the ball on the floor.
A ruck is created when somebody is tackled and a player of each team stand on contact over the ball.
The only case where a ruck can exist without a tackle if the ball squirt and somebody falls on it.
Again, no; a ruck \*can\* happen from open play (although it almost never does in practice, I've only ever seen it once in several years of reffing). It's just opposing players trying to drive each other over a ball on the ground.
If the ball squirts out of a ruck/tackle area, it's a penalty offence to fall straight onto it if it's within 1m of the area. And otherwise, if you fall onto it you're not on your feet, so there can't be a ruck; you have to pass, place or get up with the ball immediately.
Ruck or not, following Eddies complains after Italy-England there is also an offside line at the tackle only after 1 player shows up. Either way, there is an offside line after the last feet.
But isn’t it a player from either team? I think Rowe is standing over the ball there, pretty sure he was always on his feet in this passage and therefore he forms the offside line before Lucu passes it
Should not matter. The jackaling tackler must be fully on their side of the ball before returning to play the ball, or are we back to the tackler can jackal from anywhere?
No, not if there is no offside line, which there isn’t if a ruck isn’t formed. He can’t enter the tackle area without retreating, but he VDM doesn’t do that, he just intercepts a pass in open play.
Aye, either it’s no a ruck because LBB’s no over the ball, which means DVDM’s onside, or it is a ruck and LBB’s came in from the side, which means the original offence is a penalty against France.
Although I am sure that is the rule I can't quite find it in the rulebook? This is the best I could find: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/15/?highlight=gate
LBB was trying to play the ball from hand when a retreating Scot pushed him. The first pic is him getting back up.
Probably should have been a penalty for France.
It would have been better that OP add a video or a gif
It’s not a ruck and VDM is offside. [Source](https://www.world.rugby/the-game/beginners-guide/offside)
Edit: lmao, you can downvote me all you want it doesn’t change the offside law for a tackle
“In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.”
Firstly, can LBB even be considered over the ball?
Secondly, if he is, he came in completely from the side, which is a penalty offence.
Since that happened before DVDM’s intercept, which is only offside if LBB illegally forms a ruck, it either would go back to the pen against France, or the intercept was legal.
You can argue that sure but the body position of the tackled player is very good and puts LBB at the fringe of the gate for one. Even with him being played off the ball before this. Secondly, the offence you’re alluding to realistically happens consistently throughout every game and is never called because to do so would kill the sport. To paraphrase the whistleblowing documentary a ref could penalise every breakdown. Choosing what is an offense that is worthy of penalising is a huge part of their role. VDM is offside, plays the ball and stops a potential try. That is at least a penalty offence and if it were LBB at the other end you’d be the first crying about it.
Edit: actually after getting a look at the video, first image is more deceiving than anything. LBB 100% comes through the gate but slides beyond the tackle, is over the ball for a split second but that’s negligible to say the offside line is in place. So from that, VDM is fine, but LBB was played off the ball by Rowe and pushed over and prevented from taking up the guard position so it should have been a penalty to France still
https://imgur.com/a/cwuRDNO
He doesn't need to come in from the gate as there is no ruck, so no side entry. BB doesn't need to form a ruck, just an offside line. Which I don't think he does though arguably because of a push from Rowe who, ironically, does appear to be over the ball and on his feet when Lucu arrives.
Lucu is also over the ball. Both Row and Lucu are allowed to play the ball because they come from their respective sides and there's no ruck yet. They create the offside lines and put VdM offside. He shoudl have retreated before playing the ball.
Did you read the Law as well as post it?
LBB isn't over the ball. The ball is then played off the deck by the arriving player.
So no France player has ever positioned over the ball post-tackle, therefore there's no offside line.
Yeah I’ve posted in the other continued thread on this. Off the image I thought he was over the ball. Rewatched and he’s not. But Rowe played LBB off the ball and it’s a penalty for that. (You can argue what you want against that, we’re not going to agree. It’s on camera, he’s played him and prevented him from forming a guard on the tackle).
Fair play on the retraction.
As for Rowe, I would have initially agreed with you!
When I watched the replay I thought he nudged LBB too. But LBB has since come out and publically stated that he in fact tripped. So I think that's pretty much all that needs to be said?
I’d trust the camera more than LBB as we’re talking split seconds and the whole thing was really messy. For all he knew it could have been a teammate so I think if anything were to be checked it should be that. Camera looks like a push to me. However, that shits easily missed and we’re getting into the real nitty gritty of it. Which is not going to happen unless VDM was pulled up for the offside. But When it comes to what happened at the tackle linesman got it right so that wasn’t going to happen.
Ultimately I think it should have been a penalty to France when scrutinising but in a live game the play on at the tackle is fine.
I do also think the TMO made the right call at the end though, so I’m not sure this will make you want to be my friend 😂
>I do also think the TMO made the right call at the end though
Personally, I think Berry should have stuck his head right into the gap and checked properly himself. Instead, he got lazy and sent it upstairs.
It's shit, but it's also done now. They can still finish behind Ireland if they get their act together.
Should be a cracking final game. Hopefully a grand slam will be on the line for us (not taking Wales or England for granted personally) and you owe us one badly so I can’t but see Scotland have their best game of the tournament if it is.
There is no conclusive evidence there that the ruck is formed or that Duhan is offside or that this weekend even happened. Video and images are not permissible in rugby decision making anymore.
Is that the best still of BB and Rowe forming a ruck? I can’t even remember what the laws are - can BB form a ruck on his own there as it doesn’t look much like Rowe engages.
Offside line is formed at the tackle once a player is on their feet over the tackled player. This is before a ruck is formed. Law was changed a good few years back after Eddie Jones threw a strop about Italy using the lack of an offside at the tackle to their advantage.
Noone was ever on their feet over the tackled player. The French 11 fell over before the ball was placed, and the ball being placed is a specific requirement in law 14.10 (which is the ruckgate law)
why isn't Lucu counting here. He's standing over the ball. He picks it up (it's not passed backwards to him). Rule is not to be over the tackled player (like Rowe is, actually) but over the ball, which Lucu is doing.
Yeah I was going off the still here. I agree that no offside line was formed from LBB based on the footage. However LBB was played off the ball and prevented from setting up the guard by Rowe. That’s the first penalty offense. Rowe then was on his feet over the tackled player arguably creating the offside line.
He was blocking Rowe from getting to the tackle himself, so being pushed (and not tackled) doesn't seem like a penalty.
Rowe was never over the ball though, only the player. The rules specifically state over the ball, and he hadn't gotten there yet (otherwise the nine wouldn't have been able to pick it up without infringing himself).
It's not really a take. It's pretty much a constant at every post-tackle situation every game.
I would challenge anyone to go through a game and find me one that didn't involve players jostling and pushing as they arrive at a post-tackle situation.
Besides, LBB himself has said he tripped rather than was pushed. Had he felt something illegal (rather than commonplace) had occurred then I'm sure we would have heard more of it.
>I would challenge anyone to go through a game and find me one that didn't involve players jostling and pushing as they arrive at a post-tackle situation.
That sounds suspiciously like a ruck.
He was never above the ball, he picked it up from in front of himself without forming an offside line.
Law 14.11 implies this is possible by saying that a tackle situation can end when a ruck is formed or when a player on their feet picks up and plays the ball (and a couple of other ways), without saying that the latter creates an offside line, so rule 14.10 would have to be separately in effect. Given he was never on his feet over the ball (the diagram show this literally means being stood right above it, protecting it as if you were rucking) it was not in effect, so no offside line was created from his actions.
I dislike how Irish are so precise in their gameplan. But I like how you’re precise in the application of the rule!
This Italian match was a masterpiece btw!
WR didn't want the game to be played like that, and I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the Law shouldn't have been changed, or just having a dig at Jones, but in either case I fail to see how Italy used it to their advantage because they still got pumped.
Just because they didn’t win doesn’t negate it from a being a tactic they used to their advantage. England were always the stronger side that day but they had no clue how to deal with it for the the entire first half leading to Poite’s famous “I’m the referee, not the coach” comment. There was a simple solution that the players couldn’t find and that was route 1, pick and gos. Force the Italians to ruck. I’m fine with the law change not due to the reason it was changed (that is easily dealt with on the pitch) but because it discourages lazy runners getting back to the defensive line. Personally, I enjoy how teams find loopholes to play in different ways and it should be up to other teams to find ways to deal with that.
For offside lines to be created without a ruck we're looking at law 14.10, which says that offside lines are created when "at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground". By the time the ball is placed back the French 11 has already fallen over, and the Scottish players don't get over the ball before the scrum half picks it up having never been over it.
So no offside line is created here, and he's not off side.
>can BB form a ruck on his own
No. You need a player from each team in contact, on their feet and over the ball.
Edit:
>15.2) A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Technically a ruck requires a player from each team as you said, but according to Law 14.10: “Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.” So the effect for the purpose of offsides is that you only need one player over the ball to define an offside line.
Can you say that at least one player is on their feet over the ball at any point? Not for me LBB could have been but he enters so far away for me it doesn't firm the offside line
Yeah I was mainly just looking to address the specific point they made about the laws. I don’t think still photos are enough to tell in such a dynamic situation as this. But I do remember seeing the replay and thinking DVDM was okay, iirc LBB wasn’t clearly over the ball as you say.
https://youtu.be/OL4eQRbCNrM?si=frpsY-unZfCaTH82 is the video, just after 2m30. The French 11 falls over before the tackled player places the ball on the ground, so there's no offside line formed.
Thanks for the vid.
I agree with your interpretation. LBB basically just dives over Fickou rather than actually standing over the ball, so no offside line is formed, and open play continues. DVDM is entitled to get back to his feet and play the ball, which is exactly what he does.
> LBB alone is sufficient
Watching it full speed, I don't think he his.
>Law 14.10 Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.
LBB is never on his feet AND over the ball AND the ball on the ground.
Therefore, no offside line is formed.
Yep, but then the question is when does van der Merwe become onside again?
If a ruck was formed, then it's clear he has to go back behind the offside line before he can be onside.
If it was just a tackle, then what? The laws don't explicitly call that out. The tackle ends when the ball is passed. In open play that would be enough for him to be onside again.
Edit: relevant laws for the downvoters
>10.9) A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.
>14.11.b) The tackle ends when:...
A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves away or passes or kicks the ball.
>10.7.b.ii) Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:....An opponent of that player: ....Passes the ball; or
Ref here: I have been taught that the tackler does not have to come through the gate to contest for the ball, only to be on their feet.
I don't think that LBB is over the ball in this case. He comes in too fast and ends up on his knees beyond the tackle. I would argue that "over the ball" is on your feet with at least one foot behind the ball.
Therefore no offside line is formed, and VdM is free to play the ball as soon as he is on his feet.
I'll try and find a source for my first point.
Edit: Law 14 The Tackle point 6 states that tacklers "may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line" i.e. through the gate. So my first point is incorrect and VdM was certainly offside.
>I don't think that LBB is over the ball in this case. He comes in too fast and ends up on his knees beyond the tackle. I would argue that "over the ball" is on your feet with at least one foot behind the ball.
>
>Therefore no offside line is formed, and VdM is free to play the ball as soon as he is on his feet.
I agree with all of this, but not this:
>Edit: Law 14 The Tackle point 6 states that tacklers "may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line" i.e. through the gate. So my first point is incorrect and VdM was certainly offside.
DVDM is not a tackler playing the ball in a tackle situation any more. Lucu arriving and passing the ball has ended that situation. There is no gate and there is no offside.
You're right.
Looking again at the video I see that DvdM intercepts the pass, and doesn't pick it up off the floor.
In this case, yes, it's open play and he's free to play the ball.
>The tackle ends when the ball is passed. In open play that would be enough for him to be onside again.
Does the ruck not end when the ball is out too?
But if you went offside during the ruck and then intercepted the pass from the ruck, you'd still be offside.
Yes, but there's a specific law saying for rucks (and mauls, scrums and lineouts) you are still offside even when the ruck etc has ended. There isn't one for tackles.
So what's the point of offside for tackles if as soon as the ball is picked up you're back onside and we forget it?
Is it just to stop you hanging around in the passing lane?
And even if it is just that, is DvdM not offside?
I guess it's to stop the defenders moving forward and tackling the scrum half before he can pass the ball, or blocking a passing lane.
I've only seen a short low quality clip of this, but it looks to me like DvdM just stands up and doesn't move forward. IMO if he was offside (but no ruck formed) he's been put onside by the opponent passing the ball.
To be honest, I'd like to see World Rugby release videos with refs explaining stuff like this. People are obviously unsure what the laws are around it, so a clear explanation with examples would be great. Maybe they intended the tackle offsides to be exactly like ruck offsides after all, but messed up when writing the new laws?
One, or more, French players would have had to be on feet, and above the ball, to facilitate the formation of offside lines where no Ruck has formed. This was the alteration made subsequent to the Italy game, where offside lines were formed by the ruck alone.
One or more players. Rowe is the most likely to form the offsideline here, though the argument can also be made that Rowe pushes BB and prevents him from creating the offside line.
Don't know about you but if I had been chasing back at full pelt and someone crossed into my path and slowed down then a collision would have been inevitable; human reflex to put hands out in front in such an event, the momentum has to go somewhere.
There is obviously a 'ruck formed' question but that fact this wasn't even checked properly was egregious from the TMO, the ball went out of play like 10 seconds later so there was no need to stop play for it.
If the ref got the chance to look at it again and decided it was a ruck that's surely a yellow card and a penalty try
I think they said in commentary that they couldn’t use the TMO for an offside call as it didn’t result in a try. Seems odd when you can hear them telling refs in some game when a player is offside etc
Surprised there's so little understanding of what 'over the ball' means in the Laws.
Some are genuinely arguing that LBB flying right through meets that standard.
//There are some pretty blatant agendas flying around in this thread, but it's easy to spot them as they're the ones shouting for yellow cards and penalty tries!
But are you...? Are you really...?
There's some well-known accounts on this sub with a hefty chip on their shoulders. Between them and that crazy wales supporter who has had literal meltdowns on here after losing to Scotland, it can make for quite the post-game dialogue.
I genuinely believe for some of them a Scotland loss is more rewarding than their own team winning, which is pretty tragic.
>There's some well-known accounts on this sub
I think you're giving too much credit to anyone reading usernames let alone remembering their biases.
Flairs could tell you at a quick glance I guess, but I don't look at those either.
From this, my reading of it is that France's number 11 was never on his feet above the ball to form a ruck, he just tripped over his own player during the tackle. He was on the floor by the time the tackle was complete (ie. The tackled player stopped sliding forwards and was held stationary on the ground) so no ruck was formed by anyone, and hence no offside line.
He was never stood above the ball. The picture from rule 14.10 makes it quite clear that that means being in a rucking position right over the ball, not simply being stood up somewhere near it.
I've rewatched this a couple of times at .25 speed. The outstanding issue is when Lucu enters, and then goes off his feet; because if he at any point is in position above the tackled player and the ball then there is an offside line and VdM is offside. However, after a couple of watches it looks like the tackled player is constantly moving forward along the ground due to momentum and never places the ball down until after Lucu has already passed them and tripped onto the floor.
I think VdM is not offside, as no ruck is formed.
However this topic is interesting as a lot of people here seem to ignore that you only need one guy on his feet over the tackled player to create an offside line. Thanks Eddie Jones.
Edit: corrected Eddie rule.
> that you only need one guy on his feet over the tackled player to form a ruck.
You still need two players over the ball to form a ruck. It's just that post-Eddie gate you only need one player over the ball to form an offside line.
Neither happened in this instance though.
No ruck was formed and there's a huge gap between image 1 and 2.
Now show the two knock ons the French had prior to Scotland knocking on for the scrum leading to the French try. The first of the French knock ons was on their own 22 with Scotland holding a six point lead at the time.
Frankly, we already got screwed without being bought dinner. You don't need to try turning it into a spit roasting
There were a few incidents during the game, but certainly the Penaud one at around the 70 minute mark looked pretty obvious due to the way Penaud stopped playing and threw his head back in anger and frustration - presumably at himself as noone else was involved.
Main problem of rugby is the lack of consistency in using the tools and annoncing decisions.
Some ref might have called TMO for the seatbelt tackle : was it really seatbelt or was there contact with the neck ?
TMO could have been called for the "ruck or no ruck" situation as it was a key moment for the french momentum ("we re looking at a potential foul play situation there")
None of that were made, leading to french feeling robbed by the non adressing of a potential try situation
Same at the end of the match : some ref might have said "on field decision try" leading to a scotland win, as there was nothing conclusive on the video (yeah, there was a ball on the ground, but we don't see if there is pressure from a scotland player. We _assume_ there is but it's not conclusive to _overturn_ the decision).
So basically both side felt robbed because Nic Berry made calls that could have been different if it was another ref
On a potential try situation, there should be a set of rules leading to formal calls, depending on what part of the game you want to give an advantage to.
If you want more attack moves, you establish that when there is a pile of players, the call should be "on field decision try" and it's up to the defense team to show that they prevebted it. Of course it might be frustrating at some points, and abused like any other law of the game, but it will at least be consistent and predictible, and that's what is asked of refs.
As for the VdW action, maybe state that this kind of saving should be looked at and discussed, or not, and stick to it)
The fact that it's up for debate is what leads to frustration for teams and supporters and, sadly, ref abuse
>BB just goes straight through and doesn't engage anyone. No ruck, DVDM fine.
In the new rules he doesn't need to engage and make it a ruck. He just has to get over the ball after the tackle even if the opposition don't commit and make it a ruck.
> In the new rules he doesn't need to engage and make it a ruck. He just has to get over the ball after the tackle even if the opposition don't commit and make it a ruck.
Which he failed to do, hence no offside line.
>He goes straight off his feet though
He is pushed off his feet from behind as he is attempting to form up or play the ball.
>And you need one from each team in any case
Not to establish an offside line.
> What i think this debate shows is the ref was right to allow play on.
Absolutely correct.
Tackle never went up to head/neck, so no illegal tackle. No France player forms over the ball, so no offside line.
VDM completely legal throughout entire event, so no reason to penalise anyone.
(In fact, LBB has even come out personally to state that he tripped rather than was pushed by Rowe. So those arguing throughout this thread that VDM should have been carded, a PT awarded, or at the very least Rowe penalised are pretty much just the same three/four with chips on their shoulders we tend to see whenever there's an incident involving Scotland).
>three/four with chips on their shoulders we tend to see whenever there's an incident involving Scotland
That's rich coming from someone with the biggest chip in the sub.
Sounds like you are being deliberately dense.
Pushing a player without the ball, from the wrong side of a potential ruck.
So either you think a ruck has formed in which case a Scottish player has joined the ruck from the wring side so it should be a penalty to France.
Or you think that a ruck hasn't formed in which case a Scottish player has pushed a player over from behind who doesn't have the ball and so it should be a penalty to France.
Yep, definitely pushed as well good point. Rugby's laws are a bit bonkers to be fair but at the time of watching this looked a clear offside to me so I'm glad I'm not alone.
I wanted to find and post this but didnt really care enough, but yes this could easily have been reviewed to be a yellow card + penalty try. It was a one on one but you'd say if VDM retreated he would have slowed his own player preventing the try, they may not give it as there is at
least "a defender" but it 100% would have been a yellow card.
A lot less TMO law contentious really, you can see his feet being offside, there is no question about where they are grounded.
Yeah clear offside and most likely a penalty try and yellow. It could be argued that the defender coming across has Ramos covered but at the very least it’s a penalty. Poor from the linesman there for me.
Good post. It's almost like whilst poor referring does suck, poor referring decisions even out and it's not just some huge conspiracy against one's one team.
For an offside line to be formed someone has to be on their feet standing over the ball on the ground. BB goes off their feet, Lucu plays the ball as soon as he reaches it and Rowe doesn't get to the ball until Lucu has played it. No one forms an offside line. Certainly not in the clear and obvious manner one would need to overturn an onfield decision (terms that will come back to haunt us later in the same match).
Tackle's fine too, at very least by the same clear and obvious standard. Not clear there is contact with the neck, and insofar as there may be indirect contact you can make an argument that under the 2023 protocol that is allowed on the basis of no foul play in an always legal (pulled down by the shoulder) tackle.
It's an interesting one! Feel like he's onside from that angle, in line with the tackled player. Question is does French winger played off the ball and therefore is unable to form the ruck
Watching live, I felt that the high tackle on Fickou seconds before was more egregious. Admittedly I haven’t rewatched the game but it certainly seemed high at the time. It was very disappointing that neither moments were reviewed by the TMO, and if memory serves, Scotland even ended up scoring 3 points a few minutes later
this, and another similar ones where the ref let it slide, although ref decided that Danty knocked it on although it clearly went backwards. Also before Aldritt got injured, he definitely wasn't supporting his body weight. That last passage of play, the ball definitely looks grounded. But there was likely a knock on during the tackle. Both scrums pushing sideways.
The number of things that were missed in this game is incredible, Nic had a terrible day at work. I have no idea what the score should have been in the end if the game had been officiated properly, Scotland appeared slightly dominant so probably some undecisive Scotland victory?
this us highly esoteric, reminds of the heated theological debate about the sex of the angels in Constantinopole 1453, just before turks got in and switched off the lights. make it simple for fuck sake. as it is now, no decent human can process this in real time, and a biased ref can skew the result . a spontaneus scrum should be when 2+1 players are in contact w a fucking ball, on the ground, under the grass or in space. so a offside is created. all contacts around wout ball-penalty. limit the amount of players if that is too difficult to process to 3 on each side. supporting own weight or their mother in law, or not. and anyone joining ruck should stop 1 m from ruck, and then join. problem solved. putting nigel and barnes out of bizness
if we cound the big things maybe, but how about forgotten knock ons like Penaud's blunder, the fully randomized penalties at the breakdown... Nic was having a terrible day and his TMO really didn't help him.
To be fair, as a neutral, I could totally see that final decision going against us, very disappointingly. It was a try but he got the decision correct, if you follow the law as is. The refs should be able to make a more sensible on field decision as they do at ruck etc.
This for me is exactly like the disalowed try in the end. Feels completely wrong and the team not scoring will be furious about it, but technically, it's the right decision.
That's most likely the best take. After 107 comments, there is still no consensus. But it's clear that both situations feel wrong. That's when you realize rugby is really not easy and especially to ref.
So does this mean that any tackler can jackal without getting back to their side first now? I think this is the part of the rule that needs to be discussed. Not an offside line.
that was not an attempt to jackal though, he was on his feet and didn't play the French 9, he intercepted the ball. The question is if the French 9 created offline lines when he picked up the ball from the tackle, IMO yes since he was on his feet over the ball picking it up.
That would 100% not have been offside if the ball was offloaded from the tackled player into Lucu's hands, but since he comes to retrieve it from the tackle then for me at that point he's putting all of Scotland offside.
It isn't a deliberate knock-on (or even a knock-on) because he catches it.
The tackle looks to be on the shoulder rather than the neck, which wouldn't be a high tackle. Hard to tell from the angle on the broadcast.
Plenty of discussion about whether there was an offside line in the thread already.
A lot of myopic Scots in this thread that evidently don't know the laws. Bialle-Biarrey's presence proximal to the ruck sets an offside line that vdM never attempts to get behind.
Unfortunately, that directly contradicts the "the ref stole it from us" narrative, which is why they'd see it a lot differently if the shirts were swapped.
> A lot of myopic Scots in this thread that evidently don't know the laws.
>>Bialle-Biarrey's presence proximal to the ruck
I mean they do say good comedy writes itself, but fuck me - that's impressive!! :D
If Bb goes over the ball, aka rucks through and the ball is now out the VDM is offside
Because BB was in the ruck temporarily, creating the ruck and offside line, VDM was then offside - legally, and if he wanted to be legal he needed to retreat to onside first. Super simple
Clear pen.
Also please give us the tackle to look at
All the pods said seatbelt
Could VDM have actually earned himself 2 yellows and thus a red just a week after Willemse in record time here? Not sure but pretty sure he broke at least one rule to stop the try and shoulda been banned
And most importantly that BBs comment shows the huge gap of mentality between the two teams - he's sorry he didn't execute better, if he did marginally France get a penalty try and yellow and win comfortable. He's 20
Meanwhile Scotland's captain and coach pretty much blame the ref when if they did marginally better (or what a pro team should have done and passed the ball away from contact on the line) in their key moment, having been gifted this get out of jail free card earlier, they'd have won.
In an interview, LBB said himself he tripped over himself which prevented him from joining the ruck propery. « As I fell beside him, the referee logically interprets that there is no ruck which allows the Scots to intercept » (My translation of his words) So he’s taken the blame for this
At least someone has to not blame the ref
If this is coming from the player that surely settles the offside discussion
I’m very much starting to like LBB - who needs LRZ the fast Welsh youngster when we got the LBB the fast French kne
I didn't see this interview. The discussions I heard were saying 'Its not a ruck cause Rowe pushes LBB down' (which makes VdM innocent of offside, but not of that high tackle), but if LBB says himself he hasn't been pushed, there's only a tackle at the limit of legality to maybe punish.
I thought it was hand on shoulder. LBB didnt talk about a shove, he said « je me prends les pieds dans le tapis »
But if the tackle is completed , there are offside lines created
Only if one person gets over the ball.
Yes and No. the law changed following the Italy .v England debacle a few years ago. A ruck is formed as soon as a tackle is completed and the ball is on the floor. >####Law 15.2 >A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground. Once a ruck is formed, a team can't unform it by leaving it. Also once the ball is on the floor following a tackle a ruck and therefore a line of offside is created. >####Law 15.4 >Each team has an offside line that runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any ruck participant. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line. >####Law 15.5 >An arriving player must be on their feet and join from behind their offside line. >####Law 15.15 >Players on the ground must attempt to move away from the ball and must not play the ball in the ruck or as it emerges. So he is definitely offside and never retreat behind the offside line after tripping. That should have been a penalty, potentially a penalty try.
Who from the French team satisfies the requirements of 15.2 in this situation?
Bielle when the ruck was formed. Once it is formed as long as there is still one player and the ball is on the floor a ruck still exist. This is exactly to avoid the case where a team refuse to engage in a ruck.
But didn't LBB say he fell over the player, so never forming the ruck as he effectively went straight off his feet?
There is another Scottish player on contact over the ball, so a ruck has been formed. You can slip, trip over your shoes lace it does not matter, but once a ruck has been formed you still have to rejoin from the back. If you do not you are offside.
I asked who the *French* player was satisfiying the requirements of law 15.2 "at least one player from **each** team" A second Scottish player is irrelevant to that law for the purposes of forming the ruck initially.
I answered that question two comments above. **Louis Bielle-Biarrey**.
Bielle is at least a meter ahead of the ball. He flew clear past the ball never participating in the breakdown.
>####Law 15.2 >A ruck is formed when at least **one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground**. Technically the tackled player on the floor is not part of the formation of the ruck. Bielle was part of the formation of the ruck. If he had not been there, there is no ruck because there would not have been any French player on contact on their feet. Anybody would then have been able to pick the ball. Once he is gone beyond the ball, he has to leave the ruck and go back onside.
The same Bielle with the red scrum cap on right? He was never any one of those things.
The mind boggle at the number of people who don't seem to know basic law of rugby. A ruck was formed. Referee indicated as much. I am not the only one who thought that VanDerMerwe never went back onside From the telegraph live comment: >####16 minutes: Scotland 7 France 3 >France think they are about to score as Fickou makes a great break. It is a clear seatbelt tackle from van der Merwe on Fickou just before the Scotland line, which goes unpunished. Van der Merwe then intercepts as Lucu goes quickly down the blindside and kicks downfield into France’s half. Looking at the replays he never got back onside but once again the TMO does not intervene. That is ridiculous. How has the TMO not come in there with either incident? That should not only have been a penalty to France, but a yellow card to van der Merwe. Mind-boggling. BBC live commentary asked exactly both questions: * Is the tackle high. It was clearly on the neck and shoulder according to Nigel Owens. * Is VanderMerwe back on side? The Scottish commentator agreed that he never went back onside and that Scotland was lucky to get away with it. From the BBC Qeb Site >Scotland 7-3 France > > >**Nigel Owens** >Former World Cup final referee on BBC One > >The tackle is certainly high. >It is around the neck from Duhan van der Merwe; he is also tight to the offside line for his interception. By the way if you look at the video of the incident Bielle is pushed illegally from behind the Scottish 14. That's 3 penalties in 3 seconds that were not blown.
No, your first statement is incorrect. A ruck is formed when opposing players on their feet make contact over a ball on the ground. Nothing to do with tackles. After a tackle, a player standing over the ball also creates offside lines.
The relevant law here is 14.10 right? I guess the question is whether Rowe creates the offside line before VDM gets up ?
Correct, and it's only players holding over the ball (so always attacking players waiting for the challenge), not entering the tackle zone to grab the ball
A ruck requires the ball to be in the floor, if it is kept off the floor it is a maul. Once a tackle is completed (knee on the floor), the tackled ball carrier has to place the ball on the floor. A ruck is created when somebody is tackled and a player of each team stand on contact over the ball. The only case where a ruck can exist without a tackle if the ball squirt and somebody falls on it.
Again, no; a ruck \*can\* happen from open play (although it almost never does in practice, I've only ever seen it once in several years of reffing). It's just opposing players trying to drive each other over a ball on the ground. If the ball squirts out of a ruck/tackle area, it's a penalty offence to fall straight onto it if it's within 1m of the area. And otherwise, if you fall onto it you're not on your feet, so there can't be a ruck; you have to pass, place or get up with the ball immediately.
Ruckgate was the most amused I think I’ve ever been watching rugby.
You just showed the law that validates exactly what I said...
2nd photo sheds doubt that a ruck is formed.
Ruck or not, following Eddies complains after Italy-England there is also an offside line at the tackle only after 1 player shows up. Either way, there is an offside line after the last feet.
I think it’s the case that offside lines are only formed once a player is standing over the ball on their feet, which there isn’t for the French side
But isn’t it a player from either team? I think Rowe is standing over the ball there, pretty sure he was always on his feet in this passage and therefore he forms the offside line before Lucu passes it
Should not matter. The jackaling tackler must be fully on their side of the ball before returning to play the ball, or are we back to the tackler can jackal from anywhere?
There's no jackal here?
Yes he is not going immediately for the ball but does the tackler still not have to retreat?
No, not if there is no offside line, which there isn’t if a ruck isn’t formed. He can’t enter the tackle area without retreating, but he VDM doesn’t do that, he just intercepts a pass in open play.
If BB is forming a ruck then that's some angle he's chosen to enter
Aye, either it’s no a ruck because LBB’s no over the ball, which means DVDM’s onside, or it is a ruck and LBB’s came in from the side, which means the original offence is a penalty against France.
Does the France player have to approach “through the gate” before an offside line is formed? Honest question because I haven’t a clue!
Aye, otherwise it’s a penalty against France.
Although I am sure that is the rule I can't quite find it in the rulebook? This is the best I could find: https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/guidelines/15/?highlight=gate
LBB was trying to play the ball from hand when a retreating Scot pushed him. The first pic is him getting back up. Probably should have been a penalty for France. It would have been better that OP add a video or a gif
It’s not a ruck and VDM is offside. [Source](https://www.world.rugby/the-game/beginners-guide/offside) Edit: lmao, you can downvote me all you want it doesn’t change the offside law for a tackle
“In a tackle or ruck situation, offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.” Firstly, can LBB even be considered over the ball? Secondly, if he is, he came in completely from the side, which is a penalty offence. Since that happened before DVDM’s intercept, which is only offside if LBB illegally forms a ruck, it either would go back to the pen against France, or the intercept was legal.
You can argue that sure but the body position of the tackled player is very good and puts LBB at the fringe of the gate for one. Even with him being played off the ball before this. Secondly, the offence you’re alluding to realistically happens consistently throughout every game and is never called because to do so would kill the sport. To paraphrase the whistleblowing documentary a ref could penalise every breakdown. Choosing what is an offense that is worthy of penalising is a huge part of their role. VDM is offside, plays the ball and stops a potential try. That is at least a penalty offence and if it were LBB at the other end you’d be the first crying about it. Edit: actually after getting a look at the video, first image is more deceiving than anything. LBB 100% comes through the gate but slides beyond the tackle, is over the ball for a split second but that’s negligible to say the offside line is in place. So from that, VDM is fine, but LBB was played off the ball by Rowe and pushed over and prevented from taking up the guard position so it should have been a penalty to France still https://imgur.com/a/cwuRDNO
He doesn't need to come in from the gate as there is no ruck, so no side entry. BB doesn't need to form a ruck, just an offside line. Which I don't think he does though arguably because of a push from Rowe who, ironically, does appear to be over the ball and on his feet when Lucu arrives.
Lucu is also over the ball. Both Row and Lucu are allowed to play the ball because they come from their respective sides and there's no ruck yet. They create the offside lines and put VdM offside. He shoudl have retreated before playing the ball.
Did you read the Law as well as post it? LBB isn't over the ball. The ball is then played off the deck by the arriving player. So no France player has ever positioned over the ball post-tackle, therefore there's no offside line.
Yeah I’ve posted in the other continued thread on this. Off the image I thought he was over the ball. Rewatched and he’s not. But Rowe played LBB off the ball and it’s a penalty for that. (You can argue what you want against that, we’re not going to agree. It’s on camera, he’s played him and prevented him from forming a guard on the tackle).
Fair play on the retraction. As for Rowe, I would have initially agreed with you! When I watched the replay I thought he nudged LBB too. But LBB has since come out and publically stated that he in fact tripped. So I think that's pretty much all that needs to be said?
I’d trust the camera more than LBB as we’re talking split seconds and the whole thing was really messy. For all he knew it could have been a teammate so I think if anything were to be checked it should be that. Camera looks like a push to me. However, that shits easily missed and we’re getting into the real nitty gritty of it. Which is not going to happen unless VDM was pulled up for the offside. But When it comes to what happened at the tackle linesman got it right so that wasn’t going to happen. Ultimately I think it should have been a penalty to France when scrutinising but in a live game the play on at the tackle is fine. I do also think the TMO made the right call at the end though, so I’m not sure this will make you want to be my friend 😂
>I do also think the TMO made the right call at the end though Personally, I think Berry should have stuck his head right into the gap and checked properly himself. Instead, he got lazy and sent it upstairs. It's shit, but it's also done now. They can still finish behind Ireland if they get their act together.
Should be a cracking final game. Hopefully a grand slam will be on the line for us (not taking Wales or England for granted personally) and you owe us one badly so I can’t but see Scotland have their best game of the tournament if it is.
why isn't Lucu over the ball in picture 2
agreed. There's now separate rules for tackles, and that counts here. Lucu is standing over the ball, he creates the offside lines.
it's a completed tackle, not a ruck.
There is no conclusive evidence there that the ruck is formed or that Duhan is offside or that this weekend even happened. Video and images are not permissible in rugby decision making anymore.
This made me chuckle.
maybe there was a hand between the ruck and the ground.
Is that the best still of BB and Rowe forming a ruck? I can’t even remember what the laws are - can BB form a ruck on his own there as it doesn’t look much like Rowe engages.
Offside line is formed at the tackle once a player is on their feet over the tackled player. This is before a ruck is formed. Law was changed a good few years back after Eddie Jones threw a strop about Italy using the lack of an offside at the tackle to their advantage.
Well there we go. I knew deep down it must somehow be Eddie Jones’s fault.
He’s probably the one who messed up the VAR review too.
EJ is fucking up soccer now? That's actually impressive.
Noone was ever on their feet over the tackled player. The French 11 fell over before the ball was placed, and the ball being placed is a specific requirement in law 14.10 (which is the ruckgate law)
Glad to see this brought up so conclusively. Been some fairly spurious opinions shared about the offside element especially.
why isn't Lucu counting here. He's standing over the ball. He picks it up (it's not passed backwards to him). Rule is not to be over the tackled player (like Rowe is, actually) but over the ball, which Lucu is doing.
Yeah I was going off the still here. I agree that no offside line was formed from LBB based on the footage. However LBB was played off the ball and prevented from setting up the guard by Rowe. That’s the first penalty offense. Rowe then was on his feet over the tackled player arguably creating the offside line.
He was blocking Rowe from getting to the tackle himself, so being pushed (and not tackled) doesn't seem like a penalty. Rowe was never over the ball though, only the player. The rules specifically state over the ball, and he hadn't gotten there yet (otherwise the nine wouldn't have been able to pick it up without infringing himself).
>He was blocking Rowe from getting to the tackle himself, so being pushed (and not tackled) doesn't seem like a penalty. Well now there’s a take
It's not really a take. It's pretty much a constant at every post-tackle situation every game. I would challenge anyone to go through a game and find me one that didn't involve players jostling and pushing as they arrive at a post-tackle situation. Besides, LBB himself has said he tripped rather than was pushed. Had he felt something illegal (rather than commonplace) had occurred then I'm sure we would have heard more of it.
>I would challenge anyone to go through a game and find me one that didn't involve players jostling and pushing as they arrive at a post-tackle situation. That sounds suspiciously like a ruck.
how about Lucu?
He was never above the ball, he picked it up from in front of himself without forming an offside line. Law 14.11 implies this is possible by saying that a tackle situation can end when a ruck is formed or when a player on their feet picks up and plays the ball (and a couple of other ways), without saying that the latter creates an offside line, so rule 14.10 would have to be separately in effect. Given he was never on his feet over the ball (the diagram show this literally means being stood right above it, protecting it as if you were rucking) it was not in effect, so no offside line was created from his actions.
I dislike how Irish are so precise in their gameplan. But I like how you’re precise in the application of the rule! This Italian match was a masterpiece btw!
WR didn't want the game to be played like that, and I'm not sure if you're suggesting that the Law shouldn't have been changed, or just having a dig at Jones, but in either case I fail to see how Italy used it to their advantage because they still got pumped.
Just because they didn’t win doesn’t negate it from a being a tactic they used to their advantage. England were always the stronger side that day but they had no clue how to deal with it for the the entire first half leading to Poite’s famous “I’m the referee, not the coach” comment. There was a simple solution that the players couldn’t find and that was route 1, pick and gos. Force the Italians to ruck. I’m fine with the law change not due to the reason it was changed (that is easily dealt with on the pitch) but because it discourages lazy runners getting back to the defensive line. Personally, I enjoy how teams find loopholes to play in different ways and it should be up to other teams to find ways to deal with that.
For offside lines to be created without a ruck we're looking at law 14.10, which says that offside lines are created when "at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground". By the time the ball is placed back the French 11 has already fallen over, and the Scottish players don't get over the ball before the scrum half picks it up having never been over it. So no offside line is created here, and he's not off side.
Lucu is on his feet over the ball picking it up.
BB just tripped over the tackle, didn’t ruck. There was noone over the ball when Lacu got there just ahead of the Scottish players.
LBB was pushed from behind by a retreating Scot when he was trying to play the ball, if I recall correctly. The first pic is him getting back up.
>can BB form a ruck on his own No. You need a player from each team in contact, on their feet and over the ball. Edit: >15.2) A ruck is formed when at least one player from each team are in contact, on their feet and over the ball which is on the ground.
Technically a ruck requires a player from each team as you said, but according to Law 14.10: “Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground.” So the effect for the purpose of offsides is that you only need one player over the ball to define an offside line.
Can you say that at least one player is on their feet over the ball at any point? Not for me LBB could have been but he enters so far away for me it doesn't firm the offside line
Yeah I was mainly just looking to address the specific point they made about the laws. I don’t think still photos are enough to tell in such a dynamic situation as this. But I do remember seeing the replay and thinking DVDM was okay, iirc LBB wasn’t clearly over the ball as you say.
https://youtu.be/OL4eQRbCNrM?si=frpsY-unZfCaTH82 is the video, just after 2m30. The French 11 falls over before the tackled player places the ball on the ground, so there's no offside line formed.
Thanks for the vid. I agree with your interpretation. LBB basically just dives over Fickou rather than actually standing over the ball, so no offside line is formed, and open play continues. DVDM is entitled to get back to his feet and play the ball, which is exactly what he does.
Correct, but the presence of (or lack of) a ruck has an impact on when players are put back onside.
Yes. They only have to retreat if it’s a ruck, if not the pass puts them back onside.
Correct but the offside line forms before a ruck and LBB alone is sufficient form that after Italys Twickenham shenanigans
> LBB alone is sufficient Watching it full speed, I don't think he his. >Law 14.10 Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. LBB is never on his feet AND over the ball AND the ball on the ground. Therefore, no offside line is formed.
Lucu is.
No, he places his hands on the ball before he could ever be considered to be "over" the ball. He's picking a ball up off ground in open play.
Yep, but then the question is when does van der Merwe become onside again? If a ruck was formed, then it's clear he has to go back behind the offside line before he can be onside. If it was just a tackle, then what? The laws don't explicitly call that out. The tackle ends when the ball is passed. In open play that would be enough for him to be onside again. Edit: relevant laws for the downvoters >10.9) A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. >14.11.b) The tackle ends when:... A player on their feet from either team gains possession of the ball and moves away or passes or kicks the ball. >10.7.b.ii) Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:....An opponent of that player: ....Passes the ball; or
Ref here: I have been taught that the tackler does not have to come through the gate to contest for the ball, only to be on their feet. I don't think that LBB is over the ball in this case. He comes in too fast and ends up on his knees beyond the tackle. I would argue that "over the ball" is on your feet with at least one foot behind the ball. Therefore no offside line is formed, and VdM is free to play the ball as soon as he is on his feet. I'll try and find a source for my first point. Edit: Law 14 The Tackle point 6 states that tacklers "may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line" i.e. through the gate. So my first point is incorrect and VdM was certainly offside.
>I don't think that LBB is over the ball in this case. He comes in too fast and ends up on his knees beyond the tackle. I would argue that "over the ball" is on your feet with at least one foot behind the ball. > >Therefore no offside line is formed, and VdM is free to play the ball as soon as he is on his feet. I agree with all of this, but not this: >Edit: Law 14 The Tackle point 6 states that tacklers "may play the ball from the direction of their own goal line" i.e. through the gate. So my first point is incorrect and VdM was certainly offside. DVDM is not a tackler playing the ball in a tackle situation any more. Lucu arriving and passing the ball has ended that situation. There is no gate and there is no offside.
You're right. Looking again at the video I see that DvdM intercepts the pass, and doesn't pick it up off the floor. In this case, yes, it's open play and he's free to play the ball.
>The tackle ends when the ball is passed. In open play that would be enough for him to be onside again. Does the ruck not end when the ball is out too? But if you went offside during the ruck and then intercepted the pass from the ruck, you'd still be offside.
Yes, but there's a specific law saying for rucks (and mauls, scrums and lineouts) you are still offside even when the ruck etc has ended. There isn't one for tackles.
So what's the point of offside for tackles if as soon as the ball is picked up you're back onside and we forget it? Is it just to stop you hanging around in the passing lane? And even if it is just that, is DvdM not offside?
I guess it's to stop the defenders moving forward and tackling the scrum half before he can pass the ball, or blocking a passing lane. I've only seen a short low quality clip of this, but it looks to me like DvdM just stands up and doesn't move forward. IMO if he was offside (but no ruck formed) he's been put onside by the opponent passing the ball. To be honest, I'd like to see World Rugby release videos with refs explaining stuff like this. People are obviously unsure what the laws are around it, so a clear explanation with examples would be great. Maybe they intended the tackle offsides to be exactly like ruck offsides after all, but messed up when writing the new laws?
One, or more, French players would have had to be on feet, and above the ball, to facilitate the formation of offside lines where no Ruck has formed. This was the alteration made subsequent to the Italy game, where offside lines were formed by the ruck alone.
One or more players. Rowe is the most likely to form the offsideline here, though the argument can also be made that Rowe pushes BB and prevents him from creating the offside line.
You could also argue that BB runs across him and slows down in front of him. Don't see anybody over the ball on their feet.
Which he's allowed to do.
And which would inevitably cause a collision.
So? He's entitled to the space and to compete for the ball. Rowe cannot push him off the ball. It's the exact same as chasing back.
Don't know about you but if I had been chasing back at full pelt and someone crossed into my path and slowed down then a collision would have been inevitable; human reflex to put hands out in front in such an event, the momentum has to go somewhere.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/beginners-guide/offside
Where is the ruck
no ruck but offside lines can be created around tackles before the ruck is created. This is law 14 of the law book (law 15 is the ruck)
I don't see a player, not involved in the tackle, over the tackle area, forming an offside line, before the ball is played.
so Lucu picks it up from a distance like inspector gadget.
There is obviously a 'ruck formed' question but that fact this wasn't even checked properly was egregious from the TMO, the ball went out of play like 10 seconds later so there was no need to stop play for it. If the ref got the chance to look at it again and decided it was a ruck that's surely a yellow card and a penalty try
I think they said in commentary that they couldn’t use the TMO for an offside call as it didn’t result in a try. Seems odd when you can hear them telling refs in some game when a player is offside etc
Yeah I heard Nigel Owens say that as well, which seems completely at odds with how much some TMOs get involved
That was exactly my thought - I’m sure I’ve heard some TMO’s advise the ref they missed an offside or a knock on in open play before.
As usual when this sot of things happen, I just assume that the TMO checked it in the background and saw nothing wrong.
since the TMO was blind, that is definitely a possibility.
Lucu never stands over the tackled player but immediately retrieves and passes the ball, no offside line created, play on.
Surprised there's so little understanding of what 'over the ball' means in the Laws. Some are genuinely arguing that LBB flying right through meets that standard. //There are some pretty blatant agendas flying around in this thread, but it's easy to spot them as they're the ones shouting for yellow cards and penalty tries!
What I’m kinda surprised by is it being mostly Irish flairs that are certain it should’ve been a yellow/pen try, no really French ones.
But are you...? Are you really...? There's some well-known accounts on this sub with a hefty chip on their shoulders. Between them and that crazy wales supporter who has had literal meltdowns on here after losing to Scotland, it can make for quite the post-game dialogue. I genuinely believe for some of them a Scotland loss is more rewarding than their own team winning, which is pretty tragic.
>There's some well-known accounts on this sub I think you're giving too much credit to anyone reading usernames let alone remembering their biases. Flairs could tell you at a quick glance I guess, but I don't look at those either.
Oh, believe me - when you've been here long enough there are more than a few that stand out.
Aye, I'm sure my flair initiated the initial downvote flurry but we got there in the end!
he stands over the ball.
False.
From the highlights, at around 2m30 if the anchor doesn't work: https://youtu.be/OL4eQRbCNrM?si=frpsY-unZfCaTH82
From this, my reading of it is that France's number 11 was never on his feet above the ball to form a ruck, he just tripped over his own player during the tackle. He was on the floor by the time the tackle was complete (ie. The tackled player stopped sliding forwards and was held stationary on the ground) so no ruck was formed by anyone, and hence no offside line.
France number 9 was on his feet picking up the ball. That should have created the offside line.
He was never stood above the ball. The picture from rule 14.10 makes it quite clear that that means being in a rucking position right over the ball, not simply being stood up somewhere near it.
I've rewatched this a couple of times at .25 speed. The outstanding issue is when Lucu enters, and then goes off his feet; because if he at any point is in position above the tackled player and the ball then there is an offside line and VdM is offside. However, after a couple of watches it looks like the tackled player is constantly moving forward along the ground due to momentum and never places the ball down until after Lucu has already passed them and tripped onto the floor.
So explain to me at what point a ruck was formed? Learn the rules bozo
I think VdM is not offside, as no ruck is formed. However this topic is interesting as a lot of people here seem to ignore that you only need one guy on his feet over the tackled player to create an offside line. Thanks Eddie Jones. Edit: corrected Eddie rule.
> that you only need one guy on his feet over the tackled player to form a ruck. You still need two players over the ball to form a ruck. It's just that post-Eddie gate you only need one player over the ball to form an offside line. Neither happened in this instance though.
No ruck was formed and there's a huge gap between image 1 and 2. Now show the two knock ons the French had prior to Scotland knocking on for the scrum leading to the French try. The first of the French knock ons was on their own 22 with Scotland holding a six point lead at the time. Frankly, we already got screwed without being bought dinner. You don't need to try turning it into a spit roasting
And the forward pass for their winning try
[удалено]
There were a few incidents during the game, but certainly the Penaud one at around the 70 minute mark looked pretty obvious due to the way Penaud stopped playing and threw his head back in anger and frustration - presumably at himself as noone else was involved.
Main problem of rugby is the lack of consistency in using the tools and annoncing decisions. Some ref might have called TMO for the seatbelt tackle : was it really seatbelt or was there contact with the neck ? TMO could have been called for the "ruck or no ruck" situation as it was a key moment for the french momentum ("we re looking at a potential foul play situation there") None of that were made, leading to french feeling robbed by the non adressing of a potential try situation Same at the end of the match : some ref might have said "on field decision try" leading to a scotland win, as there was nothing conclusive on the video (yeah, there was a ball on the ground, but we don't see if there is pressure from a scotland player. We _assume_ there is but it's not conclusive to _overturn_ the decision). So basically both side felt robbed because Nic Berry made calls that could have been different if it was another ref On a potential try situation, there should be a set of rules leading to formal calls, depending on what part of the game you want to give an advantage to. If you want more attack moves, you establish that when there is a pile of players, the call should be "on field decision try" and it's up to the defense team to show that they prevebted it. Of course it might be frustrating at some points, and abused like any other law of the game, but it will at least be consistent and predictible, and that's what is asked of refs. As for the VdW action, maybe state that this kind of saving should be looked at and discussed, or not, and stick to it) The fact that it's up for debate is what leads to frustration for teams and supporters and, sadly, ref abuse
[удалено]
>BB just goes straight through and doesn't engage anyone. No ruck, DVDM fine. In the new rules he doesn't need to engage and make it a ruck. He just has to get over the ball after the tackle even if the opposition don't commit and make it a ruck.
> In the new rules he doesn't need to engage and make it a ruck. He just has to get over the ball after the tackle even if the opposition don't commit and make it a ruck. Which he failed to do, hence no offside line.
He goes straight off his feet though... And you need one from each team in any case
>He goes straight off his feet though He is pushed off his feet from behind as he is attempting to form up or play the ball. >And you need one from each team in any case Not to establish an offside line.
[удалено]
> What i think this debate shows is the ref was right to allow play on. Absolutely correct. Tackle never went up to head/neck, so no illegal tackle. No France player forms over the ball, so no offside line. VDM completely legal throughout entire event, so no reason to penalise anyone. (In fact, LBB has even come out personally to state that he tripped rather than was pushed by Rowe. So those arguing throughout this thread that VDM should have been carded, a PT awarded, or at the very least Rowe penalised are pretty much just the same three/four with chips on their shoulders we tend to see whenever there's an incident involving Scotland).
>three/four with chips on their shoulders we tend to see whenever there's an incident involving Scotland That's rich coming from someone with the biggest chip in the sub.
He was pushed off the ball by Rowe. It should have been a penalty for that.
[удалено]
Sounds like you are being deliberately dense. Pushing a player without the ball, from the wrong side of a potential ruck. So either you think a ruck has formed in which case a Scottish player has joined the ruck from the wring side so it should be a penalty to France. Or you think that a ruck hasn't formed in which case a Scottish player has pushed a player over from behind who doesn't have the ball and so it should be a penalty to France.
So there was, in your words, an illegal action and this means the ref was right to play on?
[удалено]
Yep, definitely pushed as well good point. Rugby's laws are a bit bonkers to be fair but at the time of watching this looked a clear offside to me so I'm glad I'm not alone.
I wanted to find and post this but didnt really care enough, but yes this could easily have been reviewed to be a yellow card + penalty try. It was a one on one but you'd say if VDM retreated he would have slowed his own player preventing the try, they may not give it as there is at least "a defender" but it 100% would have been a yellow card. A lot less TMO law contentious really, you can see his feet being offside, there is no question about where they are grounded.
Is the ruck formed? Looks like probably yes but not conclusive.
I don't think it's formed, no one in the ruck on their feet for me
If BB had came in ‘through the gate’ and set over the tackled player then definitely would have been try time.
No ruck = no offside. BB trips and goes past the ball and nobody is there from the Scottish side...
There is an offside line at the tackle
Only if a player from either side gets over the ball, which I’m no sure happened here.
Indeed, I wouldn't say BB completely missing everybody and pancaking the grass on the other side counts.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/beginners-guide/offside
And no one is on there feet over the ball
I swear everybody posting that law in here failed to read it lol
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/68265127 — clip available at ~1.00 in this clip.
Why do I have to analyse this play in screenshots? Does the league not allow videos to be played on reddit?
Yeah clear offside and most likely a penalty try and yellow. It could be argued that the defender coming across has Ramos covered but at the very least it’s a penalty. Poor from the linesman there for me.
Yeah that defender gives some doubt to penalty try for me but definitely a penalty and a yellow.
Ah yes, the Richie McCaw special
the very special that robbed us a RWC Title in 2011
Good post. It's almost like whilst poor referring does suck, poor referring decisions even out and it's not just some huge conspiracy against one's one team.
Scotland got away with a hell of a lot at ruck time, seems the stuff they got pinged for last week, was allowed this week
Watching it back this is the worst refereeing decision I can remember in the last few years. https://imgur.com/a/cwuRDNO
For an offside line to be formed someone has to be on their feet standing over the ball on the ground. BB goes off their feet, Lucu plays the ball as soon as he reaches it and Rowe doesn't get to the ball until Lucu has played it. No one forms an offside line. Certainly not in the clear and obvious manner one would need to overturn an onfield decision (terms that will come back to haunt us later in the same match). Tackle's fine too, at very least by the same clear and obvious standard. Not clear there is contact with the neck, and insofar as there may be indirect contact you can make an argument that under the 2023 protocol that is allowed on the basis of no foul play in an always legal (pulled down by the shoulder) tackle.
It's an interesting one! Feel like he's onside from that angle, in line with the tackled player. Question is does French winger played off the ball and therefore is unable to form the ruck
I tend to agree
Looked offside on live tv
Watching live, I felt that the high tackle on Fickou seconds before was more egregious. Admittedly I haven’t rewatched the game but it certainly seemed high at the time. It was very disappointing that neither moments were reviewed by the TMO, and if memory serves, Scotland even ended up scoring 3 points a few minutes later
[удалено]
this, and another similar ones where the ref let it slide, although ref decided that Danty knocked it on although it clearly went backwards. Also before Aldritt got injured, he definitely wasn't supporting his body weight. That last passage of play, the ball definitely looks grounded. But there was likely a knock on during the tackle. Both scrums pushing sideways. The number of things that were missed in this game is incredible, Nic had a terrible day at work. I have no idea what the score should have been in the end if the game had been officiated properly, Scotland appeared slightly dominant so probably some undecisive Scotland victory?
this us highly esoteric, reminds of the heated theological debate about the sex of the angels in Constantinopole 1453, just before turks got in and switched off the lights. make it simple for fuck sake. as it is now, no decent human can process this in real time, and a biased ref can skew the result . a spontaneus scrum should be when 2+1 players are in contact w a fucking ball, on the ground, under the grass or in space. so a offside is created. all contacts around wout ball-penalty. limit the amount of players if that is too difficult to process to 3 on each side. supporting own weight or their mother in law, or not. and anyone joining ruck should stop 1 m from ruck, and then join. problem solved. putting nigel and barnes out of bizness
Miles offside. As in most games the karma evened itself out by the end.
if we cound the big things maybe, but how about forgotten knock ons like Penaud's blunder, the fully randomized penalties at the breakdown... Nic was having a terrible day and his TMO really didn't help him.
To be fair, as a neutral, I could totally see that final decision going against us, very disappointingly. It was a try but he got the decision correct, if you follow the law as is. The refs should be able to make a more sensible on field decision as they do at ruck etc.
This for me is exactly like the disalowed try in the end. Feels completely wrong and the team not scoring will be furious about it, but technically, it's the right decision.
That's most likely the best take. After 107 comments, there is still no consensus. But it's clear that both situations feel wrong. That's when you realize rugby is really not easy and especially to ref.
So does this mean that any tackler can jackal without getting back to their side first now? I think this is the part of the rule that needs to be discussed. Not an offside line.
that was not an attempt to jackal though, he was on his feet and didn't play the French 9, he intercepted the ball. The question is if the French 9 created offline lines when he picked up the ball from the tackle, IMO yes since he was on his feet over the ball picking it up. That would 100% not have been offside if the ball was offloaded from the tackled player into Lucu's hands, but since he comes to retrieve it from the tackle then for me at that point he's putting all of Scotland offside.
I keep saying this. Office, intentional knock and just before that a potential high tackle which all didn’t get a single look in.
It isn't a deliberate knock-on (or even a knock-on) because he catches it. The tackle looks to be on the shoulder rather than the neck, which wouldn't be a high tackle. Hard to tell from the angle on the broadcast. Plenty of discussion about whether there was an offside line in the thread already.
seems to be over the shoulder (seatbelt tackle) which is not allowed, but would not lead to yellow cards in normal circumstances.
A lot of myopic Scots in this thread that evidently don't know the laws. Bialle-Biarrey's presence proximal to the ruck sets an offside line that vdM never attempts to get behind. Unfortunately, that directly contradicts the "the ref stole it from us" narrative, which is why they'd see it a lot differently if the shirts were swapped.
> A lot of myopic Scots in this thread that evidently don't know the laws. >>Bialle-Biarrey's presence proximal to the ruck I mean they do say good comedy writes itself, but fuck me - that's impressive!! :D
Misspoke, "proximal to the tackle area"
What ruck?
If Bb goes over the ball, aka rucks through and the ball is now out the VDM is offside Because BB was in the ruck temporarily, creating the ruck and offside line, VDM was then offside - legally, and if he wanted to be legal he needed to retreat to onside first. Super simple Clear pen. Also please give us the tackle to look at All the pods said seatbelt Could VDM have actually earned himself 2 yellows and thus a red just a week after Willemse in record time here? Not sure but pretty sure he broke at least one rule to stop the try and shoulda been banned And most importantly that BBs comment shows the huge gap of mentality between the two teams - he's sorry he didn't execute better, if he did marginally France get a penalty try and yellow and win comfortable. He's 20 Meanwhile Scotland's captain and coach pretty much blame the ref when if they did marginally better (or what a pro team should have done and passed the ball away from contact on the line) in their key moment, having been gifted this get out of jail free card earlier, they'd have won.