medhead
Suspended
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Posts
- 19,074
I bolded the bit that says EVEN after the line out has ended. The guy has to retire, not play at the ball.
The wording of 11.7 is also interesting, it doesn't explicitly state the off side player has to still be offside when "next playing the ball". In fact I would suggest that the wording of 11.7 implies that they must be back onside when they are "next playing the ball". Why would they have another rule saying an off side player can't play the ball?
IMO the implication of 11.7 is about when the offside player next plays the ball when onside. If we accept the hypothesis that Phipps intentionally played the ball (I don't accept that). Then the player offside at the knock on, has still "next played the ball" to prevent the opposition gaining an advantage from the knock on. Where is the advantage in phipps wildly throwing his arms around?
Having watched the ball hit Phipps a few times today, IMO it hit his chest and bounced off. No control if he did hit it with his hand. No intention.
The wording of 11.7 is also interesting, it doesn't explicitly state the off side player has to still be offside when "next playing the ball". In fact I would suggest that the wording of 11.7 implies that they must be back onside when they are "next playing the ball". Why would they have another rule saying an off side player can't play the ball?
IMO the implication of 11.7 is about when the offside player next plays the ball when onside. If we accept the hypothesis that Phipps intentionally played the ball (I don't accept that). Then the player offside at the knock on, has still "next played the ball" to prevent the opposition gaining an advantage from the knock on. Where is the advantage in phipps wildly throwing his arms around?
Having watched the ball hit Phipps a few times today, IMO it hit his chest and bounced off. No control if he did hit it with his hand. No intention.
But there was no ruck, maul, scrum or lineout as the lineout had ended. And Phipps puts him onside by intentionally batting the ball backwards.
As it was, if you read my original post again, I do think that at full speed and at first glance, the call was correct. Multiple slow mo angles shows that it wasn't, but the referee only gets one go at it.