We value your privacy

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.

With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation. You may click to consent to our and our partners’ processing as described above. Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing.

More Options

Wed 25 Sep 2013 | 12:03
Midweek Madness - Marland Yarde recovers from cramp to score a try

26
Comments

London Irish flyer Marland Yarde has been in great form so far this season, with many touting him to be an England regular in the not too distant future. He's scored some good tries in the past few weeks, and one that has to be seen to be believed.

Yarde, who hails from the Caribbean, is a genuine Test rugby prospect and has his eyes set on the 2015 Rugby World Cup. He hopes to become the first St Lucia born player to represent England.

Having moved to the UK aged nine with his family, he recently spoke of how the 2003 World Cup Final in Australia inspired him to take up rugby, despite not knowing much about it.

"To be honest I didn't even know who Jonny Wilkinson was, or any of the players. It was just the sport, enjoying the whole atmosphere and how the sport was played. I found it was really exciting. That really sparked my vision to want to be part of this sport and play," Yarde said.

Having made his international debut against Argentina earlier this year, the 21-year-old hopes to add to the two tries he scored in their 51-26 second Test win. "Having just tasted international rugby I'm really hungry for more," he says. "I know the World Cup is going to be massive and being in the squad is definitely something I'd love to achieve.

"In no way do I feel like the finished article but Stuart Lancaster has made a point that age doesn't really matter. I want to do whatever I can for London Irish to put myself in the best position towards that World Cup."

If that means running in tries when suffering from injury, so be it. We saw exactly that a few weeks ago in the Aviva Premiership, as Yarde was down getting treatment for cramp but spotted an opportunity, so promptly hopped up and got into a great position in support.

It's not the first time we've seen this type of thing happen. Both Brian O'Driscoll and Kurtley Beale have done similar, which naturally brings up the question of legality, as while it's funny to see, it probably a little unfair, especially when the doctor or physio is already on the field.

Do you have any thoughts on whether a law should be in place to prevent this type of thing from happening, or is it just a freak occurence that shouldn't really be taken very seriously? Also, do you think Yarde should be an England regular by the time the Six Nations rolls around?

Posted By: Grant Constable

26 Comments

  • browner
    2:18 PM 09/10/2013

    The correct Law to apply is 11.8 as he was OFFSIDE AT the preceding RUCK.

    "When a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout forms, a player who is offside and is retiring as required by Law remains offside even when the opposing team wins possession and the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended. The player is put onside by retiring behind the applicable offside line. No other action of the offside player and no action of that player's team mates can put the offside player onside.

    So there it is chaps, he CAN become onside again, BUT ONLY once he's retired behind the previous ruck offside line, and the key words are in the final sentence NO OTHER ACTION. He didn't retire, so it's goes down as a Bad 'Critical' decision.

  • drg
    5:07 PM 27/09/2013

    Yes in front of the backs but involved or behind the ruck...

  • cheyanqui
    4:37 PM 27/09/2013

    Juggernauter - put Manu T. at #13. Force defenders to take him on, and throw a slip pass to Yarde or Wade.

    As much as I am not a fan of England, I'd love to see those guys getting the ball at pace and with just a little room -- too often, they get junk ball.

  • juggernauter
    4:21 PM 27/09/2013

    Side note: Yarde should be England's wing along with Wade and Foden at FB. Sharples as back up. Get rid of Ashton.

  • juggernauter
    4:16 PM 27/09/2013

    Now that's some conspiracy theory haha

  • mrjmmlc
    3:37 PM 27/09/2013

    nothing wrong here.. in fact the defence had the advantadge when he was down, but still got broken. so fair play here

  • 2:03 PM 27/09/2013

    No, the penalty is given for hindering the opposing team from playing advantage

  • colombes
    11:04 AM 27/09/2013

    can't really say he's offside as he isn't in front of a kick in an attacking action
    maybe the physio presnece on the pitch shouldn't allow players involved to get up and play the following action
    be assured u will see it again in the following weeks

  • 1:05 AM 27/09/2013

    Ok so what if the medic doesn't attend to him and he merely takes his time to recover? Surely he's not offside?

    I really don't get this argument, as has been cited by many of u before, many phases start with support players in an "offside" position. Forwards are almost always ahead of the backs in set piece, aside from restarts. So are they offside? Yes if he they keep advancing forward to chase a kick or receive a pass or pick up a knockon. But no, not of they are passed by the ball carrier. Fellas this happens about a 100 times a game?

    In regards to the medic, play didn't stop to attend to yarde, a la soccer, and require him to leave the pitch. It continued. There is no law currently precluding what yarde did and I do not see it as not in the spirit of the game. In fact I see the opposite. He saw an opportunity to score, which is rare, sucked it up and took it. What coach wouldn't want that?

    Maybe we need a soccer like rule. But then we will require unlimited substitutions because surely a prop who is temporarily injured does not have to permanently leave the game because a medic tends to him?

    If this becomes a trend, deal with it. Otherwise....

    tRY TIme!

  • 1:05 AM 27/09/2013

    Ok so what if the medic doesn't attend to him and he merely takes his time to recover? Surely he's not offside?

    I really don't get this argument, as has been cited by many of u before, many phases start with support players in an "offside" position. Forwards are almost always ahead of the backs in set piece, aside from restarts. So are they offside? Yes if he they keep advancing forward to chase a kick or receive a pass or pick up a knockon. But no, not of they are passed by the ball carrier. Fellas this happens about a 100 times a game?

    In regards to the medic, play didn't stop to attend to yarde, a la soccer, and require him to leave the pitch. It continued. There is no law currently precluding what yarde did and I do not see it as not in the spirit of the game. In fact I see the opposite. He saw an opportunity to score, which is rare, sucked it up and took it. What coach wouldn't want that?

    Maybe we need a soccer like rule. But then we will require unlimited substitutions because surely a prop who is temporarily injured does not have to permanently leave the game because a medic tends to him?

    If this becomes a trend, deal with it. Otherwise....

    tRY TIme!

  • katman
    9:05 PM 26/09/2013

    Offside or not, this should not be allowed. The defense had the move covered, until there was suddenly an extra man in play. Allow this, and you'll start to see all sorts of strategically placed "treatments" to provide the attack with more surprise options. Everything about it feels wrong.

  • drg
    8:57 PM 26/09/2013

    So if this is not offside all a team needs to do is run a bunch of players in front of a ruck and have them hang around waiting for a team mate to run past them?.... I don't think so...

  • drg
    12:59 PM 26/09/2013

    If a team mate knocks on, and you are in front and pick up the ball then it's a penalty for being offside...

  • 9:55 AM 26/09/2013

    making an effort to get back and loitering to conserve energy are two very seperate things. One is fine the other is simple off-side. You try and play behind the ball, that's rugby, strategically placing yourself around the pitch has no place in the game, it would be an absolute mess....or maybe your whole post was written in sarcasm?

    If a player needs treatment he should get off the pitch unless it's a serious injury in which case play should be stopped.

  • 9:50 AM 26/09/2013

    if a teammate knocks the ball on it's a knock on obviously, offside from knock-on doesn't exist.

  • skid986
    9:48 AM 26/09/2013

    I was once given a piece of advice by a very experienced referee assessor: "If it looks right it's probably right, and if it looks wrong it's probably wrong." This looked wrong and, offside laws aside, should probably be pinged under 10.4(m).

  • 5:25 AM 26/09/2013

    So lets get this straight.prop struggles down the field, courageously trying to get back into the defensive line with his mates after an opposition linebreak. Suddenly his team turns the ball over and start running in his direction. According to many of u, he cannot join the play because he was offside when the opposition had the ball previously. What are props to do then? Sit on the ground searching for truffles, staying out of the way until the next scrum! No I say! Allow them to conserve energy and strategically place themselves where they believe the play will be in 5 minutes! Well played Marlande, prop in a wingers body!

  • drg
    11:54 PM 25/09/2013

    shit, gave a thumbs up by accident. Difference was BOD was behind the ruck, so technically "onside"...

  • gonzoman
    7:39 PM 25/09/2013

    Except if Marlon Yarde had been put onside by a team-mate, which is the case in this instance.

    Admittedly, he was loitering; however, this only means that he cannot be put onside through the actions of an opposing player (run 5m, pass/kick, intentionally touch the ball). Yarde can still be put onside by teammates, in this case by having the ball carrier run ahead of him.

    It can be a little confusing, because he WAS off-side at the ruck and he WAS loitering. Once the ball leaves the ruck he is still off-side and still loitering, but he can be put onside by the action of a teammate.

    Apart from the laws, you could argue that it isn't fair because he's already in a prime position to support the ball carrier. Of course, you could also argue that if he wasn't receiving treatment he would be running in support anyways.

    Fair play to Yarde for identifying an opportunity and sucking it up enough to get up and continue.

  • gonzoman
    7:32 PM 25/09/2013

    Actually, a player is NOT put onside by the kick going out. The laws list specific ways for a player to be put onside: by the opposition (oppo runs 5m with ball, oppo passes or kicks; oppo deliberately touches the ball) and by a team-mate (ball carrier runs ahead of offside player; kicker or other onside player runs ahead of offside player, offside player retreats to onside position). The ball going out does not make anyone onside.

    Now assuming that none of the above actions has occurred, the off-side player must be mindful of Law 11.9 (Loitering); essentially he or she can't hang about in an offside position. Any player who loiters cannot be put onside by the action of an opposing player.

    In the case of a kick to touch presented above, the injured player is off-side and loitering in a technical sense. If he or she then gets up and prevents a quick throw-in, or participates in play following a quick throw-in without being put onside by a team-mate, he or she is liable to be penalized. If a team-mate has run ahead of the injured player, then the point is moot since the injured player is then onside.

  • skid986
    7:02 PM 25/09/2013

    You're referring to open play laws, 4567. Yarde was offside at the breakdown and made no attempt to retire. If he had remained on the deck receiving treatment during the subsequent play it would have been fine to ignore it as not being material. The moment he joined play it became material and should have been penalised.

  • paimoe
    6:51 PM 25/09/2013

    I think most people expect sports to be fair, though

  • 45678
    6:33 PM 25/09/2013

    the only time you can be offside in possession of the ball is by being in front of a kick. otherwise you can only be offside as a defender

  • i_bleed_green_and_gold
    5:59 PM 25/09/2013

    If he is onside from the last breakdown then Ok. I think this goes both ways in instances where a player gets up to make a tackle while "receiving treatment" . I remember Johann Goosen doing it against the AB's a while back but he got injured. In that case he was well behind the line of scrummage so fair play.
    I think it can become a problem when injuries are used as strategic moves to gain advantage (this happens to some extent to stop the clock or take a breather).
    Hypothetical event:
    One can imagine leaving a player injured in the opposition half (close to say the 10m mark) getting "treated". Both teams are scattered around the mid field mark since there is some back and forth kicking for territory and lets say the ball is kicked out around the 5m mark. If the one team wants to take a quick line out counter attack the injured player (who never retreated but is put onside by the ball going out) could theoretically get up, tackle the player and contest the ball. That would nullify the counter attack?

  • 5:44 PM 25/09/2013

    I thought something was amiss when I watched this live. Sure he's definitely offside originally, but just as with the kick rule, once his team-mates have passed him, isn't he onside? After all, he doesn't take part in play until have the play has moved beyond him. He isn't obstructing anyone (and the physio isn't really either) and then he gets the pass after the ball carrier has moved in front of him...

  • akared
    5:42 PM 25/09/2013

    Surely he's offside from the ruck???

Related Articles