PDA

View Full Version : Does ball going into touch put everyone onside?



KML1
17-01-16, 22:01
Seem to remember that IRB/WR issued a clarification somewhere about a player who was offside in front of a kick, still being liable to penalty even after the ball went onto touch and play resumes.

Scenario:
Gold hack the ball ahead from the Black 10m towards the try line.
Black 10 wins the race for the ball and kicks upfield with ball going into touch
Gold 2 takes a quick throw-in, caught by Gold 4. Black 11 - who was well in front of his kicker was near the point where the kick had landed and tackles Gold 4

What do you do?

1) It's now open play and he can make tackle - play on

2) He was offside and shouldnt have been there and influence next phase of play, so is liable to penalty?


If 2, can you point me to law or clarification?

thanks!

Dickie E
17-01-16, 22:01
Seem to remember that IRB/WR issued a clarification somewhere about a player who was offside in front of a kick, still being liable to penalty even after the ball went onto touch and play resumes.

Scenario:
Gold hack the ball ahead from the Black 10m towards the try line.
Black 10 wins the race for the ball and kicks upfield with ball going into touch
Gold 2 takes a quick throw-in, caught by Gold 4. Black 11 - who was well in front of his kicker was near the point where the kick had landed and tackles Gold 4

What do you do?

1) It's now open play and he can make tackle - play on

2) He was offside and shouldnt have been there and influence next phase of play, so is liable to penalty?


If 2, can you point me to law or clarification?

thanks!

When we've discussed this before I'm not sure we reached consensus (surprise, surprise). I don't remember a clarification but would welcome one.

I've seen this often enough at elite level to know that option 1 is how it is applied. The only stipulation is that Black 11 wasn't moving forward before the ball went into touch.

menace
17-01-16, 22:01
As Dickie says...if Black was moving forward and kept moving forward at the kick then the ball going into touch, IMO doesn't put him onside. BUT if I see that happening I try to manage Black 11 first and even penalise him before the ball goes into touch (easier to sell).

But as you're on the elite panel I was hoping you'd tell us the answer to this one!:wink:

The Fat
18-01-16, 07:01
When we've discussed this before I'm not sure we reached consensus (surprise, surprise). I don't remember a clarification but would welcome one.

I've seen this often enough at elite level to know that option 1 is how it is applied. The only stipulation is that Black 11 wasn't moving forward before the ball went into touch.

That's the nuts and bolts of it right there.
If the player (Black 11) was in an offside position at the kick and moved toward the play/moved forward, then he is liable to sanction. The fact that the ball has gone into touch does cancel all offside lines however, it does not "pardon" Black 11 for moving forward from the kick. He should be managed and/or penalised as per menace's post. WR/IRB produced "guidelines" for managing such players. I'll find the link for it.
Now, had Black 11 stopped when the ball was kicked (assuming he was not within 10m of where the ball would land), even if he was only a short distance from where the QTI was about to occur, once the ball went into touch he is able to then move towards the QTI, i.e. we are back in general play.

FlipFlop
18-01-16, 09:01
I would say that yes - ball going into touch puts everyone onside, but...

It depends is the ball is properly dead (team will take a normal lineout, subs permitted etc.), or a "zombie" ball, where it is technically dead, but still considered alive (quick throw, subs not permitted etc.)

A player who was offside before the ball went into touch, can't benefit from it. So they can't stop the quick throw for example. But if the oppo take the quick throw, then I would say play on (in effect they have accepted the position of the offside player, and I don't see how you can penalise a player for an action that happened before the ball went dead, given the next first phase has happened). In effect it is play on, or penalise immediately if offside play interferring with quick throw.

crossref
18-01-16, 09:01
Here's the IRB guidance that KML recalls -- it's #2 here

Offside when the the ball is kicked into touch, thereby preventing quick throw ins

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=5

So clearly the ball going into touch does NOT cancel all offsides

Unfortunately the IRB didn't provide any text or commentary so it's impossible to tell whether or not this is OK if the offside player was not moving forward.

I'd say it's still not OK, an offside player (1) cannot move forward but also, having stopped, (2) cannot interfere with play.

KML's scenario takes this one stage further, the offside player does not intefere with the quick throw in, but then after the throw in is taken , joins in with play. Instinctively I have more sympathy with that.

so
1- does the ball going into touch cancel offside -- No
2- does a QTI cancel previous offside lines -- interesting question

It would be nice for the IRB to consider this again. Perhaps a good question for the SA duty-ref

L'irlandais
18-01-16, 10:01
...

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=5

...
so
1- does the ball going into touch cancel offside -- No
2- does a QTI cancel previous offside lines -- interesting question

It would be nice for the IRB to consider this again. Perhaps a good question for the SA duty-refgood point.

I accept we will not get a consensus about a point of law that is unwritten in The LoTG
But if you accept that clarification, the ball going into touch does not put the player onside.
Add
11.5 Being put onside under the 10-metre law
(b)
While retiring, the player can be put onside before moving behind the imaginary 10-metre line by any of the three actions of the playerís team listed above in 11.2. However, the player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing team.so for me, the taking of the QT by the opposition has not put him back on side. They can throw the ball around as often as they like without ever putting him back on side.

Dickie E
18-01-16, 10:01
1- does the ball going into touch cancel offside -- No


I disagree.

In the Fiji video the Fijiian player was not retiring under 10 metre law prior to ball going into touch.

In the All Black video the Black players were clearly moving forward before the ball went into touch.

That is what they are guilty of.

The point WR is making is this: consider if players are complying with law before the ball goes dead. If not, penalise. If so, ball in touch puts everyone onside.

crossref
18-01-16, 10:01
The point WR is making is this: consider if players are complying with law before the ball goes dead. If not, penalise. If so, ball in touch puts everyone onside.

Unfortunately WR did not actually spell out the point they were making, so no one really knows for sure what it was.

Leaving aside the 10-metre law, an offside player has to observe two things
- ONE he cannot move forward toward the ball
- TWO he cannot interfere with play.

So it seems to me very clear that (TWO) means he cannot contest a QTI , and personally I believe that's what WR meant.

Not sure how you can argue otherwise.

Taking a QTI is like a pass, so presumably puts your opponents onside.

[ignoring players caught under 10m law which complicates everythng, and obscures the substance of this debate]

Thunderhorse1986
18-01-16, 11:01
Surely 11.3 still stands for the offside player after a QTI? So he is not put onside by the QTI (it may be "like" a pass, but I would argue they are not one and the same thing). Therefore I would need to see the team in possession, pass again (after the QTI) or kick, run 5m, or intentionally touch (but not catch) the ball (this could be, for example a tap back from the player receiving the QTI, if he can't catch it, for example. Until then, I would expect all the offside players to remain stationary or moving backwards until put on by one of the above, or their team-mate, or if within 10m of the ball landing, would expect to see them retreating.

crossref
18-01-16, 11:01
it's definitely an area I'd like to see explored by WR, and more guidance issued.

There are actually a number of distinct scenarios

1 offside players already moving forward before ball goes into touch
2 offside players who remain stationary, but then move forward AFTER the ball goes into touch
3 offside players who remain stationary, are ahead of the LoT, move backward to contest the QTI

for all three we then get two questions

A - are they free to contest a possible QTI
B - if a QTI is taken, are they free to now move forward and/or immediately tackle the recipient

Thunderhorse1986
18-01-16, 11:01
Indeed, there are a number of different scenarios. But for me, as I stated above, I would argue these players all remain offside under 11.1 and remain so until 11.2 or 11.3 conditions have been met. I don't see 11.3 being met immediately after a QTI is taken (this is not a stated way of being made onside under 11.3) so would only permit them to interfere with play after one of the stated 3 methods of being put onside by an oppositions player has happened, or they've been put onside by their own player.

This seems the simplest way of managing all of the above - all 3 scenarios they are offside if they interfere with play, until either 11.2 or 11.3 have been met.

crossref
18-01-16, 11:01
which is essentially the opposite side of the spectrum from Dickie E et al. (well, you agree on players in (1), but disagree on players in (2) and (3) )

Dickie E
18-01-16, 12:01
Indeed, there are a number of different scenarios. But for me, as I stated above, I would argue these players all remain offside under 11.1 and remain so until 11.2 or 11.3 conditions have been met. I don't see 11.3 being met immediately after a QTI is taken (this is not a stated way of being made onside under 11.3) so would only permit them to interfere with play after one of the stated 3 methods of being put onside by an oppositions player has happened, or they've been put onside by their own player.

This seems the simplest way of managing all of the above - all 3 scenarios they are offside if they interfere with play, until either 11.2 or 11.3 have been met.

I think you're making too much of this thing called a QTI.

Let me ask you this:
Red kick into Blue in goal and ball is grounded by Blue fullback. Ref blows whistle & awards drop out. Blue fullback picks up ball, throws it forward to his #10 on the 22 who takes a quick drop out. Should the #10 be penalised because he benefited by being in an offside position and interfering with play? Of course not, he was not acting illegally when the ball went dead and becomes onside because the ball is made dead.

crossref
18-01-16, 12:01
but the IRB explicitly tell us that it's an offence for offside players to contest the QTI, so the ball going into touch clearly doesn't make everyone onside ...

your 22m scenario is an intriguing one, however. Logically the recipient probably should be offside, but in practice he is allowed to do that. Good counter-example.

Thunderhorse1986
18-01-16, 13:01
Ref blows whistle & awards drop out.

... he was not acting illegally when the ball went dead and becomes onside because the ball is made dead.

While I may be being too literal and pernickety, I would argue these points (my bolding) are the key differentiators. The "zombie ball" out of the FOP may not be dead in the same sense as after a defensive touch down and the ref has blown.

In your case, would I penalise if the full back threw the ball to the 10 before I had to time blow for the 22? Probably not, so it's an interesting point you raise. But there is a key difference for me is that for a defensive grounding in goal, we would never wait and see what happens in the same way we do with a kick to touch which has be gathered out of the FOP by the opposing team. It is widely understood the ref will blow his whistle and play will stop for the former. The same is not true for the latter, it is generally understood the ball remains live until the whistle is blown.

I just feel that the easiest / least complicated option is usually the best. For the original "grey area", for me it makes sense for these player to remain offside until put onside under one of the standard methods, or until the whistle is blown for the line out. No room for complications etc, just nice and easy.:smile:

OB..
18-01-16, 13:01
My view is that if a player breaches the offside law before the ball goes dead, he can be penalised. However he cannot become offside after the ball has been made dead.

A QTI revives a zombie ball so we could apply 11.911.9 LoiteringA player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing teamís action.

crossref
18-01-16, 14:01
the 22m dropout is a type of zombie ball: one team remains free to play the ball at will, so the ball isn't completely dead.

although obviously with a 22m, it's a harder and slower procedure to bring the zombie-ball back to life than is the case in other zombie-ball situations, such as PK, FK or when the QTI is on..


Loitering is a tricky one, surely loitering only really applies in siuations where the offside player HAS to retire, and is doing so unduly slowly (ie generally rucks/mauls). In open play after a kick, a player is entitled to just stay still and wait, so I can't really see that he can be loitering.

crossref
18-01-16, 14:01
The same is not true for the latter, it is generally understood the ball remains live until the whistle is blown.

I just feel that the easiest / least complicated option is usually the best. For the original "grey area", for me it makes sense for these player to remain offside until put onside under one of the standard methods, or until the whistle is blown for the line out. No room for complications etc, just nice and easy.:smile:

you are over-simplifying as the whistle being blown is a different thing from the ball being dead. There are plenty of situations where the whistle is blown but one team is still free to play the ball. (cf PK, FK, touch when the QTI is on). This is what we call the zombie ball. Not quite live, but not completely dead either.

didds
18-01-16, 14:01
well, a PK isn't really a zombie ball is it? The ball IS dead, and is brought back into play by kicking it.

The FK is more zombie ball because while its dead the act of approaching to kick it is enough for a limited subset of the game to then occur, with no advantage if the defenders successfully prevent the FK being taken and play restarted.

didds

crossref
18-01-16, 14:01
well, a PK isn't really a zombie ball is it? The ball IS dead, and is brought back into play by kicking it.


isn't that just exactly what we mean by zombie ball? The ball isn't live, but it's not really dead either as one team can immediately play it (or bring it back to life if you like) at will.

Thunderhorse1986
18-01-16, 15:01
For FK, PK there are also specific laws regarding what opposing players must do in order to be in a position to play the ball (listed in 21.7 and 21.8) with specific guidance about interference. This applies both during that "zombie ball" phase but also after it. Equally for a drop out there is clear guidance for players in the incorrect position not to interfere with play (13.17.(b), "the wrong side of the 22", though I readily admit they may not be offside per se).

While the players in FK, PK and drop out scenarios may not necessarily be "offside" I would argue the cleanest and simplest read across from all of these similar, yet slightly different cases, to the original question is that players who were in offside positions prior to the ball going into touch remain so until put onside by one of the clearly defined methods under 11.2 and 11.3.

Of course, these are different scenarios but I am trying to take the best inference from other laws to make sense of the original question in the simplest form. Maybe I am guilty of "oversimplifying" but I find simpler decisions and explanations are more helpful that convoluted or complicated ones, especially when justifying to players during and even after a game.

OB..
18-01-16, 15:01
Loitering is a tricky one, surely loitering only really applies in siuations where the offside player HAS to retire, The law specifically says "remains in an offside position".

crossref
18-01-16, 15:01
. Maybe I am guilty of "oversimplifying" but I find simpler decisions and explanations are more helpful that convoluted or complicated ones, especially when justifying to players during and even after a game.

I agree with that, especially in the sort of scenarios in this thread, where there doesn't seem to be a universally agreed 'correct' answer.

So I agree: make the decision that seems correct to you and explain it simply and concisely.

I guess what the thread is for is to get a sense of what other refs think and while we don't have complete agreement, perhaps what emerges is what most of us do.

didds
18-01-16, 15:01
isn't that just exactly what we mean by zombie ball? The ball isn't live, but it's not really dead either as one team can immediately play it (or bring it back to life if you like) at will.

In which case you would then also include not only PK and FK and QTI but also 22 DO & half way restart kicks, conversions and quick lineouts (ie throwing side is ready but defenders are not). I suppose you could add to that the times when the ref does not allow otherwise zombie balls to be started. And even then when he whistles play back on (or whatever) the ball then re-enters zombie state - the side in possession at the Fk/PK/lineout/qti/restart can still choose the time of making the ball live again.

Or put another way really the only times the ball is dead but not zombie is immediately prior to each half and scrummages. So the ball is in a zombie state far more often than actually dead.

didds

crossref
18-01-16, 15:01
In which case you would then also include not only PK and FK and QTI but also 22 DO & half way restart kicks, conversions and quick lineouts (ie throwing side is ready but defenders are not).

Or put another way really the only times the ball is dead but not zombie is immediately prior to each half and scrummages. So the ball is in a zombie state far more often than actually dead.

didds

yes, it's often zombie.

as well as when a scrum is awarded, it's also completely dead when it's in touch and no QTI is possible.
also after a try is awarded.
also at PK once a referee stops play to award a card or a bollocking

restarts I'd say the ball is dead. you can't realistically start the game by surprise, given you have to run 50m first, and also I am of the school that you can't take a restart unless both teams are in the right part of the pitch.

similarly I don't believe in quick line outs, in the sense of line outs that take place without the oppo realising a line out is happening.

On this topic here's the regs on replacements from one of the leagues I ref in


b) Replacements may only be made at the following stoppages in play when the ball is dead:
1) Scrummage
2) Line Out, except where the throwing in side opts to take a quick throw-in.
3) Immediately following a successful kick at goal, i.e. penalty kick, drop goal.
4) 22m Drop-out, excepting where the kicking side opts to take a quick drop-out.
5) Half-time.

This effectively lists the times when the ball is really dead. Other times we have zombie balls, the ball isn't completely dead and you can't make a sub.

ChrisR
18-01-16, 15:01
I think the clearest and simplest approach is to consider what action you'd take if the ball didn't go into touch but was fielded and subsequently passed.

Players on the kickers team in an offside position who continued to advance before the QTI would be liable for penalty. Players within 10m of the QTI must retire and cannot be put onside by any action of the receiving team.

crossref
18-01-16, 15:01
I think the clearest and simplest approach is to consider what action you'd take if the ball didn't go into touch but was fielded and subsequently passed.

Players on the kickers team in an offside position who continued to advance before the QTI would be liable for penalty. Players within 10m of the QTI must retire and cannot be put onside by any action of the receiving team.

but you haven't answered the difficult case.

blue kick, and an offside blue player, not caught by the 10m law, just stops where he is, as he's allowed to.

ball goes into touch, can the blue player now advance to defend the possible QTI? or does he still have wait until he is played onside?

red take a QTI, can he advance now? or does he STILL have wait until he is played onside?

OB..
18-01-16, 16:01
Or put another way really the only times the ball is dead but not zombie is immediately prior to each half and scrummages. So the ball is in a zombie state far more often than actually dead.

diddsAt a scrum, play cannot restart without action from the referee. Referees can also stop play to consult with a TJ/AR, to deal with an injury, to award a card, etc.

didds
18-01-16, 17:01
it's also completely dead when it's in touch and no QTI is possible..

I disagree - in that if the throwing in team have all their ducks in a row they can just throw the ball in. They have started the game at their own "pace".

So its as much a zombie as a PK etc.

didds

didds
18-01-16, 17:01
At a scrum, play cannot restart without action from the referee..

Yes. Which is why in said it isn't zombie.

"Or put another way really the only times the ball is dead but not zombie is immediately prior to each half and scrummages."

And to which I had also added

" I suppose you could add to that the times when the ref does not allow otherwise zombie balls to be started. And even then when he whistles play back on (or whatever) the ball then re-enters zombie state - the side in possession at the Fk/PK/lineout/qti/restart can still choose the time of making the ball live again."

didds

didds
18-01-16, 17:01
restarts I'd say the ball is dead. you can't realistically start the game by surprise, given you have to run 50m first, and also I am of the school that you can't take a restart unless both teams are in the right part of the pitch..

that's your interpretation though. AIUI this isn't expressly stated in the laws and we have debated this here.

didds

crossref
18-01-16, 17:01
that's your interpretation though. AIUI this isn't expressly stated in the laws and we have debated this here.

didds

indeed.

In practice though I think most people DO regard the period after a kick, and before the restart as truly dead time, and therefore a suitable time to bring back a YC player, have a quick game-management word with a captain, allow replacements, etc and whatever.


But yes I agree -- if you are a referee who is in the surprise-restart camp, then you would regard this period as zombie ball, where the game could restart with no warning and by surprise, and therefore NOT a time for all the above, as the ball isn't dead.

It's the same thing for a surprise line-out. If you are a ref who thinks that a surprise line out is possible, then this is also a zombie ball scenario.

OB..
18-01-16, 18:01
There is an important distinction between going offside and being offside.

At a ruck there are a couple of offside lines through the hindmost feet. When the ball comes out, players behind the relevant line can no longer become offside by crossing that line, but players already in front of it are still offside. Therefore the line has not disappeared (in theory, though in practice it may quickly become hard to identify it).

When the ball goes into touch it surely makes sense to maintain that distinction: any relevant offside lines remain, though players who were onside are no longer affected by them.

Otherwise you can get this scenario: Red 14 (onside) chases a kick. Blue 15 catches it and kicks just before Red 14 reaches him, so Red 14 starts to retreat. Red 15 catches and kicks the ball into touch just short of the point red 14 has reached. If the offside lines disappear, red 14 is now onside and can legally interfere with a QTI (as long as he allows the ball to be thrown to the 5 metre line).

KML1
18-01-16, 19:01
Erm.. thanks everyone!

Will send my question to the RFU Laws box created for just such things! Thanks Crossref for the original reply - that was indeed what I remembered but it wasnt in the Law Clarifications area!

crossref
18-01-16, 20:01
Erm.. thanks everyone!

Will send my question to the RFU Laws box created for just such things! Thanks Crossref for the original reply - that was indeed what I remembered but it wasnt in the Law Clarifications area!

KML - please share the reply --- also would be really useful if your question somehow covered all the permutations


1 offside players already moving forward before ball goes into touch
2 offside players who remain stationary, but then move forward AFTER the ball goes into touch
3 offside players who remain stationary, are ahead of the LoT, move backward to contest the QTI

for all three we then get two questions

A - are they free to contest a possible QTI
B - if a QTI is taken, are they free to now move forward and/or immediately tackle the recipient

Dickie E
18-01-16, 21:01
but the IRB explicitly tell us that it's an offence for offside players to contest the QTI,

Can you share that please? - might help clear this up.

crossref
18-01-16, 21:01
it's above -- but it doesn't completely clean it up as there is no commentary or texts so opinions differ as to what exactly they meant.

anyway it's clear that at least some off-side players remain offside and cannot contest the QTI.

Here's the IRB guidance that KML recalls -- it's #2 here

Offside when the the ball is kicked into touch, thereby preventing quick throw ins
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=5

Dickie E
18-01-16, 22:01
it's above -- but it doesn't completely clean it up as there is no commentary or texts so opinions differ as to what exactly they meant.

anyway it's clear that at least some off-side players remain offside and cannot contest the QTI.

Here's the IRB guidance that KML recalls -- it's #2 here

Offside when the the ball is kicked into touch, thereby preventing quick throw ins
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=5


OK. Consider this:

in the All Blacks video there are 5 players that WR has deemed are acting illegally (they each have a red arrow pointing to them). What do they have in common? They are all moving forward before the ball goes into touch.

in the Fiji video there is only 1 player with a red arrow pointing to him while the other Fiji loiterers do not. Why is this the case? In my view it is because he is the only Fiji player who is not entitled to contest for the QTI and that is because he was offside under to 10 metre rule before the ball went into touch (WR also superimpose a red line across the pitch to indicate this).

Dickie E
18-01-16, 22:01
While I may be being too literal and pernickety, I would argue these points (my bolding) are the key differentiators. The "zombie ball" out of the FOP may not be dead in the same sense as after a defensive touch down and the ref has blown.

In your case, would I penalise if the full back threw the ball to the 10 before I had to time blow for the 22? Probably not, so it's an interesting point you raise. But there is a key difference for me is that for a defensive grounding in goal, we would never wait and see what happens in the same way we do with a kick to touch which has be gathered out of the FOP by the opposing team. It is widely understood the ref will blow his whistle and play will stop for the former. The same is not true for the latter, it is generally understood the ball remains live until the whistle is blown.

I just feel that the easiest / least complicated option is usually the best. For the original "grey area", for me it makes sense for these player to remain offside until put onside under one of the standard methods, or until the whistle is blown for the line out. No room for complications etc, just nice and easy.:smile:

I infer from your post that you think a referee shouldn't blow his whistle when the ball goes into touch if a QTI is possible. Why do you think that?

Law 6.A.8 says:
(e) The referee must blow the whistle when the ball has gone out of play, or when it has become unplayable, or when a penalty is awarded.

Treadmore
18-01-16, 23:01
in the Fiji video there is only 1 player with a red arrow pointing to him while the other Fiji loiterers do not. Why is this the case? In my view it is because he is the only Fiji player who is not entitled to contest for the QTI and that is because he was offside under to 10 metre rule before the ball went into touch (WR also superimpose a red line across the pitch to indicate this).
He has other team mates in front of the red 10m line shown but they are not arrowed - presumably because they start retreating (though they never quite make it), whereas the arrowed player is actively looking for the QTI and indeed moves forwards and towards the ball/player in touch.

Maybe his team mates were deemed to be moving towards the line of touch to form a line out (19.8(d))?

Taff
19-01-16, 00:01
... Will send my question to the RFU Laws box created for just such things! Thanks Crossref for the original reply - that was indeed what I remembered but it wasnt in the Law Clarifications area!
Funnily enough this question was brought up in one of our recent monthly meetings given by one of the top Refs. It wasn't St Nigel.

There had obviously been some discussion about it, and he mentioned that they were going to pass it up for guidance / clarification. In a previous meeting, I had been told that all offside players (not liable for sanction) were free to move forward once the ball had been kicked to touch.

Personally (ie it's just my opinion and as such isn't worth a carrot) I reckon that WR has a soft spot for QTIs and will say that all offside players are still "liable for sanction" until the QTI option dies.

The Fat
19-01-16, 06:01
So for those who believe that the ball going into touch does not cancel offside lines, look at the link to WR posted by crossref and look at the 2nd scenario (ABs v Aus), and tell me under what circumstances would you penalise any of the ABs players and where the mark would be?

Thunderhorse1986
19-01-16, 08:01
It is a tricky one because you'd need to question to what degree they are materially interfering with play. At higher levels the QTI option is broader because the ability to for example throw a 20-25m QTI is there whereas at Old Fartonions vs Old Trumptonians it isn't really. So the material impact of those players being where they are changes at the level. In the above example I would argue that Aus did have the QTI option largely negated by the presence of the NZ offside players - it certainly becomes significantly less attractive for them to throw the ball with NZ players in those offside and advancing positions.

Therefore any one of them could easily have been penalised with the option to Aus of a penalty where they were, or a scrum back where NZ kicker last kicked it.

I would prefer to manage this and call the NZ players to "stay there" or "retreat" but if this hadn't happened then the penalty also becomes easier to give, especially for this sort of thing which may be a grey area.

In response to the question when I blow my whistle when the ball goes out of play, I tend to wait for a few moments if the QTI is clearly "on" because I feel blowing my whistle could give the signal to players (whether correctly or incorrectly) that play has fully stopped and we will be forming a full line out. So by letting it breathe for a moment, all players should remain aware that play has not fully stopped. Very happy to be told I am wrong in this, but it has worked for me.

crossref
19-01-16, 10:01
In response to the question when I blow my whistle when the ball goes out of play, I tend to wait for a few moments if the QTI is clearly "on" because I feel blowing my whistle could give the signal to players (whether correctly or incorrectly) that play has fully stopped and we will be forming a full line out. So by letting it breathe for a moment, all players should remain aware that play has not fully stopped. Very happy to be told I am wrong in this, but it has worked for me.

a lot of people are doing this. but others are following the law and a quick peep to say it's in touch.

the danger with not blowing is that players may not realise the ball is in touch at all.

and when you get the moments when you DO need to blow to indicate that the ball is in touch (a foot on line) .... well the QTI is still on ! so now you have blown but there is still a QTI possibility.

in my mind we need a new protocol -- one peep to show touch, a second peep to indicate no QTI and a line out.

crossref
19-01-16, 10:01
So for those who believe that the ball going into touch does not cancel offside lines, look at the link to WR posted by crossref and look at the 2nd scenario (ABs v Aus), and tell me under what circumstances would you penalise any of the ABs players and where the mark would be?

but the whole point of the video is that the IRB are telling us that the AB players SHOULD be penalised. I agree it would be helpful if they had expanded a little.

Dixie
19-01-16, 17:01
OK. Consider this:

in the All Blacks video there are 5 players that WR has deemed are acting illegally (they each have a red arrow pointing to them). What do they have in common? They are all moving forward before the ball goes into touch.

in the Fiji video there is only 1 player with a red arrow pointing to him while the other Fiji loiterers do not. Why is this the case? In my view it is because he is the only Fiji player who is not entitled to contest for the QTI and that is because he was offside under to 10 metre rule before the ball went into touch (WR also superimpose a red line across the pitch to indicate this).

But so what? The 2012 video hasn't resulted in any discernible change, and we would still see exactly the same thing unpenalised in 2016. It's a flash in the pan that got no further than someone putting it up on the website - couldn't even make te effort to explain what alleged existing law was supposed to be enforced.

Perhaps the most common scenario is when a team under pressure wins a lineout inside the 22. Ball is shot back to the kicker, who (under pressure from tail gunners) kicks it back to exactly the same spot. Now if that kick is caught by the attacking hooker, all the defensive forwards are offside and interfering with the QTI. Anyone fancy a PK 15m infield? I never expect to see one in my lifetime.

crossref
19-01-16, 18:01
But so what? The 2012 video hasn't resulted in any discernible change, and we would still see exactly the same thing unpenalised in 2016. It's a flash in the pan that got no further than someone putting it up on the website - couldn't even make te effort to explain what alleged existing law was supposed to be enforced.

Perhaps the most common scenario is when a team under pressure wins a lineout inside the 22. Ball is shot back to the kicker, who (under pressure from tail gunners) kicks it back to exactly the same spot. Now if that kick is caught by the attacking hooker, all the defensive forwards are offside and interfering with the QTI. Anyone fancy a PK 15m infield? I never expect to see one in my lifetime.

I agree that you wouldn't penalise that scenario.
but the big difference there is that the offside players haven't advanced forward to defend the QTI, they have just stood where they were.

There really are three different cases
1 - offside players advance forward while ball is in the air, and continue to advance after it goes into touch
2 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move forward to defend the QTI
3 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move sideways/backwards to defend the QTI

most people here seem to be happy to penalise (1)
your scenario is an example of (3) which I think few would penalise
(2) is more problematic

Dixie
19-01-16, 20:01
There really are three different cases
1 - offside players advance forward while ball is in the air, and continue to advance after it goes into touch
2 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move forward to defend the QTI
3 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move sideways/backwards to defend the QTI

most people here seem to be happy to penalise (1)
your scenario is an example of (3) which I think few would penalise
(2) is more problematic There's a 4th, which covers my scenario and which Dickie E has touched on.

(4) players offside under the 10m law remain stationary, as a result of which they are in a position to defend the QTI, thereby effectively negating it as an option

I still don't ever expect to see it enforced

crossref
20-01-16, 12:01
well, the 10m law brings up a whole load of other complications

the 10m law is defined as

When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land

where the ball lands (or may land)

which may well be a good distance ahead of the line of touch -- so the players in your scenario easily might not be caught by the 10m law at all, if the ball landed 10m up the field from where it went into touch

but does it make any sense at all to think about retiring from where where the ball lands, if it is landing off the FoP ?

didds
20-01-16, 12:01
I suppose you could get all legally twistified with it and say that therefore clearly the law was designed with ball landing in FoP in mind, so ball in touch is not what the law covers so therefore there is no 10m offside law for ball in touch yadda yadda yadda.

I wonlt defend that claim!

LOL

didds

crossref
20-01-16, 12:01
I suppose you could get all legally twistified with it and say that therefore clearly the law was designed with ball landing in FoP in mind, so ball in touch is not what the law covers so therefore there is no 10m offside law for ball in touch yadda yadda yadda.

I wonlt defend that claim!

LOL

didds

but in post 25 that's the claim that Dixie makes -- in his scenario all the players standing in the ex-lineout would seem to covered by the 10m Law (if it applies) but as Dixie says it's hard to imagine anyone penalising them if they just stand exactly where they are and defend the possible QTI.

Whereas if the fudged kick from the #10 was to balloon up and come down amongst them, we'd most certainly expect them to be retreating 10m

So in practice it doesn't seem to apply, in this case anyway, becasue the ball went into touch

ChrisR
20-01-16, 15:01
but you haven't answered the difficult case.

blue kick, and an offside blue player, not caught by the 10m law, just stops where he is, as he's allowed to.

ball goes into touch, can the blue player now advance to defend the possible QTI? or does he still have wait until he is played onside?

red take a QTI, can he advance now? or does he STILL have wait until he is played onside?

If you treat the QTI throw as a pass (as could happen if the ball is caught in the FOP) then the off-side player who didn't advance is now onside. This is the most equitable and easiest to apply solution. Only problem is finding adequate support in the Laws.

Thunderhorse1986
20-01-16, 15:01
I would stand by my prior comments even for this point crossref - you may find it difficult to envisage someone awarding a penalty but the more I think about it the more I would want to see the kicking team's players retreat away from the ball (if within 10m or it landing or where it had been caught by the opposition) especially if the opponent was clearly looking to to play the ball via QTI. A shout or two of "Colour, Retreat" or "Colour, Leave it" or similar and if they didn't comply and it was having a material impact then play the advantage or award the penalty. In my mind it doesn't seem that strange although I admit I haven't come across it in a live game myself.

crossref
20-01-16, 15:01
In my mind it doesn't seem that strange although I admit I haven't come across it in a live game myself.

now you are sensitised to it you are bound to see it on Saturday !

The Fat
21-01-16, 07:01
If you treat the QTI throw as a pass (as could happen if the ball is caught in the FOP) then the off-side player who didn't advance is now onside. This is the most equitable and easiest to apply solution. Only problem is finding adequate support in the Laws.

You are on the right track.
The player/players who are in offside positions and liable to sanction prior to the ball going into touch are the ones to be managed/penalised.
A team mate of a kicker who is in an offside position but complies with the laws and either stands still or is retreating is not liable to sanction. Once the ball has gone into touch, these players are now free to approach the LoT i.e. offside lines are gone and we are back to general play if a QTI has been taken.
WR expects that players who are offside and interfere with play/cut down options of the team in possession are to be penalised. If an offside player moves forward, prior to the ball going into touch, towards an opponent to disrupt the QTI, that player should be penalised. The penalty is for moving towards the play prior to the ball going into touch, not for attempting to stop a QTI and therefore the mark for the penalty is where the referee first saw that player moving forward and not near where the QTI is being attempted. Of course there is also the option of scrum back where the ball was kicked.
If we manage/penalise the offside player who is infringing prior to the ball going into touch, we are refereeing to the laws and are achieving what WR is getting at in their application of laws guidelines. It keeps it all simple.

Dickie E
21-01-16, 09:01
You are on the right track.
The player/players who are in offside positions and liable to sanction prior to the ball going into touch are the ones to be managed/penalised.
A team mate of a kicker who is in an offside position but complies with the laws and either stands still or is retreating is not liable to sanction. Once the ball has gone into touch, these players are now free to approach the LoT i.e. offside lines are gone and we are back to general play if a QTI has been taken.
WR expects that players who are offside and interfere with play/cut down options of the team in possession are to be penalised. If an offside player moves forward, prior to the ball going into touch, towards an opponent to disrupt the QTI, that player should be penalised. The penalty is for moving towards the play prior to the ball going into touch, not for attempting to stop a QTI and therefore the mark for the penalty is where the referee first saw that player moving forward and not near where the QTI is being attempted. Of course there is also the option of scrum back where the ball was kicked.
If we manage/penalise the offside player who is infringing prior to the ball going into touch, we are refereeing to the laws and are achieving what WR is getting at in their application of laws guidelines. It keeps it all simple.

Ed Zachary

Dixie
21-01-16, 17:01
Ed Zachary And the 10m law?

The Fat
22-01-16, 05:01
And the 10m law?

I really don't see a problem.
If the player is inside the 10m prior to the ball going into touch and is not retiring, the referee should already have him in his cross-hairs.
Some are suggesting there will be problems if the ball is kicked well into touch but the likely scenario is that if the ball ends up a considerable distance into touch, the QTI is probably not going to be an option

Dickie E
22-01-16, 06:01
And the 10m law?

Same as Fat.

If the ball is going to land on or about touchline I'd be looking for kicker's teammates within 10 metres to be actively retiring until the ball alights.
If ball lands in FoP, normal 10 metre stuff applies.
If ball lands in touch, each and every player is OK to take up a position to participate in the restart (be it lineout or QTI)

OB..
22-01-16, 12:01
I'm going to come back to this11.9 Loitering A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing teamís action.This applies to players who are offside but do not breach 11.1.

If the ball goes into touch, the only way to avoid 11.9 is to rule that all offside considerations disappear at that moment. Which raises the question we started with. The final sentence of 11.9 is a general principle that IMHO ought to be applied even when the ball has gone into touch.

ChrisR
22-01-16, 13:01
If ball lands in touch, each and every player is OK to take up a position to participate in the restart (be it lineout or QTI)

Dickie E, I disagree with your statement above regards the QTI.

I strongly believe that off-side law should apply until the QTI is no longer an option. Players within the 10m cannot be put onsides by any action of the opponent.

11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW

(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to
be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which
is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may
land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the
kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an
opponent or interfere with play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b) While moving away, the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing
team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put
onside by any onside team-mate who runs in front of the player.


The onus should be on the kicking team to defend the QTI with onside players.

The only squirrelly thing about this is should the 10m be from where the ball crosses into touch or where the ball alights. I'd say from the LOT because that is where play can restart.

crossref
22-01-16, 14:01
The only squirrelly thing about this is should the 10m be from where the ball crosses into touch or where the ball alights. I'd say from the LOT because that is where play can restart.

play can restart from anywhere between the throwing team's goal-line and the LOT

usually, it restart from where the ball ends up, rather than from the LOT (although they may be same place obviosuly)

Taff
22-01-16, 14:01
... The final sentence of 11.9 is a general principle that IMHO ought to be applied even when the ball has gone into touch.
Exactly. So by introducing a law which says that offside players remain offside and "liable to sanction" until the QTI option dies, everyone should be happy.

crossref
22-01-16, 14:01
Exactly. So by introducing a law which says that offside players remain offside and "liable to sanction" until the QTI option dies, everyone should be happy.

possibly that's what the IRB thought they had done with that video ?

Taff
22-01-16, 14:01
possibly that's what the IRB thought they had done with that video ?
I am convinced that's what they had in mind Crossref, but lets wait for the clarification.

WR love QTIs. I can't imagine they will allow anything which stops them - especially any action by an offside player, which (as OB pointed out) goes against their own general principle that an offside player shouldn't gain any advantage from being offside.

Thunderhorse1986
22-01-16, 14:01
Although apparently not given 7 pages of debate and no actual explanation on the IRB description.

Having seen numerous clarifications on other topics etc I am unsure World Rugby/IRB or whatever they want to be called knows what they had in mind themselves, so assuming what they wanted is probably dangerous ground!

That said, as I mentioned above I am with you on thinking that should be the right way to manage this. Players remain offside until either put onside through Law 11 methods or once QTI option is gone. I can see why others have the differing view though.

crossref
22-01-16, 15:01
my view is that when the IRB put that video up, they simply hadn't thought it all through properly.

Thunderhorse1986
22-01-16, 15:01
Which obviously comes as a big surprise to everyone...:deadhorse:

Dickie E
22-01-16, 21:01
Exactly. So by introducing a law which says that offside players remain offside and "liable to sanction" until the QTI option dies, everyone should be happy.

I'll be happy irrespective of the introduction of that law.

Dickie E
22-01-16, 21:01
I'm going to come back to this11.9 Loitering A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.This applies to players who are offside but do not breach 11.1.

If the ball goes into touch, the only way to avoid 11.9 is to rule that all offside considerations disappear at that moment. Which raises the question we started with. The final sentence of 11.9 is a general principle that IMHO ought to be applied even when the ball has gone into touch.

The concept of loitering while ball is out of play is nonsensical to me because being offside while ball out of play is nonsensical to me.

I think the issue is that some see a QTI as a lineout subset (ie me) and others see it as a totally different animal.

The Fat
23-01-16, 00:01
It is the player/players infringing prior to the ball going into touch who is/are offending. They are the ones cutting down their opponents options. Players who were complying with the law, even though they were ahead of the kicker, have not infringed and are able to approach where the QTI is being attempted.
It all seems fairly straight forward to me and all covered by current law.

OB..
23-01-16, 02:01
The concept of loitering while ball is out of play is nonsensical to me because being offside while ball out of play is nonsensical to me.

I think the issue is that some see a QTI as a lineout subset (ie me) and others see it as a totally different animal.It is very clear that they may well be able to benefit from the fact that they were in an offside position when the ball went into touch.

The Fat
23-01-16, 02:01
It is very clear that they may well be able to benefit from the fact that they were in an offside position when the ball went into touch.

Only those who were infringing prior to the ball going into touch are benefitting. others who were in an "offside position" but were complying with the requirements of the laws are free to approach the QTI

Dickie E
23-01-16, 07:01
It is very clear that they may well be able to benefit from the fact that they were in an offside position when the ball went into touch.

Red fullback kicks from halfway into Blue in goal where Blue player dots it down. Red players are "loitering" on the Blue 22.

Blue player tosses ball to team mate on the 22 for a quick drop out. Lo & behold, Red players are in good position to defend the restart.

Haven't they then benefited from being in an offside position?

OB..
23-01-16, 12:01
Only those who were infringing prior to the ball going into touch are benefitting. others who were in an "offside position" but were complying with the requirements of the laws are free to approach the QTISo how do you get round the law on Loitering?

Dickie E
23-01-16, 12:01
So how do you get round the law on Loitering?

To be loitering, you need to be offside.

To be offside, the ball needs to be in play.

Once the ball crosses the touchline, it is no longer in play.

OB..
23-01-16, 13:01
To be offside, the ball needs to be in play.Where does it say or imply that? IMHO 11.9 implies the opposite.

Dickie E
23-01-16, 22:01
Where does it say or imply that? IMHO 11.9 implies the opposite.

It is general practice that we allow a player who was previously offside to move to the next restart unimpeded once the ref blows for ball out of play. Clear examples are my post #75, moving to take part in a scrum, moving to take part in a lineout, etc.

I don't support the concept that a QTI is a special case - it is not backed up in Law or practice at elite level. It is a way to allow the throwing team to get the ball back into play quickly if they so wish - but they do so with some risk.

OB..
24-01-16, 00:01
It is general practice that we allow a player who was previously offside to move to the next restart unimpeded once the ref blows for ball out of play. Clear examples are my post #75, moving to take part in a scrum, moving to take part in a lineout, etc.

I don't support the concept that a QTI is a special case - it is not backed up in Law or practice at elite level. It is a way to allow the throwing team to get the ball back into play quickly if they so wish - but they do so with some risk.The distinctive feature in a QTI is that the players decide when to restart play. That is not true with a scrum. Opinions on a lineout are divided.

We have a specific offence of loitering which involves getting a benefit from being in an offside position even if you do not breach 11.1(a).

It is undeniable that some players will be benefiting from their offside position unless 11.9 applies. There is nothing specific to say all offside considerations disappear when the ball is in touch. We are having this discussion simply because the law does not specifically deal with the QTI issue. We need a ruling.

Dickie E
24-01-16, 00:01
We have a specific offence of loitering which involves getting a benefit from being in an offside position even if you do not breach 11.1(a).



Do you have a view on my post #75 and its similarity to a QTI?

The Fat
24-01-16, 04:01
So how do you get round the law on Loitering?

11.9 Loitering
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing teamís action.


As I posted earlier, players who were originally in an offside position but were complying with the requirements of Law 11.1 or 11.4 when the ball went into touch, have not infringed. Offside is now cancelled and those players are free to move wherever they wish. The team attempting the QTI now must make a simple decision. Is the QTI on or not.
Team mates of the kicker who were in an offside position and were not complying with the requirements of Law 11.1 or 11.4 when the ball went into touch (i.e. were not standing still or retreating) have already infringed. There is no need to wait to play the "Loitering" card. They have already had an effect on play and cut down their opponents options. Penalise these players under either 11.1 or 11.4. No need to have to justify penalising them under 11.9 as they have already infringed.

ChrisR
24-01-16, 13:01
TF, I think we only diverge on one point and that is when the restrictions on non-infringing offsides players ends. I think off-sides stays in force until the QTI is taken or until it's no longer available as an option.

The onus for putting players onside should always be on the kicking team.

The Fat
24-01-16, 13:01
TF, I think we only diverge on one point and that is when the restrictions on non-infringing offsides players ends. I think off-sides stays in force until the QTI is taken or until it's no longer available as an option.

The onus for putting players onside should always be on the kicking team.

What you are saying is that every player of the kicker's team who was in front of the kicker when the ball was kicked (possibly 14 players) must freeze (except for those within 10m) until the opposition player retrieves the ball from in touch and decides if he is going to take a quick throw. If there are players from the kicker's team just outside the 10m and the player taking the QTI wants to throw to a team mate who is 25m in-field, your interpretation would mean that the player with the ball could move say 10m closer to his own goal line for a safer pass and the kicker's team mates would have to remain stationary until he threw the pass.
We all know that is simply not how the QTI situation is refereed.
My interpretation (and I believe it will be consistent with any answer KML1 gets) is simply to not penalise players who were complying with Law 11 when the ball went into touch and penalise the players who were not complying.

OB..
24-01-16, 15:01
Do you have a view on my post #75 and its similarity to a QTI?There is some similarity, but the big difference is that a 22 drop out is mandatory and the law spells out where the opponents must be. They cannot prevent the drop out.

A QTI is optional and might well become too risky because of loitering players.

I suppose loiterers might prevent the (rare) tap drop out, but the equivalence is otherwise weak.

OB..
24-01-16, 15:01
11.9 Loitering
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing teamís action.


As I posted earlier, players who were originally in an offside position but were complying with the requirements of Law 11.1 or 11.4 when the ball went into touch, have not infringed. Offside is now cancelled and those players are free to move wherever they wish.
Where do you get that assertion from?

OB..
24-01-16, 16:01
We all know that is simply not how the QTI situation is refereed.I don't think I have ever seen that situation arise, probably because at present nobody really knows what the law is.

My interpretation (and I believe it will be consistent with any answer KML1 gets) is simply to not penalise players who were complying with Law 11 when the ball went into touch and penalise the players who were not complying.
You may be right, but so far the case is weak.

Blackberry
24-01-16, 16:01
Isn't it this?:
If you were offside when the ball went into touch, you can't oppose the QTI.

ChrisR
24-01-16, 19:01
Isn't it this?:
If you were offside when the ball went into touch, you can't oppose the QTI.

...... until put onside by an onside member of your team or by the opponent throwing in the ball (does not apply to player inside 10m).

This approach provides consistency with the laws if the ball is caught in the FOP.

Dickie E
24-01-16, 21:01
There is some similarity, but the big difference is that a 22 drop out is mandatory and the law spells out where the opponents must be. They cannot prevent the drop out.

A QTI is optional and might well become too risky because of loitering players.

I suppose loiterers might prevent the (rare) tap drop out, but the equivalence is otherwise weak.

Why do you introduce the word "prevent"? I'm talking about "participating in".

Dickie E
25-01-16, 03:01
...... until put onside by an onside member of your team or by the opponent throwing in the ball

By logical extension, then, a player in front of the kicker can't approach the line of touch to participate in a normal lineout? If the full back is the kicker, none of his 14 team mates can move forward to join the lineout? I wonder what happens then, maybe the referee has to ask the fullback to jog up to the LoT to put his team mates onside?

I wonder what happens at half time. Can a previously offside player join his huddle or does he need to be put onside first? *


* this one is a bit silly although he does gain an advantage by being first to the oranges.

ChrisR
25-01-16, 12:01
By logical extension, then, a player in front of the kicker can't approach the line of touch to participate in a normal lineout? If the full back is the kicker, none of his 14 team mates can move forward to join the lineout? I wonder what happens then, maybe the referee has to ask the fullback to jog up to the LoT to put his team mates onside?

I wonder what happens at half time. Can a previously offside player join his huddle or does he need to be put onside first? *


* this one is a bit silly although he does gain an advantage by being first to the oranges.

I had considered that scenario but usually the possibility of a QTI resolves itself quickly and the receiving players act with obvious intent. If the QTI is not on then there's no issue.

OB..
25-01-16, 13:01
Why do you introduce the word "prevent"? I'm talking about "participating in".At a drop out 13.17 specifies where the opponents must be. This effectively rules out the possibility of loiterers interfering.

There is no such provision for a QTI, so loiterers could have a significant effect.

TheBFG
25-01-16, 16:01
:sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

did we get an answer to this???

I saw this in the Pink v Tiggers game yesterday, Pink stopping a QTI as the player "up field" was only a few yards from where it went into touch after a 40m+ kick, it looked wrong, but nothing was said by any officials and no complaint from the players, but had the QTI been taken it would have been an interesting situation.....

Dixie
25-01-16, 17:01
An interesting discussion so far - without (of course) actually getting anywhere. Let me pose this slight adjustment to the scenario I posed earlier.

Blue lineout on its own 5m line. Blue wins the ball, passes off the top to the SH, who spins it back to #10 standing deep in-goal. Blue 10 kicks, and falls over in the process. All Blue players are offside, and stand still - the forwards at the line of touch. Two Red forwards also remain at the LoT.

The ball makes touch on the 22m line. Red 14 catches the ball 1m in touch, and immediately throws it (slightly backward) to Red 15. TJ indicates to the ref that the lineout was formed, as there were 7 Blues (all offside) and 2 Reds at the LoT on the 5m line.

Does the ref play on or disallow the QTI? If the latter, in what way have the offside players NOT influenced the game by being offside?

Blackberry
25-01-16, 18:01
An interesting discussion so far - without (of course) actually getting anywhere. Let me pose this slight adjustment to the scenario I posed earlier.

Blue lineout on its own 5m line. Blue wins the ball, passes off the top to the SH, who spins it back to #10 standing deep in-goal. Blue 10 kicks, and falls over in the process. All Blue players are offside, and stand still - the forwards at the line of touch. Two Red forwards also remain at the LoT.



The ball makes touch on the 22m line. Red 14 catches the ball 1m in touch, and immediately throws it (slightly backward) to Red 15. TJ indicates to the ref that the lineout was formed, as there were 7 Blues (all offside) and 2 Reds at the LoT on the 5m line.

Does the ref play on or disallow the QTI? If the latter, in what way have the offside players NOT influenced the game by being offside?

To me, Not straight, scrum to blue. (TJ said the Line Out had formed)

crossref
25-01-16, 18:01
( they are all standing on the 5m line, but the LoT is the 22m line, so how is the line-out formed? Or is there a typo in the scenario? )


at the end of all this discussion, I can't say I am confident about what the IRB think the Law is, but my inclination on how to ref it is --

- for any offside player complying with the Law (ie standing still or, if necessary, retreating under the 10m law), once ball is in touch they are free to advance up field, and free to contest the QTI.

- but if they were not complying, ie moving forward/not moving back, then they they cannot interfere with play, so if the QTI is on and they contest it they are liable to sanction.

Dickie E
25-01-16, 20:01
te

There is no such provision for a QTI, so loiterers could have a significant effect.

Yes there is. They must be 5 metres from touch in order to participate. And yes their presence may have a significant effect so don't go throwing it in carelessly.

And they are not loiterers because they are no longer offside but I'm OK to use the term here as a shorthand.

crossref
25-01-16, 20:01
te

Yes there is. They must be 5 metres from touch in order to participate. And yes their presence may have a significant effect so don't go throwing it in carelessly.

And they are not loiterers because they are no longer offside but I'm OK to use the term here as a shorthand.

one problem is that a sophisticated player who is miles upfield for some reason, now seeing that his team back in the 22m have won possession and are shaping up to kick for touch, deliberately remains upfield so that he can defend a possible QTI. A cynical loiterer, if you like

OB..
25-01-16, 23:01
Yes there is. They must be 5 metres from touch in order to participate.No. 5 metres applies to players on both teams. It is not a distinguishing feature.
And yes their presence may have a significant effect so don't go throwing it in carelessly.My point exactly. Doesn't apply to a drop out.


And they are not loiterers because they are no longer offside That is your view, and the whole point of the discussion.

Taff
26-01-16, 12:01
... I saw this in the Pink v Tiggers game yesterday, Pink stopping a QTI as the player "up field" was only a few yards from where it went into touch after a 40m+ kick, it looked wrong, but nothing was said by any officials and no complaint from the players, but had the QTI been taken it would have been an interesting situation.....
Did the Pink players comply with the 10m Law?

TheBFG
26-01-16, 12:01
No, the Pink player just held his ground (slow returning Fwd I think?)

crossref
26-01-16, 12:01
No, the Pink player just held his ground (slow returning Fwd I think?)

he presumably held his ground precisely in order to be in the right place to contest the QTI. Why wouldn't you?

of course in open play an offside player is entitled to merely stand still (10m law, yada yada yes) but he's NOT entitled to interfere with play until he's put on side... So we return right back to the nub of this, was he put onside when the ball went out.

Thunderhorse1986
26-01-16, 12:01
And just be standing still he may be "interfering" by making the team hesitate or refrain completely from taking the QTI.

Taff
26-01-16, 23:01
And just be standing still he may be "interfering" by making the team hesitate or refrain completely from taking the QTI.
Exactly.


... So we return right back to the nub of this, was he put onside when the ball went out.
We're going to have to wait for this clarification mate. :biggrin:

TheBFG
27-01-16, 11:01
So we return right back to the nub of this, was he put onside when the ball went out.

WHICH IS WHERE I CAME INTO THIS CONVERSATION!!!!!!! :wink:

Anyone know where there is a full replay of this match, i'll find the scenario and post a link......

crossref
27-01-16, 11:01
this must be it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hawhutx5tQ8

TheBFG
27-01-16, 16:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d03yoS4vSDo&feature=player_detailpage#t=4724

Here you go 65.15 on the match clock.

Now I've watched it again there is a bit of pointing from Tiggers.......

crossref
27-01-16, 17:01
great video.

so
- as the ball is kicked, many pink players are moving backwards, some are still
- when the ball is kicked they all stop moving (good)
- under 10m law the foremost pink player should really have retreated about a metre - seeing as he is about 9m from where the ball went into touch... need to assess how material that is
- as soon as the ball crosses the plane of touch, pink player moves forward to defend the QTI.

It would be a great video to submit to SA referees (or somewhere) as a question : was he allowed to defend the QTI?

ChrisR
27-01-16, 17:01
Great clip, perfect illustration of the issue.

You could make a case that all Pinks ahead of the 50 should have been retiring before the ball is caught in touch.

But the primary question remains: Does the ball going into touch end all offsides?

Dixie
27-01-16, 18:01
Great clip, perfect illustration of the issue.

You could make a case that all Pinks ahead of the 50 should have been retiring before the ball is caught in touch.

But the primary question remains: Does the ball going into touch end all offsides? No - the law only requires an offside player to retire if he is within 10m of a line across the pitch drawn where the ball would land or be caught. The players offside but behind that line have no obligation to retire, but simply to avoid moving forward. There are two questions:

a) should those within the 10m zone retire, even though the ball will land in touch? and
b) can all other offside players move forward as soon as the ball is in touch?

We don't know the answer to either question, so a reference to SA rugby would be interesting, but only WR can really help - and then only if they don't leave the 12 year-old to do the write-up while they go for a long boozy lunch. SO there's realistically no prospect of this getting sorted at all.

crossref
27-01-16, 18:01
you could also ask
- if you are rapidly retiring, but when the ball goes into touch haven't yet reached the imaginary 10m mark you need to get to (don't forget you could be way upfield) .. then again when the ball goes into touch are you OK to contest the QTI now.

The Fat
27-01-16, 19:01
The foremost pink player is offside under the 10m law. He waits on the "0" of the "50" pitch mark and then starts moving forward when he realises the ball is going into touch but before it actually does.
Top level match with ARs so what is the referee watching?
We are taught not to watch the ball as we all know "it will eventually come down"
We have an AR watching for the ball going into touch.
The referee should be managing offside players and in this case he has at least 2 (possibly 3, I will need to watch the video again to check that 3rd player's actions) who are offside under the 10m law, BEFORE THE BALL GOES INTO TOUCH, and should be retreating. Both pink players between the 50 and green's 10m have an effect on the potential QTI.
Once the ball has gone into touch, you can see the other pink players, who WERE complying with the requirements of Law 11 prior to the ball crossing the touch line, move quickly towards the LoT. These players are OK to do so. They don't have to wait for either the kicker or a team mate who was behind the kicker to run them onside.
The correct decision should be a PK against the foremost pink player on the "0" of the "50", i.e. at the place where he first infringed the 10m law.

Dickie E
27-01-16, 20:01
We don't know the answer to either question, so a reference to SA rugby would be interesting, but only WR can really help -

Or, as we often do, watch & imitate the elite (any new Charlottes in the family :))

ChrisR
28-01-16, 14:01
An additional concern for those players within the 10m is where to measure the 10m from. Should it be from the point of where the ball comes down or is caught or should it be from where it crosses into touch?

crossref
28-01-16, 15:01
The foremost pink player is offside under the 10m law. He waits on the "0" of the "50" pitch mark and then starts moving forward when he realises the ball is going into touch but before it actually does.
Top level match with ARs so what is the referee watching?
We are taught not to watch the ball as we all know "it will eventually come down"
We have an AR watching for the ball going into touch.
The referee should be managing offside players and in this case he has at least 2 (possibly 3, I will need to watch the video again to check that 3rd player's actions) who are offside under the 10m law, BEFORE THE BALL GOES INTO TOUCH, and should be retreating. Both pink players between the 50 and green's 10m have an effect on the potential QTI.
Once the ball has gone into touch, you can see the other pink players, who WERE complying with the requirements of Law 11 prior to the ball crossing the touch line, move quickly towards the LoT. These players are OK to do so. They don't have to wait for either the kicker or a team mate who was behind the kicker to run them onside.
The correct decision should be a PK against the foremost pink player on the "0" of the "50", i.e. at the place where he first infringed the 10m law.

I follow your argument, but is that actually the decision you'd make? on the pitch?
He was 9m from where the ball goes into touch, they key thing here was just about retreating that one metre before advancing again?

Dixie
28-01-16, 17:01
Once the ball has gone into touch, you can see the other pink players, who WERE complying with the requirements of Law 11 prior to the ball crossing the touch line, move quickly towards the LoT. These players are OK to do so. They don't have to wait for either the kicker or a team mate who was behind the kicker to run them onside. Well, let's examine that view.

If the ball going into touch terminates all offside considerations, then of course anyone who was offside before the ball went dead can do what he likes from the moment the ball dies in touch. But as soon as you postulate that a player offside under the 10m law who did not retire can now be held to have interfered with the QTI, and so be held to account for his offside status, then you need to look again at the presumption you make here.

Law 11.1 (a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:

• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

So as regards the second bullet point, there's no problem with him standing still. But what of the 1st? By standing still in an offside position 10.1m from the line of touch, doesn't he interfere with play?

If the kicker kicked from the goal line and the ball was caught 5m infield on the 10m line, then if the catcher stood still any potential interferer would have to run at least 40m before the catcher needed to do anything, because the offside players are not allowed to interfere. But if the catcher caught it with one foot in touch, then all the offside players can immediately close down his options from as little as 10.01m away. Isn't that interfering with play in the same way as failing to retire under the 10m law?

The Fat
28-01-16, 22:01
Well, let's examine that view.

If the ball going into touch terminates all offside considerations, then of course anyone who was offside before the ball went dead can do what he likes from the moment the ball dies in touch. But as soon as you postulate that a player offside under the 10m law who did not retire can now be held to have interfered with the QTI, and so be held to account for his offside status, then you need to look again at the presumption you make here.

Law 11.1 (a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:

• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

So as regards the second bullet point, there's no problem with him standing still. But what of the 1st? By standing still in an offside position 10.1m from the line of touch, doesn't he interfere with play?

If the kicker kicked from the goal line and the ball was caught 5m infield on the 10m line, then if the catcher stood still any potential interferer would have to run at least 40m before the catcher needed to do anything, because the offside players are not allowed to interfere. But if the catcher caught it with one foot in touch, then all the offside players can immediately close down his options from as little as 10.01m away. Isn't that interfering with play in the same way as failing to retire under the 10m law?

I think I have made my interpretation pretty clear through several posts and have covered what is required by all players ahead of the kicker.
Probably best to now wait for any clarification sought by KML1

Dickie E
29-01-16, 04:01
I think I have made my interpretation pretty clear through several posts and have covered what is required by all players ahead of the kicker.
Probably best to now wait for any clarification sought by KML1

If its good enough for George Clancy, its good enough for me