PDA

View Full Version : Quick throw in offside lines



breako
22-09-07, 17:09
Hi,
If a team takes a quick throw in, can a retreating player tackle a player who has just caught the ball? i.e. are the offside lines any different for a quick throw in?
Cheers

OB..
22-09-07, 18:09
Red kicks to touch, and Blue takes a quick throw-in to a team-mate. Any Red player in a position to retreat and tackle would have been the wrong side of the line of touch, and therefore offside.

He would also have been loitering. There is some discussion as to whether or not such a player has his offside cancelled when the ball goes into touch, but in equity a player so far ahead of the kicker should not derive any benefit from it.

didds
22-09-07, 23:09
Red kicks to touch, and Blue takes a quick throw-in to a team-mate. Any Red player in a position to retreat and tackle would have been the wrong side of the line of touch, and therefore offside.

He would also have been loitering. There is some discussion as to whether or not such a player has his offside cancelled when the ball goes into touch, but in equity a player so far ahead of the kicker should not derive any benefit from it.

what if the red player had been lieing on the ground, apparently injured :-)

didds

OB..
23-09-07, 00:09
You mean he tackled a player while lying on the ground? :nono: :nono: :rolleyes:

didds
23-09-07, 08:09
how about the injured player leaps to his feet, salmon like, and tackles him

didds

PeterH
23-09-07, 12:09
Dare I say - he would be leaping into the poaching pan :)

Deeps
23-09-07, 23:09
..and served on lightly poached spinach dressed in a sauce of honey, dill, mayo with a little Dijon mustard.

Dickie E
24-09-07, 10:09
Red kicks to touch, and Blue takes a quick throw-in to a team-mate. Any Red player in a position to retreat and tackle would have been the wrong side of the line of touch, and therefore offside.

He would also have been loitering. There is some discussion as to whether or not such a player has his offside cancelled when the ball goes into touch, but in equity a player so far ahead of the kicker should not derive any benefit from it.

This is a good question and I am not so sure about OB's response - I'll have to check the good book tomorrow.

A line of touch is created at a lineout but is it created at a quick throw?

Maybe equity should say that the thrower took his chances when he threw it into the teeth of retiring opponents?

oxped
24-09-07, 12:09
Law 19.2 (e) says:

At a quick throw in, if the player does not throw the ball in straight
so that it travels at least 5 metres along the line of touch before it
touches the ground or a player, or if the player steps into the field
of play when the ball is thrown, then the quick throw in is
disallowed.

It would seem there is a line of touch at a quick throw, and thus you can be offside.

ex-lucy
24-09-07, 13:09
i think the point here is also that the kick chasers and non retirers can be offside....
i think we had a case in Eng v Samoa, where a Samoan kicked the ball along the touch line to Eng's 22m but the ball didnt go out ....(even if it had, the scenario stays the same, i believe), a Samoan who had been involved in play beforehand got up off the floor about 20m from the ball's alighting point and ran to the England player fielding the kick. The ref played advantage and then blew up for offside and gave England the options: scrum from where the Samoan had taken place or a penalty from where the Samoan chaser started chasing.
Eng went for the scrum, i believe.
But IF the kick had gone out ... and IF England had tried to take a quick line out .. the Samoan chaser would still have been offside and options given to England.
IMHO...

Dixie
24-09-07, 14:09
But IF the kick had gone out ... and IF England had tried to take a quick line out .. the Samoan chaser would still have been offside and options given to England.
IMHO...


Hold hard there, Ex-Lucy. The situation you describe was one of not retiring 10m from where the ball will land. Thinking about that situation when the ball lands in touch, will you require that anyone who was in front of the kicker should either retire to a point 10m from the line of touch or else not move forward, and allow the quick throw-in to be taken unopposed. And if they don't, you say you'd give the option - kick on the line of touch (presumably 15m in) or scrum where the ball was kicked.

Let's now consider a defensive 5m scrum, #9 passes to #15 standing in-goal, #15 kicks to the 22m and because it's clearly landing safely in touch, doesn't bother to chase it - happens several times in every match. 8 offside forwards and one offside SH then jog to the line of touch. Shouldn't you use the same logic to grant the option of an attacking PK on the 22m line 15m infield, or an attacking scrum 5 opposite where the #15 stood (at least 5m in from touch)? I bet that decision's been given much, much fewer than 1% of the times it could have been. I've never given it, and never seen it given in 35 years.

As OB says, this is an open question, with considerable doubt about the correct answer. I don't have the solution - but because the second situation is rarely if ever called in the myriad occasions I'll see it as a ref in the season, then right or wrong I wouldn't call it for the much less common first situation either.

OB..
24-09-07, 16:09
i see no problem in being pragmatic about this.

A player who was originally offside is trying to gain an advantage by interfering with a quick throw. Bad.

Players jog up to a lineout when the ball has been put safely into touch. Good.

However if in the latter case they then attempt to interfere with a quick throw, see Rule 1 above.

Interfering is the key.

Dixie
24-09-07, 17:09
A lineout, quick or otherwise, is a restart. It is a key aspect of the game that there should be a contest for the ball at restarts. I can't bring myself to ping a player for competing at a restart just because the oppo have decided to take it quickly from a place of their own choosing. It is of course illegal to interfere with their efforts to get the game moving quickly by preventing the ball being thrown 5m, or standing in the channel to limit their options. But I see no reason to argue that by trying to compete in accordance with the basic tenets of the game, they should be pinged for negative play. I sincerely hope the "regular" lineout players, while arguably technically offside, also try to interfere with the oppo's lineout - but I assume no-one objects to this. I'll stick to my view on this and try to be consistent. The oppo get enough advantage by being able to choose the time and the place. I see no reason to give them an unopposed free throw as well.

Simon Thomas
24-09-07, 17:09
Sorry Dixie I disagree. If the player is offside from when the ball was kicked, he is still offside in my book, and looking to gain an unfair advantage and prevent positive play by the quick throw -I want to see him retire or indicate he is out the game until put onside.

OB..
24-09-07, 20:09
I am going to put this one to my long-suffering RDO (or whatever he is called these days).

Dickie E
26-09-07, 11:09
Sorry Dixie I disagree. If the player is offside from when the ball was kicked, he is still offside in my book, and looking to gain an unfair advantage and prevent positive play by the quick throw -I want to see him retire or indicate he is out the game until put onside.

I think you're arguing about 2 different types of offside - offside under 10M law and offside at lineout.

IMHO as long as defender is on his side of line of touch when the ball is thrown he is OK irrespective of his position in relation to the kicker.

In other words, offside after kick is over as soon as ball goes dead. Lineout offside comes into play when ball is thrown in.

Simon Thomas
26-09-07, 11:09
Fully agree Dixie.

I am pinging him for his offside a nano-second before the ball went dead.

Dixie
26-09-07, 12:09
Actually, that was Dickie. But your argument doesn't hold water, Simon - or at least, is inconsisently applied. If you were really pinging either the failure to retire 10m or else moving forward before being put onside by a team mate following the kick, then you'd also award the PK/scum option when the #15 fails to follow up his clearance kick because it obviously makes touch.

Let's all wait and hear what OB's RDO has to say on the subject.

OB..
02-10-07, 13:10
I have now heard back from my RDO.

Here was my question:
Blue 10 kicks to touch. Blue 11 is well in front, but chases after the
ball anyway. It goes into touch. Red 14 gathers it and wants to take a
quick throw to Red 15, but Blue 11 is marking Red 15. Is Blue 11 legal?

And this was the answer:
My view is that he is not legal and he has gained an unfair advantage.
Regardless of the ball in touch, he was offside and would suggest he is
loitering (Law 11.9). It is not specific but think this would cleary be
equitable.

I also posed a corollary:
On similar lines, if the ball is caught in touch after time has expired,
can the catcher take a quick throw? In other words, is the ball dead
merely by being in touch, or only when the lineout is formed? The
definition of "dead" says the ball is dead when it "has gone outside the
playing area and remained there". In the case of a quick throw, it has
not remained, IMHO.

Answer:
Second point is a clear no in my humble opinion. By definition the ball
is dead as soon as it has crossed the line then made contact with
something. You could say then that if the ball crossed the line, hit
the ground and bounced back it did not remain outside the playing area?!
Scenario that player kicks the ball into touch (similar to Gomersall in
Samoa game when time had expired) and it is caught by Samoa who take a
quick throw and score!!

I prefer his pragmatic view to the theoretical one. It also clarifies for me the point about when a lineout is "awarded": when the ball goes dead in touch, not when the referee blows his whistle.

Dixie
02-10-07, 15:10
Well, OK. At a conceptual level I'm deeply sceptical but I can go with this in practice in the interests of uniformity. However, the theory applies equally to the 8 forwards and one receiver who are offside after their #15 clears to touch and doesn't chase. They prevent the oppo from having an unopposed lineout, and so are loitering. I suggest we don't apply the logic to that situation.

OB..
02-10-07, 17:10
Dixie - the situation only arises in respect of a quick throw-in.

David J.
02-10-07, 18:10
A lineout, quick or otherwise, is a restart. It is a key aspect of the game that there should be a contest for the ball at restarts.

It's not so clear cut. Penalty kicks restarts, but there is no competition involved.

David J.
02-10-07, 19:10
A quick throw is not a lineout, it's a quick throw, defined separately in law. You cannot be offsides under the lineout laws at a quick throw.

I do think you can be offsides under general play laws however.

OB's question revised:
Blue 10 kicks to touch. Blue 11 is well in front but 11m from where the ball will land and he does not move forward. The ball heads into touch. Seeing the ball is clearly going to touch, neither Blue 10 nor any other player who was behind him chased the kick and put Blue 11 onsides. After the ball landed in touch, Red 14 gathers it and Blue 11 advances to the point where Red 15 is awaiting Red 14's quick throw.

I think Blue 11 is penalizable. He was offsides and as OB said, the ball is not really dead, as it did not remain outside the field of play.

However, I also think the rules of being put onsides apply. If Red 15 gathers, then runs 5 m up to gain a little yardage before throwing, Blue 11 is onsides.

Dixie
03-10-07, 09:10
Dixie - the situation only arises in respect of a quick throw-in.

Why? The argument is that you are not put onside by the ball going dead. The ball is dead whether or not the opposition elects to take a quick one. If seven offside players had not ambled up to the line of touch in order to form a lineout, the opposition could have taken an unopposed throw and had a free passage to the fullback who had kicked the ball and failed to chase. By opposing the throw while offside, they have loitered as defined by law, and prevented the oppo from playing as they might have wished.

But let's draw a line under it. As I said, I can't accept the reasoning, but I am prepared to go with the practice in the interests of consistency.

OB..
03-10-07, 11:10
If seven offside players had not ambled up to the line of touch in order to form a lineout,
They don't. It takes two from each side.

You cannot take a quick throw-in if the criteria don't fit.

At a lineout teams are given time to get the formation correct. The referee is controlling matters, not the players.

The two situations are distinguishable, and it is the practice to do so, according to a National Panel ref.

Dickie E
07-10-07, 11:10
IMy view is that he is not legal and he has gained an unfair advantage.
Regardless of the ball in touch, he was offside and would suggest he is
loitering (Law 11.9). It is not specific but think this would cleary be
equitable.



OB, ask your long suffering RDO this:

Red kick long and the ball comes to rest in the Blue in-goal. Blue fullback grounds the ball and then throws it to a team mate who is on the Blue 22 metre line to take the drop out. Is the Blue player who catches the ball offside and guilty of loitering? Does equity require that this player not take the drop out until the Blue fullback puts him on-side? Has Blue gained an "unfair advantage"?

OB..
07-10-07, 13:10
Dickie E - why would I waste his time with a totally different scenario for which there is a well known answer?

Dickie E
08-10-07, 10:10
Dickie E - why would I waste his time with a totally different scenario for which there is a well known answer?

sorry, I didn't know his time was so valuable. What is he, the Dali Lama?

So what's the answer and why is it so different it to the theme of this thread?

OB..
08-10-07, 12:10
Dickie E - Red kicks for touch, Blue player wants to take a quick throw-in, Red player started offside and moved forward contrary to 11.1 (a). He is therefore liable to penalty and subsequently interferes with play.

Red player kicks into in-goal, Blue player touches down, no Blue player is offside. They may become offside if the Blue player runs around in in-goal with the ball, but are not liable to penalty unless they interfere with play. They cannot move forwards towards the ball.

After the ball is touched down in in-goal, play can only restart with a 22 drop out - there is no equivalent of a quick throw-in.

You quoted a situation that occurs frequently, and we have all seen what happens, so I am absolutely certain I know what my RDO would rule.

Dickie E
08-10-07, 21:10
They may become offside if the Blue player runs around in in-goal with the ball, but are not liable to penalty unless they interfere with play.

well lets look at that one - it happens often enough. Blue player does a little jig then touches down. He then throws the ball to a teamamte on the 22 for a quick kick. Blue was offside (or potentially offside if he intefered with play) when the ball went dead - why should he be allowed to gain an advantage from this?

Dickie E
08-10-07, 22:10
Here was my question:
Blue 10 kicks to touch. Blue 11 is well in front, but chases after the
ball anyway. It goes into touch. Red 14 gathers it and wants to take a
quick throw to Red 15, but Blue 11 is marking Red 15. Is Blue 11 legal?

And this was the answer:
My view is that he is not legal and he has gained an unfair advantage.
Regardless of the ball in touch, he was offside and would suggest he is
loitering (Law 11.9). It is not specific but think this would cleary be
equitable.



OK - how about this?

Blue 10 kicks to touch & Blue 11 well in front, etc.

However before the ball goes into touch the Red player touches it. So throw to Blue.

Can Blue 11 then pick up the ball and take a quick throw or would this be seen as inequitable?

If the latter, what needs to happen before the Blue 11 can pick up the ball legally?

OB..
08-10-07, 22:10
He was only potentially offside. He did not interfere with play, so not penalised.

However you are not really arguing this case - it happens far too often for here to be any doubt about it. And it sheds no further light on the original problem.

OB..
08-10-07, 22:10
OK - how about this?

Blue 10 kicks to touch & Blue 11 well in front, etc.

However before the ball goes into touch the Red player touches it. So throw to Blue.

Can Blue 11 then pick up the ball and take a quick throw or would this be seen as inequitable?

If the latter, what needs to happen before the Blue 11 can pick up the ball legally?
For me, he needs to wait for a lineout to form. However Blue 11 could have been penalised.

The usual scenario is that Blue 11 sees the ball going into touch, so considers his offside position no longer matters. Provided he does not try to take advantage of being in front, I would not penalise him. In this latest case that is clearly not so, since a Red player touched it before it went into touch. There is a good case for a penalty.

Dickie E
09-10-07, 11:10
He was only potentially offside. He did not interfere with play, so not penalised.

However you are not really arguing this case - it happens far too often for here to be any doubt about it. And it sheds no further light on the original problem.


The scenarios seem remarkably similar to me. Player who is in an offside position and liable to penalty if he interferes with play gains a advantage at the restart due his position on the field.

If we agree to disagree - no need to respond. If OB must have final word on every argument - fire away.

OB..
09-10-07, 13:10
Dickie E - I have pointed out why I consider the cases to be different. As far as I can see you have not challenged that. Feel free to do so.

Dickie E
09-10-07, 21:10
- it happens far too often for here to be any doubt about it. And it sheds no further light on the original problem.

OB, your only agument appears to be that one happens often and the other doesn't - or am I missing something?

OB..
09-10-07, 23:10
am I missing something?
Yes. The post where I wrote:

Red kicks for touch, Blue player wants to take a quick throw-in, Red player started offside and moved forward contrary to 11.1 (a). He is therefore liable to penalty and subsequently interferes with play.

Red player kicks into in-goal, Blue player touches down, no Blue player is offside. They may become offside if the Blue player runs around in in-goal with the ball, but are not liable to penalty unless they interfere with play. They cannot move forwards towards the ball.


The Red player has broken the law. The Blue players have not.

The first case is rare, hence the lack of precedents and uncertainty as to the position in law. The second case is very common so we know exactly what the standard procedure is.

Account Deleted
29-10-07, 00:10
I Agree with OB.

David J.
21-11-07, 03:11
I like the theory that a player in front of the kicker is offsides at a quick throw, but the SANZAR website thinks differently. Are there any IRB rulings about this?

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/laws_explained/story_191107165920.php

Dixie
21-11-07, 10:11
The thread discusses this at length, with different opinions being expressed by refs of varying experience. the SA refs site comes down in favour of the ball going dead nullifying the offside. That is merely one more opinion on that side of the argument - it proves nothing, other than that an elite ref can be found to hold this view (we're not told which ref provided the opinion). If a top ref can be found to hold the other view, we're back where we started. An iRB ruling would help.