PDA

View Full Version : [Line out] Are there any offiside lines at a quick throw



CrouchTPEngage
24-03-19, 10:03
Incident from my game yesterday. Made me think for a second.

Blue 10 doing a classic exit. Blue 10 kicks to touch. Line of touch it half-way line. Blue 11 who was onside, is the sole chaser.
The ball has rolled in touch and Red 14 gathers it and is looking like he wants to take a quick throw.
Blue 11 ( the chaser ) continues his run runs up to the Red 15 ( who was deep and offering himself for the quick throw ) to mark him, in case of the quick throw threat.

However, red 13 has now run back and unmarked and the quick throw is passed to him.
Blue 11 ( who had overrun the line of touch ) sees this and runs backwards to tackle Red 13.
I hear "Offside!" shouts from the Red players. And a Red player saying "He was in front of that throw in , Sir !".
Yes Blue 11 was "in front" of where the quick throw had occurred, but
I reply with something like "No lineout so no offsides! PLay on !".
Just want to make sure that's how other refs are reffing it.

Offside lines only exist if they take a lineout - right ?

Pablo
24-03-19, 10:03
Sounds fair to me.

Taff
24-03-19, 11:03
I'll follow this one with interest, but my first thought is the offside lines are only created when the LO forms.

I've been caught out by QTIs before now, because a lot happens very quickly.

Marc Wakeham
24-03-19, 13:03
He was in position legitimately so for me that is fair game. If you take a QTI you accept the inherrent risks.

If you want Line out offsides lines then take a line out not a quick throw.

Rich_NL
24-03-19, 21:03
The section in the laws is "offside at the lineout"... until that's formed it's open play, as far as I know.

chbg
24-03-19, 21:03
You can't be offside if the ball is dead. In a QTI it is open play as soon as the ball is thrown. Just let it travel 5m.

beckett50
24-03-19, 22:03
Where was the #11 stood? If he was stood inside the 5m line then he preventing the QTI and should be sanctioned by a PK

Dickie E
25-03-19, 02:03
gets a bit interesting if its a quickly taken lineout (as opposed to a QTI).

2 + 2 on LoT. Ball thrown in. What are the obligations on the other players?

OB..
25-03-19, 10:03
gets a bit interesting if its a quickly taken lineout (as opposed to a QTI).

2 + 2 on LoT. Ball thrown in. What are the obligations on the other players?To get onside ASAP without interfering with play.

Taff
25-03-19, 10:03
You can't be offside if the ball is dead. In a QTI it is open play as soon as the ball is thrown. Just let it travel 5m.
The problem though CHBG is that until a QTI is no longer available (eg the ball has been touched etc etc) the ball isn't really dead, hence the phrase "Zombie Ball". Ie the ball isn't alive but it isn't 100% dead either because it can come alive any second.

Dickie E
25-03-19, 10:03
To get onside ASAP without interfering with play.

what are your options to achieving that?

crossref
25-03-19, 10:03
gets a bit interesting if its a quickly taken lineout (as opposed to a QTI).

2 + 2 on LoT. Ball thrown in. What are the obligations on the other players?

All the other players must already be onside, 10m back, else they cannot take the lineout

The Fat
25-03-19, 11:03
All the other players must already be onside, 10m back, else they cannot take the lineout

Players not participating in the lineout must remain at least 10 metres from the mark of touch on their own team’s side or behind the goal line if this is nearer. If the ball is thrown in before a player is onside, the player will not be liable to sanction if the player immediately retires to the onside position. The player cannot be put onside by the action of any other player.

Jz558
25-03-19, 15:03
Finally we've found rugby's least used law.

thepercy
25-03-19, 16:03
In this scenario, if the kick chaser was offside, do they remain offside after the ball becomes zombiefied?

Taff
25-03-19, 17:03
In this scenario, if the kick chaser was offside, do they remain offside after the ball becomes zombiefied?
This was a question I bought up in one of our monthly meetings, and what I was told was that when the ball had gone dead, the offside player can move forward.

It's obvious that WR love their QTIs, so personally I wouldn't be surprised that in time they would change this to say that an offside player remains offside until the option of a QTI dies.

crossref
25-03-19, 17:03
This was a question I bought up in one of our monthly meetings, and what I was told was that when the ball had gone dead, the offside player can move forward.





That's not right though, contradicts WR video

Camquin
25-03-19, 20:03
You know it would be really good if there was somewhere we could look this sort of stuff up so we did not have to guess.
Perhaps if it were clearly stated in the laws.

OB..
25-03-19, 22:03
That's not right though, contradicts WR videoWhich one?

crossref
26-03-19, 07:03
Which one?

Number 2 - here

If you are offside when the kick is taken you are still offside when the ball goes into touch, and cannot contest the QTI

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

Dickie E
26-03-19, 09:03
Number 2 - here

If you are offside when the kick is taken you are still offside when the ball goes into touch, and cannot contest the QTI

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

the NZ players were moving forward prior to ball going into touch. That is what they were guilty of.

crossref
26-03-19, 10:03
Possibly .... but even so the advice Taff received is in conflict with the WR

The Fat
26-03-19, 10:03
Those players were infringing prior to the ball going into touch and should be penalised. Once the ball is in touch, players are entitled to move anywhere providing they were not infringing as the ball was going into touch.
In the 1st video there are 3 other Fijian players near the guy with the red arrow but he is the only one picked out. That is because the others were all retreating and he wasnít

Dickie E
26-03-19, 10:03
Possibly .... but even so the advice Taff received is in conflict with the WR


This was a question I bought up in one of our monthly meetings, and what I was told was that when the ball had gone dead, the offside player can move forward.

how so?

crossref
26-03-19, 11:03
So the question asked was


In this scenario, if the kick chaser was offside, do they remain offside after the ball becomes zombiefied?

A kick chaser is moving forward, and subject to sanction so the correct answer is Yes they remain offside, cannot move forward (and subject to sanction if they contest the QTI)

The incorrect advice given to Taff was : No, the offside is cancelled when the ball goes into touch

Taff
26-03-19, 11:03
Number 2 - here. If you are offside when the kick is taken you are still offside when the ball goes into touch, and cannot contest the QTI
In No 2 the Black players could be "liable for sanction" before the ball went "dead" as they appeared to be moving forward before the ball crossed the touchline. We were told we could penalise the offside players before the ball went into touch ... the problem with that is that we don't know when the ball goes to touch if the offside players were material.

I still reckon the offside players should remain offside even after the ball has been kicked off the park and until the QTI option dies.

The Fat
26-03-19, 11:03
In No 2 the Black players could be "liable for sanction" before the ball went "dead" as they appeared to be moving forward before the ball crossed the touchline. We were told we could penalise the offside players before the ball went into touch ... the problem with that is that we don't know when the ball goes to touch if the offside players were material.

I still reckon the offside players should remain offside even after the ball has been kicked off the park and until the QTI option dies.

Forget the whole zombieball idea. The ball is dead when it goes into touch. When the ball becomes dead, offside lines no longer exist. Any player sanctioned as per the videos that crossref gave the link to, are sanctioned because they were already infringing before the ball went into touch.

crossref
26-03-19, 11:03
Forget the whole zombieball idea. The ball is dead when it goes into touch. When the ball becomes dead, offside lines no longer exist. Any player sanctioned as per the videos that crossref gave the link to, are sanctioned because they were already infringing before the ball went into touch.

No, they are sanctioned only if they continue to offend by interfere with play .. eg contesting the QTI .. because they are still offside..

The Fat
26-03-19, 11:03
I still reckon the offside players should remain offside even after the ball has been kicked off the park and until the QTI option dies.


What if those players want to form a lineout i.e. get at least 2 players to the line of touch?

Players can be in an offside position as the ball goes into touch but not be liable to sanction because they were either (a) standing still (not moving towards the ball) or (b) retreating because they were within 10m of where the ball would land (note the other 3 Fijian players in the 1st video). That is, they were complying with the necessary requirements to avoid sanction before the ball went to touch. Do you think these players should remain out of the game?

The Fat
26-03-19, 11:03
No, they are sanctioned only if they continue to offend by interfere with play .. eg contesting the QTI .. because they are still offside..

No, the directive back in 2012 and again in about 2015 was to penalise these players for the first infringement i.e. being offside and either moving forward or not retreating under the 10m law. The directive, from memory, was along the lines of "zero tolerance" for such players cutting down the receiving team's options.

crossref
26-03-19, 11:03
No, the directive back in 2012 and again in about 2015 was to penalise these players for the first infringement i.e. being offside and either moving forward or not retreating under the 10m law. The directive, from memory, was along the lines of "zero tolerance" for such players cutting down the receiving team's options.

I don't think this is quite right, but either way it's different from the advice received by Taff

I don't think the world are all clear on the Law here!

The Fat
26-03-19, 12:03
I don't think this is quite right, but either way it's different from the advice received by Taff

I don't think the world are all clear on the Law here!

It's possible that the advice given to Taff was poorly worded and open to interpretation???

This was an issue and an area of focus back in about 2015. I can't find the document I'm looking for but in the process of searching came across 2015 GMGs:

Rationale for emphasis
ē When the ball is kicked in general play, any player of the kicking team in front of the kicker is offside.
ē Offside players who are advancing are cutting down options for counter attack and forcing the receiving team to kick as their first option. Referees must penalise offside players and should no longer rely on continually verbally managing these players because by advancing they have already had an impact on play.
ē With a long kick downfield, referees may be able to manage an offside player. The referee should call only once for the player to stop. If the player does not stop immediately (not just slow down), they are liable to penalty.
ē With a short or high kick, there will be little or no opportunity for the referee to manage and players must immediately act as per Law or they are liable to penalty.
ē Offside players must be dealt with even when the ball looks like it will go into touch because a quick throw may be an option. Once the ball is in touch, offside no longer applies and offside players may move forward toward a lineout or where a quick throw is being attempted.

ChuckieB
26-03-19, 12:03
I am very much with The Fat on this one. If you look back, this serves to cement all the posts in one of the most recent threads on this.

Taff
26-03-19, 13:03
No, the directive back in 2012 and again in about 2015 was to penalise these players for the first infringement i.e. being offside and either moving forward or not retreating under the 10m law. The directive, from memory, was along the lines of "zero tolerance" for such players cutting down the receiving team's options.
The advice I was given verbally may have been around 2015; time goes so fast.

The problem is that we wouldn't penalise every single incident of moving forward before the ball goes dead; eg if an offside prop decides to save a few seconds and starts jogging to the LoT before the ball actually crosses the touchline. Would we penalise that every single time? I doubt it, because in 99% of cases it's totally immaterial.

Bluntly until the ball has crossed the touchline and we know if the QTI is on, we won't know if any incidents of offside are material or not.



This was an issue and an area of focus back in about 2015. I can't find the document I'm looking for but in the process of searching came across 2015 GMGs:

Rationale for emphasis
• Offside players must be dealt with even when the ball looks like it will go into touch because a quick throw may be an option. Once the ball is in touch, offside no longer applies and offside players may move forward toward a lineout or where a quick throw is being attempted.

Ties in with what we were told ..... even though I don't like it if I'm being honest.

L'irlandais
26-03-19, 13:03
Moving forward to the line of touch (or QT) is fine, since the attackers have the right to compete for the ball at the quick throw. However the OP described a player going beyond this line and man marking the back most likely to recieve the QT ball. Is marking allowed in Rugby? This for me is preventing the QT. So i agree with The Fat, NOT allowed. Restricting the opponent’s option is NOT competing for the ball. So the player in the OP was not offside and can compete for the ball at the QT, but not by going beyond the line of the QT and restricting the thrower’s options. By throwing the ball deep, he is already giving up territory to ensure the pass goes to hand. If you allow the opposition to interfere with the pass that is giving an unfair advantage to them. They gave up possession, a gain in territory up to the line of touch is their reward.

crossref
26-03-19, 13:03
Moving forward to the line of touch (or QT) is fine, since the attackers have the right to compete for the ball at the quick throw. However the OP described a player going beyond this line and man marking the back most likely to recieve the QT ball. Is marking allowed in Rugby? This for me is preventing the QT. So i agree with The Fat, NOT allowed. Restricting the opponent’s option is NOT competing for the ball.

That's novel ..

I think an onside player can legitimately go beyond the QTI to contest it

L'irlandais
26-03-19, 14:03
Law 18.7 has a nice little image showing where the QT thrower is entitled to throw. Your attacker is restricting his entitlement. Which law do you use to justify your allowing a player do so? By his actions the QT is off and a line out is on, this player must retire 10m to be on side. (How does that fit? He is way offside in that scenario) Clearly those who wrote that were not imagining a player 25 meters beyond the line of touch.

crossref
26-03-19, 14:03
I think you have invented an offside line that is not in the Laws

OB..
26-03-19, 14:03
Law 18.7 has a nice little image showing where the QT thrower is entitled to throw. Your attacker is restricting his entitlement.Logic error. A player is entitled to score a try, but that does not mean you MUST allow him to do so.
Which law do you use to justify your allowing a player do so? The fact that there is no law preventing him. If he is not offside, he is allowed to be wherever he wants to be (unless he interferes with players off the ball).

Rich_NL
26-03-19, 15:03
Law 18.7 has a nice little image showing where the QT thrower is entitled to throw. Your attacker is restricting his entitlement. Which law do you use to justify your allowing a player do so? By his actions the QT is off and a line out is on, this player must retire 10m to be on side. (How does that fit? He is way offside in that scenario) Clearly those who wrote that were not imagining a player 25 meters beyond the line of touch.

The QTI is still on - the throwing player can throw in and catch the ball himself. There's no restriction of competition at the QTI in the law book, except that the opposition can't prevent the ball travelling 5m.

There's a section "offside at a lineout", explicitly once the lineout has formed (and a QTI thus not possible) but no specifications for offside at a QTI - in which case the natural assumption for me is that normal open play applies.

L'irlandais
26-03-19, 17:03
Where in normal play do we see a player man marking the full back. This is not soccer as someone once said.
Yes open play applies, so his coming from deep to tackle the number 13 was fine. A player is specifically allowed to tackle the ball carrier to prevent him scoring a try. It is written in the Laws.

I have yet to see a player overrun the QT line to get between the thrower amd the full back ( Probaly partly due to the fact that the thrower will simply pass to one of the other back three player as we saw in the OP) however if I did see it I think it would look wrong. You say it’s an error of logic, so logically you can tell where else we might see such man marking on a rugby field, outside the set piece. Red11 getting in the face of Blue15 could readily create a flash point, so I am not convinced I would allow it. Especially since there is absolutely no guidance (I can find) in the LOTG to say specifically that it is permitted. (I have quoted 18.7 where the law makers have assumed attackers would be on the line of touch. That’s the only indication of how they saw things panning out.) Not much to go on.

Jz558’s post #14 makes a valid point. This doesn’t occur all that often. If it happens, I will be the judge of whether it looks okay, or just plain wrong.

Taff
26-03-19, 17:03
Where in normal play do we see a player man marking the full back.
We don't, but if it was open play there's nothing stopping players marking the Full Back if they wanted to as long as they were happy to retreat to their offside line as soon as a Ruck or Maul formed.

L'irlandais
26-03-19, 17:03
We don't, but if it was open play there's nothing stopping players marking the Full Back if they wanted to as long as they were happy to retreat to their offside line as soon as a Ruck or Maul formed.My emboldeneding.
How about Law 9.4A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.so his options are limited even in open play. He isn’t competing for the ball is he? He is simply preventing the fullback from having an opportunity to receive the pass.

ChuckieB
26-03-19, 18:03
Able to watch a good dose of the super rugby and IMO the QTI appears to be much more of a thing than in the NH. As such you do see players closing down the space beyond the line of touch just for the purposes of anticipating the QTI.

As it develops you may just see some additional laws. But then you might just not!

OB..
26-03-19, 19:03
I have yet to see a player overrun the QT line to get between the thrower amd the full back ( Probaly partly due to the fact that the thrower will simply pass to one of the other back three player as we saw in the OP) however if I did see it I think it would look wrong.Like the Italian ploy against England? "Looking wrong" is not an offence.

You say itís an error of logic, so logically you can tell where else we might see such man marking on a rugby field, outside the set piece. Why is that relevant?

Red11 getting in the face of Blue15 could readily create a flash point, so I am not convinced I would allow it. Especially since there is absolutely no guidance (I can find) in the LOTG to say specifically that it is permitted. By and large the laws tell you what is NOT allowed. They do not specify what tactics ARE allowed. For example there are situations where dummies are not allowed.

(I have quoted 18.7 where the law makers have assumed attackers would be on the line of touch. Thatís the only indication of how they saw things panning out.) Not much to go on.It specifically applies to the lineout, which (unlike a QTI) does have laws about offside lines.


Jz558ís post #14 makes a valid point.He referred to an actual law that is little known. This is the other way round: a rare situation which is not banned.

This doesnít occur all that often. If it happens, I will be the judge of whether it looks okay, or just plain wrong.During a match players would have to accept your decision. It would still be wrong. and if I were assessing it would be my job to say so.


My emboldeneding.
How about Law 9.4A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.so his options are limited even in open play. He isnít competing for the ball is he? He is simply preventing the fullback from having an opportunity to receive the pass.The ball is not in play. If the ball is thrown to the fullback, he will then be fully entitled to try to get there first. What he is trying to do is prevent the tactic of a QTI to the fullback, and for all your efforts, I see nothing wrong. If a winger chases a box kick, he is clearly competing to prevent an opponent from getting it, and that is fairly commonplace. If he gets there before the kick arrives, he is not allowed to play the opponent, but he certainly can compete for the ball.

Rich_NL
26-03-19, 19:03
Really, irlandais? I hope you ping defenders who intercept passes for preventing the receiver from playing the ball, and front row ruck guards for preventing the SH from the opportunity to pick and go. ;) A marking player isn't preventing the BC from passing, just making it an unwise choice. I can't see a single reason to prevent an onside player marking another.

If you want precedent, before the TWOL was introduced there were multiple Super Rugby and one international match in which no ruck was formed and the defenders overran the tackle to mark the back line, and obstruction was never once given or even mentioned, ever after ENG-ITA.

Dickie E
26-03-19, 22:03
[COLOR="#00FF00"] He isn’t competing for the ball is he? He is simply preventing the fullback from having an opportunity to receive the pass.

He is allowed to compete for the ball and this includes standing in the way of the throw (subject to 5 metre caveat). He isn't allowed to grasp the fullback.

Similar to the kick off where an onside team mate of the kick runs past the point where the ball will land to compete for the ball if knocked by an opposition player. Even if it "looks wrong".

menace
26-03-19, 22:03
Sorry L'irlandais but 3 words
... W.T.F?? You're taking law inventions to a new level.
You seem to get more obtuse every year with your interpretations.

L'irlandais
27-03-19, 15:03
I will never be a patch on chopper15 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/search.php?searchid=4224595); but hey I’m working on it.

I accept you are correct in terms of onside in open play. However given how poorly written the laws of the game are and how little thought has been given by WR to rewriting them, I think we need to push the logic to the extreme, to see if it holds up to the scrutiny. Professional players are going to on match day, so what’s wrong with testing Laws to destruction on here? No lifes were lost in the experiment.

So what do you use 9.4 for then?

OB..
27-03-19, 16:03
So what do you use 9.4 for then?
Jersey pulling? Push in the back?

Such things are rare because all players know about 9.4.

L'irlandais
27-03-19, 16:03
Well, for me, the very thought of allowing man-marking (https://www.esdfanalysis.com/match-analysis/tactical-guide-man-marking/) on a rugby pitch, sends shudders down my spine. Sounds like something from another code, like when soccer split from Union over the tactic of hacking of opponent's shins.
Back then all rugby referees were adamant that it was acceptable, that’s changed now. In fact it was changed immediately after the schism, back in 1871,
[a] committee was formed to formulate a set of rules. It comprised three ex-Rugby School pupils, all lawyers; being lawyers they formulated 'laws' not 'rules'. They immediately made "hacking" and "tripping" illegal.The odd thing about that is we only see hacking in soccer today, in spite of it being illegal in that code.

SimonSmith
27-03-19, 17:03
I accept you are correct in terms of onside in open play. However given how poorly written the laws of the game are and how little thought has been given by WR to rewriting them, I think we need to push the logic to the extreme, to see if it holds up to the scrutiny. Professional players are going to on match day, so whatís wrong with testing Laws to destruction on here? No lifes were lost in the experiment.

I think, based on the abject response of Dylan H and James Haskell to Italy's non-ruck, assuming knowledge of laws on the part of many professionals may not be the best course of action.

OB..
27-03-19, 18:03
Well, for me, the very thought of allowing man-marking (https://www.esdfanalysis.com/match-analysis/tactical-guide-man-marking/) on a rugby pitch, sends shudders down my spine. Sounds like something from another code, like when soccer split from Union over the tactic of hacking of opponent's shins.
Back then all rugby referees were adamant that it was acceptable, thatís changed now. In fact it was changed immediately after the schism, back in 1871,The odd thing about that is we only see hacking in soccer today, in spite of it being illegal in that code.
The FA was founded in 1863, the RFU in 1871.
The first draft of the FA Rules included:IX. A player shall be entitled to run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal if he makes a fair catch, or catches the ball on the first bound; but in the case of a fair catch, if he makes his mark, he shall not then run.
X. If any player shall run with the ball towards his adversaries' goal, any player on the opposite side shall be at liberty to charge, hold, trip, or hack him, or to wrest the ball from him; but no player shall be held and hacked at the same time

For some reason running with the ball and hacking were linked, and because hacking was decided against, running with the ball went with it. We had the situation that soccer banned hacking and rugby didn't.

When England played Scotland in the first rugby international, they had to agree beforehand on some differences between their law books. They agreed that hacking would not be allowed. During the game some players who were used to hacking found it hard to restrain their instinctive reactions and there was almost a mutiny demanding hacking should be allowed. It wasn't.

Hacking in soccer arises because the only way to tackle is to kick the ball from an opponent's feet. Now that you don't see dribbling as a tactic in rugby, the practice of hacking can easily be sanctioned

OB..
27-03-19, 18:03
I think, based on the abject response of Dylan H and James Haskell to Italy's non-ruck, assuming knowledge of laws on the part of many professionals may not be the best course of action.The problem wasn't ignorance of the laws, but in not knowing how to deal with the tactic (even though it had been tried and proved bad elsewhere). My recollection is that they had started to devise the counter before half time, but I wouldn't swear to that.

Presumably the Italians had spoken to the referee beforehand to make sure he wasn't caught out as well.

Rich_NL
27-03-19, 19:03
I think, based on the abject response of Dylan H and James Haskell to Italy's non-ruck, assuming knowledge of laws on the part of many professionals may not be the best course of action.

Haskell was playing in NZ when the Chiefs were using this technique (sparingly), but there it was reffed that they could form a ruck by grabbing a nearby opponent around the tackle area. Poite was ruling that that was *not* a ruck and the Italians had to actively engage, and so the English players had to get clarity on when he would call the ruck. England took far too long to respond, Poite was then inconsistent, it's only the Italians who came out looking good.