An nice easy scrum question!

[Pegleg]

Scrum 5 Blue put in with Red defending.

Where is the offside line for Red's "players not in the scrum"?

Answers with law reference / justification.

 

[Rich_NL]

Ha... looks like I had that wrong, then

 

[FatherFlipper]

Ok, I'll have a go at this one:

Red offside line should be the goalline - five metres behind back foot of scrum.

(g)

Offside for players not in the scrum. Players who are not in the scrum and who are not the team’s scrum half, are offside if they remain in front of their
offside line or overstep the offside line which is a line parallel to the goal lines and 5 metres behind the hindmost player of each team in a scrum.


Sanction: Penalty kick on the offside line

(h)

If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team’s goal line, the offside line for scrum halves and non-participants is the goal line.



Sooooo, as it's such an "easy" question, I'm guessing I have missed something fundamental here? Am ready to be torpedoed down in flames now (please be gentle).

 

[Ian_Cook]

The goal line......except (and I know precisely where you are going with this) that is not what the Law says (although I am 100% certain that was the intent).

[LAWS]20.12 OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM
(g) Offside for players not in the scrum. Players who are not in the scrum and who are not
the team’s scrum half, are offside if they remain in front of their offside line or overstep the
offside line which is a line parallel to the goal lines and 5 metres behind the hindmost player
of each team in a scrum.
Sanction: Penalty kick on the offside line
(h) If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team’s goal line, the offside line for
scrum halves and non-participants is the goal line.[/LAWS]

A strict reading of the Law is that, if the hindmost player's foot is not behind the goal-line, then the defenders could have to defend up to 4.99 metres into their own in-goal.

Clearly, this is a mistake (the 12 year old proof readers strike again) but we all know what they mean.

This is what you get when you adapt an old Law without thinking about the dynamics of the situation. Under the old Law, the hindmost foot WAS the offside line. They simply added 5m to the old Law without accounting for the dynamics of doing so.

A simple amendment to (h) would fix it

(h) If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind or within 5m of that team’s goal line, the offside line for scrum halves and non-participants is the goal line

Although that brings up another point. What are the scrum halves doing in that clause? Scrumhalves have their own defined offside lines.. different for each scrumhalf.

 

[Rich_NL]

Red offside line should be the goalline - five metres behind back foot of scrum.

Point being, the back foot in a 5m scrum is likely to be only around 2m or so from the goalline.

 

[FatherFlipper]

Point being, the back foot in a 5m scrum is likely to be only around 2m or so from the goalline.

Ah, I see yes.

So, does this come under the "we know what is meant" scenario? Without question, the wording should be accurate and not allow for any loopholes. However, would there be any situation where that law could be gotten around, to the benefit of either side? The attacking team can't gain anything (the offside line will be the goal-line), and the defending team can't gain anything either.

If there was a situation (which the inexperienced me cannot think of), then the chances of a player picking up on it specifically and smugly making that point would result in a) me just pointing out that I have the whistle, happy to discuss laws after the game, but right now, we're carrying on as I have signaled and b) me making little voodoo dolls of the player and stabbing them repeatedly when I got home. I bet it'd be a scrum-half as well.

I'm sure it will be more nuanced than this, but I haven't had coffee yet, so may have missed something (ie, I have missed something).

 

[Dixie]

Point being, the back foot in a 5m scrum is likely to be only around 2m or so from the goalline.

Another case of the 12 year-old being tasked with an action that exceeded his capability while the adults (that we presume must patrol the halls of WR) went to lunch. They tried to fix it with a clarification, but sadly delegated that clarification to the same 12 year-old.

Clarification 7 2005

Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Ruling

7-2005


Union / HP Ref Manager

ARU


Law Reference

20


Date

25 October 2005


This Clarification was incorporated into Law in 2009

Request

The ARU has requested a ruling with regard Law 20.12-Off side at the scrum

One of the changes that were made to the 2005 Laws of the Game was the deletion of the definition (in the box) under Law 20.12. The reason provided for this was that the provisions of the definition were covered elsewhere in the Laws. This now appears to be the case, with one exception. The definition in part provided that: "If the hindmost foot of a team is on or behind that team's goal-line, the off-side line is the goal-line."

Can you please clarify that it was the intention to remove this provision from the Law (thus changing the off-side line in this situation) or was this an oversight?


Ruling in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

Law 22.6 indicates that a scrum can only take place in the field of play, and also covers the scrum moving across the goal-line and, that a defending player may legally ground the ball as soon as the ball reaches the goal-line.

In conjunction with the above statement, the scrum half is also a defending player and therefore can legally ground the ball. The off-side line must be the goal-line in the above situation otherwise the scrum half would not be able to physically get to the ball to ground it.

 

[Dickie E]

Another case of the 12 year-old being tasked with an action that exceeded his capability while the adults (that we presume must patrol the halls of WR) went to lunch. They tried to fix it with a clarification, but sadly delegated that clarification to the same 12 year-old.

That clarifiaction is so poor it is hard to believe that someone isn't taking the pi5s and having a good old laugh.

Q: can I drive my car over water?

A: Only boats can go over water. That boat over there is blue. Your car is blue. Therefore you can drive your car over water. FFS.

 

[Taff]

Scrum 5 Blue put in with Red defending. Where is the offside line for Red's "players not in the scrum"?

The goal line. Is this a trick question?

 

[Dickie E]

The goal line. Is this a trick question?

did you read posts 4, 5 and 6?

 

[Ian_Cook]

That clarifiaction is so poor it is hard to believe that someone isn't taking the pi5s and having a good old laugh.

Q: can I drive my car over water?

A: Only boats can go over water. That boat over there is blue. Your car is blue. Therefore you can drive your car over water. FFS.

To be fair, that clarification has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

The clarification is dated 2005, but this issue did not come up until the scrum offside line was moved back 5m, which was first mooted in 2008 (during the ELVs) and didn't become Law globally until 2009.

Prior to the 5m scrum offside line, the wording of Law 20.12 worked perfectly, because the offside line WAS the hindmost foot.

 

[Pegleg]

Indeed I am trying to expose the nonsense of the law writers work.

Before the 5 mtr "players not in the scrum" offside line at a scrum there was no problem the offside line was the hindmost foot and when that got to the goal line then it moved back no further. - NO PROBLEM!

For a scrum with the 5 mtr "players not in the scrum" offside line. Once the back foot is less than 5 mtrs from the goal line the "backs" offside line is in goal. As has been posted it can be up to 4.5 (actually 4.9mtr) meters back! {20.12 (g) & (h)}

For a line out this is covered in law. The "players not in the scrum" offside line is 10 mrs from the line of touch OR the goal line which ever is nearer {19.13 (c)}.

The anomily is absurd. Clearly it was either:

If intentional: A piece of nonsense to treat the LO and Scrum differently

If unitentional: Yet another example of the shoddy approach to writing in the law book.

 

[Dickie E]

If unitentional: Yet another example of the shoddy approach to writing in the law book.

Has my vote

 

[Taff]

did you read posts 4, 5 and 6?

No. It was 1:30am and partly I was trying not to wake the wife, and partly didn't want to be influenced by what others were saying. :biggrin:

Has my vote

+1.

 

[thepercy]

Do the offside lines move when the scrum (and hindmost foot) move?

 

[Phil E]

Do the offside lines move when the scrum (and hindmost foot) move?

Yes..

 

[Dickie E]

Do the offside lines move when the scrum (and hindmost foot) move?

Yes, until the hindmost foot gets to 5 metres from the goal line at which time the goal line becomes the defenders' offside line.

 

[Pegleg]

Yes, until the hindmost foot gets to 5 metres from the goal line at which time the goal line becomes the defenders' offside line.

Not acording to the law book. Hence the thread! The Book say yes untill the hindmost foot gets to the goal line.

Absurd as we have already said.