[Line out] Are there any offiside lines at a quick throw

[L'irlandais]

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]

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]

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 9.4[LAWS]A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.[/LAWS]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]

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..]

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 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.

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. That’s 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.

Jz558’s 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 doesn’t 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 9.4[LAWS]A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.[/LAWS]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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

I will never be a patch on chopper15; 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..]

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]

Well, for me, the very thought of allowing 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]

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.

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..]

Well, for me, the very thought of allowing 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,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:[LAWS]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
[/LAWS]
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..]

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]

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.