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

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
Possibly .... but even so the advice Taff received is in conflict with the WR
 

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
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 wasn’t
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,225
Post Likes
2,219
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
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


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
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
 
Last edited:

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
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.
 
Last edited:

The Fat


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
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


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
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


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
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


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
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


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
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


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
4,204
Post Likes
496
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
• When the ball is kicked in general play, any player of the kicking team in front of the kicker is offside.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
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

Rugby Expert
Joined
Feb 28, 2017
Messages
1,057
Post Likes
115
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
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


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,942
Post Likes
383
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

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
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.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
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

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
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.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,824
Post Likes
3,161
I think you have invented an offside line that is not in the Laws
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
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

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,627
Post Likes
505
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.
 
Top