Does ball going into touch put everyone onside?

[Treadmore]

in the Fiji video there is only 1 player with a red arrow pointing to him while the other Fiji loiterers do not. Why is this the case? In my view it is because he is the only Fiji player who is not entitled to contest for the QTI and that is because he was offside under to 10 metre rule before the ball went into touch (WR also superimpose a red line across the pitch to indicate this).

He has other team mates in front of the red 10m line shown but they are not arrowed - presumably because they start retreating (though they never quite make it), whereas the arrowed player is actively looking for the QTI and indeed moves forwards and towards the ball/player in touch.

Maybe his team mates were deemed to be moving towards the line of touch to form a line out (19.8(d))?

 

[Taff]

... Will send my question to the RFU Laws box created for just such things! Thanks Crossref for the original reply - that was indeed what I remembered but it wasnt in the Law Clarifications area!

Funnily enough this question was brought up in one of our recent monthly meetings given by one of the top Refs. It wasn't St Nigel.

There had obviously been some discussion about it, and he mentioned that they were going to pass it up for guidance / clarification. In a previous meeting, I had been told that all offside players (not liable for sanction) were free to move forward once the ball had been kicked to touch.

Personally (ie it's just my opinion and as such isn't worth a carrot) I reckon that WR has a soft spot for QTIs and will say that all offside players are still "liable for sanction" until the QTI option dies.

 

[The Fat]

So for those who believe that the ball going into touch does not cancel offside lines, look at the link to WR posted by crossref and look at the 2nd scenario (ABs v Aus), and tell me under what circumstances would you penalise any of the ABs players and where the mark would be?

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

It is a tricky one because you'd need to question to what degree they are materially interfering with play. At higher levels the QTI option is broader because the ability to for example throw a 20-25m QTI is there whereas at Old Fartonions vs Old Trumptonians it isn't really. So the material impact of those players being where they are changes at the level. In the above example I would argue that Aus did have the QTI option largely negated by the presence of the NZ offside players - it certainly becomes significantly less attractive for them to throw the ball with NZ players in those offside and advancing positions.

Therefore any one of them could easily have been penalised with the option to Aus of a penalty where they were, or a scrum back where NZ kicker last kicked it.

I would prefer to manage this and call the NZ players to "stay there" or "retreat" but if this hadn't happened then the penalty also becomes easier to give, especially for this sort of thing which may be a grey area.

In response to the question when I blow my whistle when the ball goes out of play, I tend to wait for a few moments if the QTI is clearly "on" because I feel blowing my whistle could give the signal to players (whether correctly or incorrectly) that play has fully stopped and we will be forming a full line out. So by letting it breathe for a moment, all players should remain aware that play has not fully stopped. Very happy to be told I am wrong in this, but it has worked for me.

 

[crossref]

In response to the question when I blow my whistle when the ball goes out of play, I tend to wait for a few moments if the QTI is clearly "on" because I feel blowing my whistle could give the signal to players (whether correctly or incorrectly) that play has fully stopped and we will be forming a full line out. So by letting it breathe for a moment, all players should remain aware that play has not fully stopped. Very happy to be told I am wrong in this, but it has worked for me.

a lot of people are doing this. but others are following the law and a quick peep to say it's in touch.

the danger with not blowing is that players may not realise the ball is in touch at all.

and when you get the moments when you DO need to blow to indicate that the ball is in touch (a foot on line) .... well the QTI is still on ! so now you have blown but there is still a QTI possibility.

in my mind we need a new protocol -- one peep to show touch, a second peep to indicate no QTI and a line out.

 

[crossref]

So for those who believe that the ball going into touch does not cancel offside lines, look at the link to WR posted by crossref and look at the 2nd scenario (ABs v Aus), and tell me under what circumstances would you penalise any of the ABs players and where the mark would be?

but the whole point of the video is that the IRB are telling us that the AB players SHOULD be penalised. I agree it would be helpful if they had expanded a little.

 

[Dixie]

OK. Consider this:

in the All Blacks video there are 5 players that WR has deemed are acting illegally (they each have a red arrow pointing to them). What do they have in common? They are all moving forward before the ball goes into touch.

in the Fiji video there is only 1 player with a red arrow pointing to him while the other Fiji loiterers do not. Why is this the case? In my view it is because he is the only Fiji player who is not entitled to contest for the QTI and that is because he was offside under to 10 metre rule before the ball went into touch (WR also superimpose a red line across the pitch to indicate this).

But so what? The 2012 video hasn't resulted in any discernible change, and we would still see exactly the same thing unpenalised in 2016. It's a flash in the pan that got no further than someone putting it up on the website - couldn't even make te effort to explain what alleged existing law was supposed to be enforced.

Perhaps the most common scenario is when a team under pressure wins a lineout inside the 22. Ball is shot back to the kicker, who (under pressure from tail gunners) kicks it back to exactly the same spot. Now if that kick is caught by the attacking hooker, all the defensive forwards are offside and interfering with the QTI. Anyone fancy a PK 15m infield? I never expect to see one in my lifetime.

 

[crossref]

But so what? The 2012 video hasn't resulted in any discernible change, and we would still see exactly the same thing unpenalised in 2016. It's a flash in the pan that got no further than someone putting it up on the website - couldn't even make te effort to explain what alleged existing law was supposed to be enforced.

Perhaps the most common scenario is when a team under pressure wins a lineout inside the 22. Ball is shot back to the kicker, who (under pressure from tail gunners) kicks it back to exactly the same spot. Now if that kick is caught by the attacking hooker, all the defensive forwards are offside and interfering with the QTI. Anyone fancy a PK 15m infield? I never expect to see one in my lifetime.

I agree that you wouldn't penalise that scenario.
but the big difference there is that the offside players haven't advanced forward to defend the QTI, they have just stood where they were.

There really are three different cases
1 - offside players advance forward while ball is in the air, and continue to advance after it goes into touch
2 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move forward to defend the QTI
3 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move sideways/backwards to defend the QTI

most people here seem to be happy to penalise (1)
your scenario is an example of (3) which I think few would penalise
(2) is more problematic

 

[Dixie]

There really are three different cases
1 - offside players advance forward while ball is in the air, and continue to advance after it goes into touch
2 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move forward to defend the QTI
3 - offside players remain stationary, then after the ball is in touch they move sideways/backwards to defend the QTI

most people here seem to be happy to penalise (1)
your scenario is an example of (3) which I think few would penalise
(2) is more problematic

There's a 4th, which covers my scenario and which Dickie E has touched on.

(4) players offside under the 10m law remain stationary, as a result of which they are in a position to defend the QTI, thereby effectively negating it as an option

I still don't ever expect to see it enforced

 

[crossref]

well, the 10m law brings up a whole load of other complications

the 10m law is defined as

[LAWS]When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land[/LAWS]

where the ball lands (or may land)

which may well be a good distance ahead of the line of touch -- so the players in your scenario easily might not be caught by the 10m law at all, if the ball landed 10m up the field from where it went into touch

but does it make any sense at all to think about retiring from where where the ball lands, if it is landing off the FoP ?

 

[didds]

I suppose you could get all legally twistified with it and say that therefore clearly the law was designed with ball landing in FoP in mind, so ball in touch is not what the law covers so therefore there is no 10m offside law for ball in touch yadda yadda yadda.

I wonlt defend that claim!

LOL

didds

 

[crossref]

I suppose you could get all legally twistified with it and say that therefore clearly the law was designed with ball landing in FoP in mind, so ball in touch is not what the law covers so therefore there is no 10m offside law for ball in touch yadda yadda yadda.

I wonlt defend that claim!

LOL

didds

but in post 25 that's the claim that Dixie makes -- in his scenario all the players standing in the ex-lineout would seem to covered by the 10m Law (if it applies) but as Dixie says it's hard to imagine anyone penalising them if they just stand exactly where they are and defend the possible QTI.

Whereas if the fudged kick from the #10 was to balloon up and come down amongst them, we'd most certainly expect them to be retreating 10m

So in practice it doesn't seem to apply, in this case anyway, becasue the ball went into touch

 

[ChrisR]

but you haven't answered the difficult case.

blue kick, and an offside blue player, not caught by the 10m law, just stops where he is, as he's allowed to.

ball goes into touch, can the blue player now advance to defend the possible QTI? or does he still have wait until he is played onside?

red take a QTI, can he advance now? or does he STILL have wait until he is played onside?

If you treat the QTI throw as a pass (as could happen if the ball is caught in the FOP) then the off-side player who didn't advance is now onside. This is the most equitable and easiest to apply solution. Only problem is finding adequate support in the Laws.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

I would stand by my prior comments even for this point crossref - you may find it difficult to envisage someone awarding a penalty but the more I think about it the more I would want to see the kicking team's players retreat away from the ball (if within 10m or it landing or where it had been caught by the opposition) especially if the opponent was clearly looking to to play the ball via QTI. A shout or two of "Colour, Retreat" or "Colour, Leave it" or similar and if they didn't comply and it was having a material impact then play the advantage or award the penalty. In my mind it doesn't seem that strange although I admit I haven't come across it in a live game myself.

 

[crossref]

In my mind it doesn't seem that strange although I admit I haven't come across it in a live game myself.

now you are sensitised to it you are bound to see it on Saturday !

 

[The Fat]

If you treat the QTI throw as a pass (as could happen if the ball is caught in the FOP) then the off-side player who didn't advance is now onside. This is the most equitable and easiest to apply solution. Only problem is finding adequate support in the Laws.

You are on the right track.
The player/players who are in offside positions and liable to sanction prior to the ball going into touch are the ones to be managed/penalised.
A team mate of a kicker who is in an offside position but complies with the laws and either stands still or is retreating is not liable to sanction. Once the ball has gone into touch, these players are now free to approach the LoT i.e. offside lines are gone and we are back to general play if a QTI has been taken.
WR expects that players who are offside and interfere with play/cut down options of the team in possession are to be penalised. If an offside player moves forward, prior to the ball going into touch, towards an opponent to disrupt the QTI, that player should be penalised. The penalty is for moving towards the play prior to the ball going into touch, not for attempting to stop a QTI and therefore the mark for the penalty is where the referee first saw that player moving forward and not near where the QTI is being attempted. Of course there is also the option of scrum back where the ball was kicked.
If we manage/penalise the offside player who is infringing prior to the ball going into touch, we are refereeing to the laws and are achieving what WR is getting at in their application of laws guidelines. It keeps it all simple.

 

[Dickie E]

You are on the right track.
The player/players who are in offside positions and liable to sanction prior to the ball going into touch are the ones to be managed/penalised.
A team mate of a kicker who is in an offside position but complies with the laws and either stands still or is retreating is not liable to sanction. Once the ball has gone into touch, these players are now free to approach the LoT i.e. offside lines are gone and we are back to general play if a QTI has been taken.
WR expects that players who are offside and interfere with play/cut down options of the team in possession are to be penalised. If an offside player moves forward, prior to the ball going into touch, towards an opponent to disrupt the QTI, that player should be penalised. The penalty is for moving towards the play prior to the ball going into touch, not for attempting to stop a QTI and therefore the mark for the penalty is where the referee first saw that player moving forward and not near where the QTI is being attempted. Of course there is also the option of scrum back where the ball was kicked.
If we manage/penalise the offside player who is infringing prior to the ball going into touch, we are refereeing to the laws and are achieving what WR is getting at in their application of laws guidelines. It keeps it all simple.

Ed Zachary

 

[Dixie]

Ed Zachary

And the 10m law?

 

[The Fat]

And the 10m law?

I really don't see a problem.
If the player is inside the 10m prior to the ball going into touch and is not retiring, the referee should already have him in his cross-hairs.
Some are suggesting there will be problems if the ball is kicked well into touch but the likely scenario is that if the ball ends up a considerable distance into touch, the QTI is probably not going to be an option

 

[Dickie E]

And the 10m law?

Same as Fat.

If the ball is going to land on or about touchline I'd be looking for kicker's teammates within 10 metres to be actively retiring until the ball alights.
If ball lands in FoP, normal 10 metre stuff applies.
If ball lands in touch, each and every player is OK to take up a position to participate in the restart (be it lineout or QTI)