Does ball going into touch put everyone onside?

[OB..]

I'm going to come back to this[LAWS]11.9 Loitering [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.[/FONT][/LAWS]This applies to players who are offside but do not breach 11.1.

If the ball goes into touch, the only way to avoid 11.9 is to rule that all offside considerations disappear at that moment. Which raises the question we started with. The final sentence of 11.9 is a general principle that IMHO ought to be applied even when the ball has gone into touch.

 

[ChrisR]

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)

Dickie E, I disagree with your statement above regards the QTI.

I strongly believe that off-side law should apply until the QTI is no longer an option. Players within the 10m cannot be put onsides by any action of the opponent.

11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW

(a) 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. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the
kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an
opponent or interfere with play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b) While moving away, the offside player cannot be put onside by any action of the opposing
team. However, before the player has moved the full 10 metres, the player can be put
onside by any onside team-mate who runs in front of the player.

The onus should be on the kicking team to defend the QTI with onside players.

The only squirrelly thing about this is should the 10m be from where the ball crosses into touch or where the ball alights. I'd say from the LOT because that is where play can restart.

 

[crossref]

The only squirrelly thing about this is should the 10m be from where the ball crosses into touch or where the ball alights. I'd say from the LOT because that is where play can restart.

play can restart from anywhere between the throwing team's goal-line and the LOT

usually, it restart from where the ball ends up, rather than from the LOT (although they may be same place obviosuly)

 

[Taff]

... The final sentence of 11.9 is a general principle that IMHO ought to be applied even when the ball has gone into touch.

Exactly. So by introducing a law which says that offside players remain offside and "liable to sanction" until the QTI option dies, everyone should be happy.

 

[crossref]

Exactly. So by introducing a law which says that offside players remain offside and "liable to sanction" until the QTI option dies, everyone should be happy.

possibly that's what the IRB thought they had done with that video ?

 

[Taff]

possibly that's what the IRB thought they had done with that video ?

I am convinced that's what they had in mind Crossref, but lets wait for the clarification.

WR love QTIs. I can't imagine they will allow anything which stops them - especially any action by an offside player, which (as OB pointed out) goes against their own general principle that an offside player shouldn't gain any advantage from being offside.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Although apparently not given 7 pages of debate and no actual explanation on the IRB description.

Having seen numerous clarifications on other topics etc I am unsure World Rugby/IRB or whatever they want to be called knows what they had in mind themselves, so assuming what they wanted is probably dangerous ground!

That said, as I mentioned above I am with you on thinking that should be the right way to manage this. Players remain offside until either put onside through Law 11 methods or once QTI option is gone. I can see why others have the differing view though.

 

[crossref]

my view is that when the IRB put that video up, they simply hadn't thought it all through properly.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Which obviously comes as a big surprise to everyone...:deadhorse:

 

[Dickie E]

Exactly. So by introducing a law which says that offside players remain offside and "liable to sanction" until the QTI option dies, everyone should be happy.

I'll be happy irrespective of the introduction of that law.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm going to come back to this[LAWS]11.9 Loitering [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.[/FONT][/LAWS]This applies to players who are offside but do not breach 11.1.

If the ball goes into touch, the only way to avoid 11.9 is to rule that all offside considerations disappear at that moment. Which raises the question we started with. The final sentence of 11.9 is a general principle that IMHO ought to be applied even when the ball has gone into touch.

The concept of loitering while ball is out of play is nonsensical to me because being offside while ball out of play is nonsensical to me.

I think the issue is that some see a QTI as a lineout subset (ie me) and others see it as a totally different animal.

 

[The Fat]

It is the player/players infringing prior to the ball going into touch who is/are offending. They are the ones cutting down their opponents options. Players who were complying with the law, even though they were ahead of the kicker, have not infringed and are able to approach where the QTI is being attempted.
It all seems fairly straight forward to me and all covered by current law.

 

[OB..]

The concept of loitering while ball is out of play is nonsensical to me because being offside while ball out of play is nonsensical to me.

I think the issue is that some see a QTI as a lineout subset (ie me) and others see it as a totally different animal.

It is very clear that they may well be able to benefit from the fact that they were in an offside position when the ball went into touch.

 

[The Fat]

It is very clear that they may well be able to benefit from the fact that they were in an offside position when the ball went into touch.

Only those who were infringing prior to the ball going into touch are benefitting. others who were in an "offside position" but were complying with the requirements of the laws are free to approach the QTI

 

[Dickie E]

It is very clear that they may well be able to benefit from the fact that they were in an offside position when the ball went into touch.

Red fullback kicks from halfway into Blue in goal where Blue player dots it down. Red players are "loitering" on the Blue 22.

Blue player tosses ball to team mate on the 22 for a quick drop out. Lo & behold, Red players are in good position to defend the restart.

Haven't they then benefited from being in an offside position?

 

[OB..]

Only those who were infringing prior to the ball going into touch are benefitting. others who were in an "offside position" but were complying with the requirements of the laws are free to approach the QTI

So how do you get round the law on Loitering?

 

[Dickie E]

So how do you get round the law on Loitering?

To be loitering, you need to be offside.

To be offside, the ball needs to be in play.

Once the ball crosses the touchline, it is no longer in play.

 

[OB..]

To be offside, the ball needs to be in play.

Where does it say or imply that? IMHO 11.9 implies the opposite.

 

[Dickie E]

Where does it say or imply that? IMHO 11.9 implies the opposite.

It is general practice that we allow a player who was previously offside to move to the next restart unimpeded once the ref blows for ball out of play. Clear examples are my post #75, moving to take part in a scrum, moving to take part in a lineout, etc.

I don't support the concept that a QTI is a special case - it is not backed up in Law or practice at elite level. It is a way to allow the throwing team to get the ball back into play quickly if they so wish - but they do so with some risk.

 

[OB..]

It is general practice that we allow a player who was previously offside to move to the next restart unimpeded once the ref blows for ball out of play. Clear examples are my post #75, moving to take part in a scrum, moving to take part in a lineout, etc.

I don't support the concept that a QTI is a special case - it is not backed up in Law or practice at elite level. It is a way to allow the throwing team to get the ball back into play quickly if they so wish - but they do so with some risk.

The distinctive feature in a QTI is that the players decide when to restart play. That is not true with a scrum. Opinions on a lineout are divided.

We have a specific offence of loitering which involves getting a benefit from being in an offside position even if you do not breach 11.1(a).

It is undeniable that some players will be benefiting from their offside position unless 11.9 applies. There is nothing specific to say all offside considerations disappear when the ball is in touch. We are having this discussion simply because the law does not specifically deal with the QTI issue. We need a ruling.