Does ball going into touch put everyone onside?

[Dickie E]

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).

Do you have a view on my post #75 and its similarity to a QTI?

 

[The Fat]

So how do you get round the law on Loitering?

11.9 Loitering
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.


As I posted earlier, players who were originally in an offside position but were complying with the requirements of Law 11.1 or 11.4 when the ball went into touch, have not infringed. Offside is now cancelled and those players are free to move wherever they wish. The team attempting the QTI now must make a simple decision. Is the QTI on or not.
Team mates of the kicker who were in an offside position and were not complying with the requirements of Law 11.1 or 11.4 when the ball went into touch (i.e. were not standing still or retreating) have already infringed. There is no need to wait to play the "Loitering" card. They have already had an effect on play and cut down their opponents options. Penalise these players under either 11.1 or 11.4. No need to have to justify penalising them under 11.9 as they have already infringed.

 

[ChrisR]

TF, I think we only diverge on one point and that is when the restrictions on non-infringing offsides players ends. I think off-sides stays in force until the QTI is taken or until it's no longer available as an option.

The onus for putting players onside should always be on the kicking team.

 

[The Fat]

TF, I think we only diverge on one point and that is when the restrictions on non-infringing offsides players ends. I think off-sides stays in force until the QTI is taken or until it's no longer available as an option.

The onus for putting players onside should always be on the kicking team.

What you are saying is that every player of the kicker's team who was in front of the kicker when the ball was kicked (possibly 14 players) must freeze (except for those within 10m) until the opposition player retrieves the ball from in touch and decides if he is going to take a quick throw. If there are players from the kicker's team just outside the 10m and the player taking the QTI wants to throw to a team mate who is 25m in-field, your interpretation would mean that the player with the ball could move say 10m closer to his own goal line for a safer pass and the kicker's team mates would have to remain stationary until he threw the pass.
We all know that is simply not how the QTI situation is refereed.
My interpretation (and I believe it will be consistent with any answer KML1 gets) is simply to not penalise players who were complying with Law 11 when the ball went into touch and penalise the players who were not complying.

 

[OB..]

Do you have a view on my post #75 and its similarity to a QTI?

There is some similarity, but the big difference is that a 22 drop out is mandatory and the law spells out where the opponents must be. They cannot prevent the drop out.

A QTI is optional and might well become too risky because of loitering players.

I suppose loiterers might prevent the (rare) tap drop out, but the equivalence is otherwise weak.

 

[OB..]

11.9 Loitering
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.


As I posted earlier, players who were originally in an offside position but were complying with the requirements of Law 11.1 or 11.4 when the ball went into touch, have not infringed. Offside is now cancelled and those players are free to move wherever they wish.

Where do you get that assertion from?

 

[OB..]

We all know that is simply not how the QTI situation is refereed.

I don't think I have ever seen that situation arise, probably because at present nobody really knows what the law is.

My interpretation (and I believe it will be consistent with any answer KML1 gets) is simply to not penalise players who were complying with Law 11 when the ball went into touch and penalise the players who were not complying.

You may be right, but so far the case is weak.

 

[Blackberry]

Isn't it this?:
If you were offside when the ball went into touch, you can't oppose the QTI.

 

[ChrisR]

Isn't it this?:
If you were offside when the ball went into touch, you can't oppose the QTI.

...... until put onside by an onside member of your team or by the opponent throwing in the ball (does not apply to player inside 10m).

This approach provides consistency with the laws if the ball is caught in the FOP.

 

[Dickie E]

There is some similarity, but the big difference is that a 22 drop out is mandatory and the law spells out where the opponents must be. They cannot prevent the drop out.

A QTI is optional and might well become too risky because of loitering players.

I suppose loiterers might prevent the (rare) tap drop out, but the equivalence is otherwise weak.

Why do you introduce the word "prevent"? I'm talking about "participating in".

 

[Dickie E]

...... until put onside by an onside member of your team or by the opponent throwing in the ball

By logical extension, then, a player in front of the kicker can't approach the line of touch to participate in a normal lineout? If the full back is the kicker, none of his 14 team mates can move forward to join the lineout? I wonder what happens then, maybe the referee has to ask the fullback to jog up to the LoT to put his team mates onside?

I wonder what happens at half time. Can a previously offside player join his huddle or does he need to be put onside first? *


* this one is a bit silly although he does gain an advantage by being first to the oranges.

 

[ChrisR]

By logical extension, then, a player in front of the kicker can't approach the line of touch to participate in a normal lineout? If the full back is the kicker, none of his 14 team mates can move forward to join the lineout? I wonder what happens then, maybe the referee has to ask the fullback to jog up to the LoT to put his team mates onside?

I wonder what happens at half time. Can a previously offside player join his huddle or does he need to be put onside first? *


* this one is a bit silly although he does gain an advantage by being first to the oranges.

I had considered that scenario but usually the possibility of a QTI resolves itself quickly and the receiving players act with obvious intent. If the QTI is not on then there's no issue.

 

[OB..]

Why do you introduce the word "prevent"? I'm talking about "participating in".

At a drop out 13.17 specifies where the opponents must be. This effectively rules out the possibility of loiterers interfering.

There is no such provision for a QTI, so loiterers could have a significant effect.

 

[TheBFG]

did we get an answer to this???

I saw this in the Pink v Tiggers game yesterday, Pink stopping a QTI as the player "up field" was only a few yards from where it went into touch after a 40m+ kick, it looked wrong, but nothing was said by any officials and no complaint from the players, but had the QTI been taken it would have been an interesting situation.....

 

[Dixie]

An interesting discussion so far - without (of course) actually getting anywhere. Let me pose this slight adjustment to the scenario I posed earlier.

Blue lineout on its own 5m line. Blue wins the ball, passes off the top to the SH, who spins it back to #10 standing deep in-goal. Blue 10 kicks, and falls over in the process. All Blue players are offside, and stand still - the forwards at the line of touch. Two Red forwards also remain at the LoT.

The ball makes touch on the 22m line. Red 14 catches the ball 1m in touch, and immediately throws it (slightly backward) to Red 15. TJ indicates to the ref that the lineout was formed, as there were 7 Blues (all offside) and 2 Reds at the LoT on the 5m line.

Does the ref play on or disallow the QTI? If the latter, in what way have the offside players NOT influenced the game by being offside?

 

[Blackberry]

An interesting discussion so far - without (of course) actually getting anywhere. Let me pose this slight adjustment to the scenario I posed earlier.

Blue lineout on its own 5m line. Blue wins the ball, passes off the top to the SH, who spins it back to #10 standing deep in-goal. Blue 10 kicks, and falls over in the process. All Blue players are offside, and stand still - the forwards at the line of touch. Two Red forwards also remain at the LoT.



The ball makes touch on the 22m line. Red 14 catches the ball 1m in touch, and immediately throws it (slightly backward) to Red 15. TJ indicates to the ref that the lineout was formed, as there were 7 Blues (all offside) and 2 Reds at the LoT on the 5m line.

Does the ref play on or disallow the QTI? If the latter, in what way have the offside players NOT influenced the game by being offside?

To me, Not straight, scrum to blue. (TJ said the Line Out had formed)

 

[crossref]

( they are all standing on the 5m line, but the LoT is the 22m line, so how is the line-out formed? Or is there a typo in the scenario? )


at the end of all this discussion, I can't say I am confident about what the IRB think the Law is, but my inclination on how to ref it is --

- for any offside player complying with the Law (ie standing still or, if necessary, retreating under the 10m law), once ball is in touch they are free to advance up field, and free to contest the QTI.

- but if they were not complying, ie moving forward/not moving back, then they they cannot interfere with play, so if the QTI is on and they contest it they are liable to sanction.

 

[Dickie E]

te

There is no such provision for a QTI, so loiterers could have a significant effect.

Yes there is. They must be 5 metres from touch in order to participate. And yes their presence may have a significant effect so don't go throwing it in carelessly.

And they are not loiterers because they are no longer offside but I'm OK to use the term here as a shorthand.

 

[crossref]

te

Yes there is. They must be 5 metres from touch in order to participate. And yes their presence may have a significant effect so don't go throwing it in carelessly.

And they are not loiterers because they are no longer offside but I'm OK to use the term here as a shorthand.

one problem is that a sophisticated player who is miles upfield for some reason, now seeing that his team back in the 22m have won possession and are shaping up to kick for touch, deliberately remains upfield so that he can defend a possible QTI. A cynical loiterer, if you like

 

[OB..]

Yes there is. They must be 5 metres from touch in order to participate.

No. 5 metres applies to players on both teams. It is not a distinguishing feature.

And yes their presence may have a significant effect so don't go throwing it in carelessly.

My point exactly. Doesn't apply to a drop out.

And they are not loiterers because they are no longer offside

That is your view, and the whole point of the discussion.