Offside after a kick Bath vs Gloucester

[BC Zimboy]

During the game today Bath were using what I thought was an illegal strategy when kicking during open play.
They would have a player deep in their own end receive a deep kick from Gloucester and in turn kick it deep into Gloucester’s half.
Bath players in front of the kicker (upwards of 30-40 yards but more than 10 yards away from where the ball was caught) would stand dead still and as soon as the player that caught the ball ran 5 yards or passed, Bath players would advance.
I realize being 10 yards away and advancing after a run of 5 yards or a pass are within the laws. But thought the offside player needed to retread immediately after the ball was kicked until the point they were put on side by another player etc.

 

[crossref]

No, they don't have to retreat (unless they are within 10m of where the ball will land)

The commentators were (rather confusingly) discussing whether a Law change to make them retreat would be a good idea.

 

[Balones]

I actually put this exact scenario to the RFU quite recently. The official response was that you should expect the players to meet the requirement to retire immediately. Such players are liable to sanction.

 

[Balones]

No law change us required. The existing law needs to be applied more rigourously. Refs need to stop shouting ‘hold’ or ‘stop’ and use such words as ‘retreat’.

 

[Nilo]

1. An offside player maybe penalised, if that player:
   1. Interferes with play; or
   2. Moves forwards towards the ball; or
   3. Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first.

If the player is not within 10 metres of where the ball is caught or lands, they have technically fulfilled the 2nd part of this. Then they are not necessarily interfering with play until they are put back onside as long as they didn't advance towards the ball.

If you ask players to retreat, you then have to clarify how much they need to retreat, if they are already beyond 10m, then do they just need to retreat a footstep? Or behind an onside team mate?

If you watch, Antoine Dupont is an absolute genius at using this law to his advantage.

 

[crossref]

I actually put this exact scenario to the RFU quite recently. The official response was that you should expect the players to meet the requirement to retire immediately. Such players are liable to sanction.

I am curious then : what was the exact scenario you asked about, to get that answer?

 

[didds]

exactly - cos whoever answered from the RFU either doesn't actually know the law (as explained by Nilo) or had some other scenario in mind.
I do wonder which it was </sarcasm>

 

[Balones]

I am curious then : what was the exact scenario you asked about ?

Player stands still at about 11-12M from the eventual catcher. Catcher runs 5M (or may not depending whether you have an accurate measure of some sort, but deemed to have done so by the ref) and is then tackled by the ‘still’ player who had then moved forward.
It was a scenario whereby the ’still’ player did not make any positive action to make sure he was onside. A number of questions/points were raised by this scenario.
Regardless of position was he interfering with play?
He was not fulfilling the first part of the law which says such a player ‘maybe’ penalised for not retiring immediately behind an onside teammate.
During the kick there was absolutely no way that the ‘still’ player could have known with any degree of certainty where the ball was going to land, so should he have been taking positive action to ensure his legality.

Regardless of the nuances of law and for the sake of creating space in what is becoming a rather stifled game I think we should create situations where players can be more creative. Playing kick tennis is not providing much more than generating a penalty from an ‘oooh’ factor when somebody gets smashed during a jump for the ball. I think we need to give the receiver at a kick more time and space to be creative. By having more possibilities beyond booting the ball back, I believe we will have a more entertaining and interesting game. ‘Space’ management is one of the key areas for the referee. Let‘s give them more help/authority. Without giving it too much in-depth thought, not allowing players to re-enter the game regardless of position until put onside, may go someway towards this. Though I do accept that it may be difficult to be put onsude if your full back breaks a leg in the act of kicking!

 

[Balones]

We (if you read this forum) generally as rugby people like to have things clear, specific and measurable. The inclusion of the distance ‘10M’ gives us something to hang our hat on to the detriment of ‘interfering with play’. We all know the quote, ‘if you are not interfering in play, what are you doing on the pitch’.
The goal hanging tactic of being 11M from the landing ball is a coached tactic. I don’t think this was the intended outcome of the law. The intention I believe was to give some continuity and equity after a ‘cocked up’ kick. I generally think that WR needs to react quicker to what coaches do to circumvent the laws before the action/tactic becomes common place and difficult to undo. I think we could compile a long list of laws which are generally ignored by the letter of the law.

 

[Balones]

Yes, I’ll admit my bonnet is full of bees at the moment.

 

[Dickie E]

Must be me but I'm not keeping up with this discussion. The law seems b & w to me: if you're > 10m from landing point you can't move forward. If you're < 10m, you have to retire.
What am I missing?

 

[Phil E]

Must be me but I'm not keeping up with this discussion. The law seems b & w to me: if you're > 10m from landing point you can't move forward. If you're < 10m, you have to retire.
What am I missing?

There is a tactic now where players get themselves into a position just outside the 10m area, they then wait until the receiver has run 5m before going in and tackling him. This is instead of waiting to be put onside by a team mate. While this is legal, is it against the spirit of the offside at a kick law?

 

[didds]

you are missing nothing Dickie.

the "debate" is over whether being 40m offside but 11m from the landing point, then becoming onside when the catcher runs forward 5m, and now under pressure from the waiting opponent.
If this is not what WR "meant" with their law wording (and being fair I dont suppose it was) they need to sort it out. Its hardly a surprise that the law as writ is being used as such.

"Whatever."

 

[Balones]

So the question is, is he interfering with play if he is standing still and not doing anything positive to get back onside. Is standing still enough. The people (law makers?) at the upper echelons of the game have recognised this tactic and don’t like it. This has cut down on the space available to players, an area that has been the focus of several tweaks to the laws over recent years. Time to increase the distance to 20M or at least make it compulsory for a ‘retreat’ for everyone?

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

For me the law needs to change to avoid this boring kicking fest that has developed in the game.
For me offside players should be required to retire until put onside and not just stand there, as most of them are interfering with play restricting the the catchers options.
I hope the Lawmakers act soon.

 

[Dickie E]

There is a tactic now where players get themselves into a position just outside the 10m area, they then wait until the receiver has run 5m before going in and tackling him. This is instead of waiting to be put onside by a team mate. While this is legal, is it against the spirit of the offside at a kick law?

Got it. Is the easy solution to change the 10 metre law to the 15 metre law?

 

[Balones]

Got it. Is the easy solution to change the 10 metre law to the 15 metre law?

I think most of us, based on what has been said above, would like an increase or require everyone to retreat. Perhaps a combination of both?

 

[crossref]

i would be in favour of
- changing the law so that everyone in front of kicker has to retreat until put onside by a team mate
- and then we could get rid of the 10m law
- but we do need to clarify the difference between playing the ball and charging it down

 

[Dickie E]

I'm not a fan of the 'everyone retreat' idea. There are often the remains of phases of play in front of the kicker (scrums, rucks, etc) where it would be unreasonable to expect those players to instantly retreat

 

[crossref]

a good point