Offside after a kick Bath vs Gloucester

[Volun-selected]

I see the “or” as there to avoid this scenario.

10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or
b. Moves forwards towards the ball; or
c. 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 this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.

For me, the law says that if you’re in front of the kicker you need to start moving back until back onside (by whatever method).
The ”or” is there to delineate that if within 10m you have extra limitations.

For the OP scenario I don’t understand why we need new laws. They stand there, they are failing “to retire immediately“ and so they’re offside. They repeat the strategy so they are also interfering with play … and still they’re offside.

If they want to do the knackered prop stroll rather than winger run back, I’d give some leeway but I’d expect them to be actively moving back.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Nicely put Volun.
I think we can now all agree that players just standing there are offside and may be penalised if they fail to retire immediately.
As the ref is the sole judge on the day, it's time we all started to penalise or at least threaten to id we deem they are interfering which in effect they always are.
Of course, Showbiz rugby will just ignore the laws as usual.

 

[crossref]

Nicely put Volun.
I think we can now all agree that players just standing there are offside and may be penalised if they fail to retire immediately.
As the ref is the sole judge on the day, it's time we all started to penalise or at least threaten to id we deem they are interfering which in effect they always are.
Of course, Showbiz rugby will just ignore the laws as usual.

No, I think that to completely reverse a widespread interpretation of the Law needs some top down guidance . We can't as individual refs suddenly decide to ref this scenario differently from everyone else

 

[Balones]

I see the “or” as there to avoid this scenario.

10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or
b. Moves forwards towards the ball; or
c. 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 this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.

For me, the law says that if you’re in front of the kicker you need to start moving back until back onside (by whatever method).
The ”or” is there to delineate that if within 10m you have extra limitations.

For the OP scenario I don’t understand why we need new laws. They stand there, they are failing “to retire immediately“ and so they’re offside. They repeat the strategy so they are also interfering with play … and still they’re offside.

If they want to do the knackered prop stroll rather than winger run back, I’d give some leeway but I’d expect them to be actively moving back.

This was basically the premise of the RFU response I had. But as CR has suggested we perhaps need to see better and clearer leadership on this application higher up the food chain.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

Is it widespread?
I've always interpreted it as you can't just stand there and never been questioned when I have applied that logic if I think there is a hint of interference.
I'm only applying the Law so will stick to my guns no matter what I see on Showbiz unless instructed otherwise.

 

[Balones]

Is it widespread?
I've always interpreted it as you can't just stand there and never been questioned when I have applied that logic if I think there is a hint of interference.
I'm only applying the Law so will stick to my guns no matter what I see on Showbiz unless instructed otherwise.

I must admit that this was how I used to apply the law when I was refereeing seriously and often. I do think there has been a gradual move away from this application of the law (unfortunately) due to our elite (TV) refs making things up for themselves and not considering the rest of us and the wider game.

 

[crossref]

It's funny because in the RWC thread about Faf DK I argued that simply standing still in the 9 10 channel was interfering with play, as it cut down the SHs options but most people disagreed with me ..

 

[Dickie E]

I think we can now all agree that players just standing there are offside and may be penalised if they fail to retire immediately.

Hang on, I completely disagree with that. 10.4(b) requires a player not move forward unless (as per 10.4(c)) he is within 10 metres. I have never ever seen offside managed as described by Volun.

If Volun is right, why is there something special called the 10-metre law?

Another way 10.4(c) could have been worded is:

... fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, ...

 

[Dickie E]

For me, the law says that if you’re in front of the kicker you need to start moving back until back onside (by whatever method).

Here is what your USA Rugby GMGs say on the matter:

OFFSIDE IN FRONT OF KICKER

Offside players who are advancing are reducing options for counter-attack by taking away space.

Players in front of a team-mate who kicks the ball, must not move forward until they have been put onside by the kicker or a team-mate that was onside.
PK or SCRUM

Players in front of the kicker and within 10-meters of where the ball lands or is played must actively retire until they are onside.
PK or SCRUM

Offside players cannot be put onside unless they are either standing still, or retreating out of the 10m zone as applicable.

If the referee communicates to offside players to stop, players should stop and not just slow down until they are put onside.

Offside players must not advance even when the ball looks like it will go into touch because a quick throw may be an option

 

[crossref]

I love GMG , really wish the RFU (or even WR) would do them
Those GMG I would say are exactly how the modern game understands the Law.
To change the interpretation needs top down guidance

 

[didds]

I was thinking the same as crossref on this recently. 10m is really not that far from the guy receiving the ball. Most times they are making a decision to kick or pass the ball because of the defender who is only 10m away in front of them. Obviously if there was no defender there, that ball catcher would be more apt to run it forward instead. So I do think just standing there has an effect on play i.e. interfering with it. To crossref's point, the law just hasn't been applied in such manner.

yeah, OK. I get that.
But as per my point then... if you are 30m away, and offside and never put onside, and the BC comes to you and you tackle the BC... are you interfering with play ?

 

[jdeagro]

yeah, OK. I get that.
But as per my point then... if you are 30m away, and offside and never put onside, and the BC comes to you and you tackle the BC... are you interfering with play ?

I'd say no, because 30m away is a reasonable enough distance for the ball carrier to be able to make a decision to run the ball as opposed to always kicking or passing it away. There's virtually no pressure with an opposing player who's that far away.

Also, aren't you put back onsides once the ball carrier advances 5m (unless I'm misremembering the laws)?...if so, then when you're 30m away, you'll be back onside by the time the ball carrier is 25m away, which is still a reasonable distance, IMO, as opposed to 5m if you were originally 10m away.

I do see your point though, that having to retreat when 30m away would be silly. I personally do like the law as written, being a prop, so I don't have to run 40m laps whenever the pretty boys get into a kicking match. But maybe the 10m should be increased to 20m, idk. I think making it distance based, even as it currently stands, is hard for the referee to be able to judge too. They're probably on the run themselves, they have to pay attention to every player potentially past that 10m distance, the ARs are unlikely making any sort of mark for where that 10m line is too, all on top of everything else the ref is already thinking about.

 

[crossref]

I'd say no, because 30m away is a reasonable enough distance for the ball carrier to be able to make a decision to run the ball as opposed to always kicking or passing it away. There's virtually no pressure with an opposing player who's that far away.

Also, aren't you put back onsides once the ball carrier advances 5m (unless I'm misremembering the laws)?...if so, then when you're 30m away, you'll be back onside by the time the ball carrier is 25m away, which is still a reasonable distance, IMO, as opposed to 5m if you were originally 10m away.

I do see your point though, that having to retreat when 30m away would be silly. I personally do like the law as written, being a prop, so I don't have to run 40m laps whenever the pretty boys get into a kicking match. But maybe the 10m should be increased to 20m, idk. I think making it distance based, even as it currently stands, is hard for the referee to be able to judge too. They're probably on the run themselves, they have to pay attention to every player potentially past that 10m distance, the ARs are unlikely making any sort of mark for where that 10m line is too, all on top of everything else the ref is already thinking about.

the reason for making any change would be to discourage teams from kicking ...

 

[Phil E]

the reason for making any change would be to discourage teams from kicking ...

Not exactly, it would be to create space....for kickers to run into...but they might still kick, just further forwards.

 

[jdeagro]

the reason for making any change would be to discourage teams from kicking ...

Forgive me for my ignorance but I don't follow your response. Which part of my comment was that in reply to?

 

[Balones]

I have been informed that the topic has been taken to WR for consideration.

 

[didds]

Also, aren't you put back onsides once the ball carrier advances 5m (unless I'm misremembering the laws)?...if so, then when you're 30m away, you'll be back onside by the time the ball carrier is 25m away, which is still a reasonable distance, IMO, as opposed to 5m if you were originally 10m away.

a myriad of choperesque style scenarios spring to mind.

It was a moot point, intended to draw out the comparisons between 10m and 30m away.

So we have ascertained that 10m is not far enough, 30m is far enough.


So, if you are 20m away, and offside and never put onside, and the BC comes to you and you tackle the BC... are you interfering with play ?

 

[didds]

I think making it distance based, even as it currently stands, is hard for the referee to be able to judge too. They're probably on the run themselves, they have to pay attention to every player potentially past that 10m distance, the ARs are unlikely making any sort of mark for where that 10m line is too, all on top of everything else the ref is already thinking about.

And in the community game there are no ARs of course (usually)

 

[Stu10]

I was thinking the same as crossref on this recently. 10m is really not that far from the guy receiving the ball. Most times they are making a decision to kick or pass the ball because of the defender who is only 10m away in front of them. Obviously if there was no defender there, that ball catcher would be more apt to run it forward instead. So I do think just standing there has an effect on play i.e. interfering with it. To crossref's point, the law just hasn't been applied in such manner.

I totally agree with this... as the catcher on his own at the back of the field, if an opposition player is 11m in front of you then you will only choose to run if you were 110% sure you would burn him, because getting caught in possession at the back would be disaster; therefore your only option is to kick the ball back... kick-tennis ensues. Thus, that player has significantly limited your options, which I would regard as interfering with play.

So, while the current laws does not strictly force more kicking, it certainly discourages running the ball back, therefore players go to the only other go-forward option... kick.

 

[jdeagro]

So, if you are 20m away, and offside and never put onside, and the BC comes to you and you tackle the BC... are you interfering with play ?

I would say this might be ok. 20m away is significantly different than 10m (it's almost the distance of scoring in the in-goal from the 22m, to paint a picture), for sure. I'd be more ok with this if that's what the law was, not that it would make the ref's job any simpler unfortunately. A change that was more easily managed and objectified by the ref would be even better.