[Line out] Offside by QTI

[Arabcheif]

Ok so if he was offside then we'd have a PK to red not a QTI to blue. So for the scenario above we have an onside blue player sprinting 40m+, making a tackle.

But as you said, putting that aside. Where are the Law ref/guidline/clarifications/definitions, that tell me, as a new ref there specifically no offisides at a QTI. Perhaps it does say there are, but as its essentially a quickly taken line out, perhaps the Law writer just thought we'd apply the same criteria (except the written exceptions), from a normal LO to a QTI. Is there mention in the 2017 Laws? I'm looking for a reference that I can use to back this call up in the unlikely event that I get this in a match I'm reffing at. Please help! If I can't back it up in Law then I'm calling it as offside.

 

[Rich_NL]

i find that one hard to imagine :

1 how did blue 6 get there (50m sprint) so fast - was he actually behind the kicker ? or was he offside himself?

2 but putting that aside: no - Red 5 should not be penalised. The QTI does not create an offside line, you are allowed to take up position in front of a QTI (and 5m in) in order to defend it

1 he was onside. Red was slow to return, as explained (older teams, late in the game)

2 you're not allowed to take up position in front of a QTI if you were offside, I believe.

 

[crossref]

Becasue it's not a quickly taken lineout (which does have offside lines, for both teams) it's a QTI !

 

[crossref]

2 you're not allowed to take up position in front of a QTI if you were offside, I believe.

If you were offside and continued to moving forward toward the ball, you should be penalised

 

[Arabcheif]

I'm sorry, I'm really not getting this CR. There is no such thing as a Quickly taken lineout. You have a QTI or a lineout. A QTI is a lineout that's taken quickly before a lineout can form.

"[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Quick-throws and lineouts are methods of restarting the game with a throw after the ball or ball-carrier has gone into touch."

Whats a Quickly taken Lineout? Is that not just a Lineout?[/FONT]

 

[Arabcheif]

If you were offside and continued to moving forward toward the ball, you should be penalised

But you've just said there is no offside!!

 

[thepercy]

Still not sure I get it. Is there a Law ref for this at all. Like I said, a QTI just seems like a lineout, taken quickly. Therefore other than the stated caveats regarding he throw etc. Offsides should still be applied - eg, you need to be at least on the right side of the MoT.

There is no offside at a QTI. Law reference: 18.3-7 (by omission)

Once a lineout forms various offside lines are formed. Law reference: 18.30-36

If you are offside from a kick that goes to touch you are liable for being offside if you are moving forward or in a 10-meter law situation, not retreating, before the ball goes into touch.

 

[crossref]

But you've just said there is no offside!!

I said that the QTI does nor CREATE AN OFFSIDE LINE

A common scenario is
- blue kick to touch
- blue 6 is in front of the kicker

if blue 6 continues to move forward, and then contests the QTI, he should be penalised - just as he would be in any open play.
if blue 6 stops (as the Law requires) until the ball goes into touch or until he is played onside, he can then advance and defend the QTI

(in 10m situation standing still isn't enough, need to retire until put onside)

 

[thepercy]

Ok so if he was offside then we'd have a PK to red not a QTI to blue. So for the scenario above we have an onside blue player sprinting 40m+, making a tackle.

But as you said, putting that aside. Where are the Law ref/guidline/clarifications/definitions, that tell me, as a new ref there specifically no offisides at a QTI. Perhaps it does say there are, but as its essentially a quickly taken line out, perhaps the Law writer just thought we'd apply the same criteria (except the written exceptions), from a normal LO to a QTI. Is there mention in the 2017 Laws? I'm looking for a reference that I can use to back this call up in the unlikely event that I get this in a match I'm reffing at. Please help! If I can't back it up in Law then I'm calling it as offside.

Where is the law reference for there being offside at a QTI? The burden of proof is on you to find a reference for a law you want to enforce (that doesn't exist).

 

[crossref]

I'm sorry, I'm really not getting this CR. There is no such thing as a Quickly taken lineout. You have a QTI or a lineout. A QTI is a lineout that's taken quickly before a lineout can form.

"[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Quick-throws and lineouts are methods of restarting the game with a throw after the ball or ball-carrier has gone into touch."

Whats a Quickly taken Lineout? Is that not just a Lineout?[/FONT]

Its not hard

There are lineouts (with offside lines and lots of other laws) some are more quickly executed than others
.
There are QTIs (different things, with no offside lines and few other laws)

A QTI is not a line out. Neither is it a scrum. Its a QTI

 

[Arabcheif]

Where is the law reference for there being offside at a QTI? The burden of proof is on you to find a reference for a law you want to enforce (that doesn't exist).

I have done so already. Lineout and QTI are a method of restarting play when the ball goes out of play. Why does the burden of proof lie with me. I could equally state the burden of proof is yours as there's nothing in to LoTG to tell me as a new ref that there are no offsides in QTIs.

 

[OB..]

But it isn't really, is it. Its the same as a PK : one team is free to play it (in the prescribed way) . Its the famous zombie ball

The ball has to be dead before anyone can take a QTI. Therefore the QTI is not like a pass in open play.

 

[crossref]

I have done so already. Lineout and QTI are a method of restarting play when the ball goes out of play. Why does the burden of proof lie with me. I could equally state the burden of proof is yours as there's nothing in to LoTG to tell me as a new ref that there are no offsides in QTIs.

You are saying a QTI is the same as a lineout
You might just as well say a ruck is the same as a scrum

They are just different things.

- - - Updated - - -

The ball has to be dead before anyone can take a QTI. Therefore the QTI is not like a pass in open play.

I would say that if the ball is really dead they can't take a QTI

 

[OB..]

You are saying a QTI is the same as a lineout

I said no such thing. The problem is that current law does not cover the situation at all, so we are having to make it up.

I would say that if the ball is really dead they can't take a QTI

That is what we mean by a zombie ball: it is dead but can be brought back to life without the intervention of the referee.

 

[menace]

I have done so already. Lineout and QTI are a method of restarting play when the ball goes out of play. Why does the burden of proof lie with me. I could equally state the burden of proof is yours as there's nothing in to LoTG to tell me as a new ref that there are no offsides in QTIs.

Arabchief you need to come to grips that the QTI and the lineout are different things. The only thing they have have in common as that they are forms of restarting play when the ball goes into touch. Once you get your head around that you'll find that the QTI in the laws has different requirements you need to manage (and offside is not one of them). You also need to understanding that the basic principles of the laws is that a player can do anything unless the law says they cant.
The real trick around this issue of discussion is managing material offside players PRIOR to the ball going into touch (and that's usually from kicks).
It's up to you, but if you anticipate penalising players for being offside at a QTI when there is no basis in law then you're going to have a lot of frustrated players and coaches in your ear.

 

[OB..]

I raised this question with a senior ref. Here is his response.

Law 10.9 A player who is offside at a ruck, maul, scrum or lineout remains offside, even after the ruck, maul, scrum or lineout has ended.​

Does this apply to a QTI?​

Law 10 is the offside law.

Technically Quick Throw ins (QTI) fall under the same law as Lineouts...Law 18, so you could say yes. But we usually say that offside lines disappear when the ball goes dead, so you could say no?

Sometimes as a referee you just have to think about what the law makers were trying to achieve, combined with the principles and spirit of the game.

So we have to look at the purpose of the offside law, which is to create space and allow free flowing rugby rather than a static slogfest. When the ball goes into touch the purpose of a QTI is to get the game going quickly. There are specific laws that stop the opposition preventing a QTI by standing in the 5m channel, again to allow quick free flowing rugby.

Essentially if a player is in an offside position when the ball goes into touch (in front of a kick which bounces into touch for instance) he shouldn't benefit from being offside. So if he inhibits the QTI (but is outside the 5m channel) the referee could penalise him for being in an offside position prior to the ball going into touch.

If the QTI is taken and that team carry the ball 5m, or pass or kick the ball then the offside player would be put onside, so let's play on.

The last scenario is that a QTI is taken and the receiver is immediately tackled (before he can pass or run) by a player who was in an offside position when the ball went into touch. In that case he should be penalised for being offside prior to the QTI because he is shutting down space and not playing within the spirit of the law.

Otherwise we could have the scenario where a player is offside after a breakdown way up the field in the opposition half, but instead of getting onside he just stays there (not interfering with play) until the opposition have put him onside by passing and running the ball, allowing him to then benefit by being in their defense. Clearly that would be ridiculous.

Great question, difficult to answer.

 

[Dickie E]

Otherwise we could have the scenario where a player is offside after a breakdown way up the field in the opposition half, but instead of getting onside he just stays there (not interfering with play) until the opposition have put him onside by passing and running the ball, allowing him to then benefit by being in their defense. Clearly that would be ridiculous.

Provided he is complying with 10 metre law, he is quite entitled to do that.

 

[crossref]

Provided he is complying with 10 metre law, he is quite entitled to do that.

Indeed it's normal

 

[Rich_NL]

I raised this question with a senior ref. Here is his response.

...
The last scenario is that a QTI is taken and the receiver is immediately tackled (before he can pass or run) by a player who was in an offside position when the ball went into touch. In that case he should be penalised for being offside prior to the QTI because he is shutting down space and not playing within the spirit of the law.

Otherwise we could have the scenario where a player is offside after a breakdown way up the field in the opposition half, but instead of getting onside he just stays there (not interfering with play) until the opposition have put him onside by passing and running the ball, allowing him to then benefit by being in their defense. Clearly that would be ridiculous.

That was (long after the fact) my feeling too. However, good luck to any grassroots refs who have to make a snap decision!

 

[crossref]

.The last scenario is that a QTI is taken and the receiver is immediately tackled (before he can pass or run) by a player who was in an offside position when the ball went into touch. In that case he should be penalised for being offside prior to the QTI because he is shutting down space and not playing within the spirit of the law.

This sounds like it is covered simply by the 10m Law , the tackler should have been retreating .

But the scenario needs a little more detail to be able to make a decision .. did the 10m law apply. If not when did the tackler start to move forward