[Line out] Offside by QTI

[Dickie E]

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.

Red player kicks ball from 1/2 way into Blue 22 where a 'mark' is taken. A Red team mate who was in front of the kicker, but who was not offside under 10 m law, stands motionless until 'mark' is called, at which time he moves forward to stand 10 metres from the mark and ready for the quick tap. Has he acted legally or benefited from being offside?

 

[crossref]

Red player kicks ball from 1/2 way into Blue 22 where a 'mark' is taken. A Red team mate who was in front of the kicker, but who was not offside under 10 m law, stands motionless until 'mark' is called, at which time he moves forward to stand 10 metres from the mark and ready for the quick tap. Has he acted legally or benefited from being offside?

Legally, with great understanding of the Laws (I would say)
Perfect parallel with the QTI scenario

 

[Arabcheif]

Legally, with great understanding of the Laws (I would say)
Perfect parallel with the QTI scenario

I disagree slightly. The perfect parallel would be that the kicking team player was behind the catcher (eg inbetween the catcher and his DBL). When the ball is passed, would said defender be onside and free to make a tackle, despite not being on the right-side of the offside line.

And further to say that a ruck and a scrum can be considered the same if a QTI and Lineout are basically the same thing thing. That's just nonsence. A scrum is a way of restarting play after a minor infringement a ruck is a phase of play still on going.

So going back to my question, as a rookie ref, there is nothing to tell me there are no offsides at a QTI?
How on earth are we meant to know that in advance of it happening to us. Thus making us look incompetent. Unless there is something worded in the LotG, I'd treat it as the same as a lineout and apply an offside line, at the MoT. Anyone the wrong side of that is offside.

I just want something tangible to support this stance, that there are no offsides at a QTI. And "It doesn't say so in the LotG" to me doesn't really cut it when there's other things that aren't mentioned that is apparently applicable to other scenarios.

 

[crossref]

Arab, where do think this offside line is?
Would you apply it (them) to both teams (in a typical QTI most of the throwers team mates are in front of him)

(and don't forget a QTI can he taken anywhere between the goal line and Mark of touch )

 

[Arabcheif]

Arab, where do think this offside line is?
Would you apply it (them) to both teams (in a typical QTI most of the throwers team mates are in front of him)

(and don't forget a QTI can he taken anywhere between the goal line and Mark of touch )

Offside line - From where the ball is thrown in. I guess you mean the that throwers team mates are infront of the thrower in terms of being further forward (closer to the opps DBL), in which case if memory serves the non throwing team get a scrum for a forward pass. As long as the catcher is legal and the offside players aren't material in terms of interfering with legal players coming for a tackle then we're all good.

 

[crossref]

Offside line - From where the ball is thrown in. I guess you mean the that throwers team mates are infront of the thrower in terms of being further forward (closer to the opps DBL), in which case if memory serves the non throwing team get a scrum for a forward pass. As long as the catcher is legal and the offside players aren't material in terms of interfering with legal players coming for a tackle then we're all good.

Yes , but that is offside in open play, which undoubtedly applies

Its different at a lineout. You can't hold a lineout with your own players scattered further up the pitch .
.

For a QTI no problem.

 

[menace]

So going back to my question, as a rookie ref, there is nothing to tell me there are no offsides at a QTI?
How on earth are we meant to know that in advance of it happening to us. Thus making us look incompetent. Unless there is something worded in the LotG, I'd treat it as the same as a lineout and apply an offside line, at the MoT. Anyone the wrong side of that is offside.

I just want something tangible to support this stance, that there are no offsides at a QTI.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious again...the fact there is NO mention of offside lines in the QTI section on the LOTG (and QTI is not open play) is all the evidence you need.

If that doesn't convince you and the fact all referees on here keep telling you then it appears you can't be convinced.

 

[crossref]

Well, the moment the QTI is taken, we are back in open play....

 

[menace]

Well, the moment the QTI is taken, we are back in open play....

Yes. For being prezacrt
Well the time from ball in touch to act of making the throw is not open play.

 

[crossref]

Yes. For being prezacrt
Well the time from ball in touch to act of making the throw is not open play.

Yes agreed.

 

[OB..]

Legally, with great understanding of the Laws (I would say)
Perfect parallel with the QTI scenario

Not perfect by any means. The player stops 10m away from the player who called Mark, whereas at a QTI you are arguing that a player offside before the ball went into touch is free to tackle the receiver from a QTI.

I'll stick with the view of the quoted senior ref rather than indulge in pseudo-legalistic arguments.
[LAWS]2016
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.[/LAWS]

What a sensible law. What a pity it was not copied into the re-write.

 

[crossref]

.I'll stick with the view of the quoted senior ref rather than indulge in pseudo-legalistic arguments.

The trouble is, the question you posed to the leading ref isn't a simple scenario but instead posed as a legalistic one

It would be great if you went back to him with a couple of simple scenarios as above and see what he said .

I don't think a player sprinting back as fast as possible chasing a an opponents kick could possible be described as loitering offside. In the OP this player was offside in open play for a moment only as his team mate gathered and was tackled into touch.

He was never loitering offside from anything

 

[OB..]

The trouble is, the question you posed to the leading ref isn't a simple scenario but instead posed as a legalistic one

The crucial point is that he did not answer legalistically, but using common sense about the best way to deal with the situation.

 

[crossref]

The crucial point is that he did not answer legalistically, but using common sense about the best way to deal with the situation.

I am not sure that his situation is the same situation...

 

[didds]

On reflection, and listenog to you guys, I guess I leanb twoards the "well its daft innit" to allow somebody miles offside (but fufilling all other requirements such as not advancing and getting out of a 10m zone etc) to effectively benefit from that becasue the oppo exercise their options. I do hear that as writ the laws however dont deal with this at all. Its a common sense approach and "equity" (remember that?) really.

IF the laws were to encompass it maybe the equivalent of the 10m law provision might be in order, as a suggestion. But I wouldn't argue very strongly. I do think it would help everybody if such a defiite position was incorporated into the laws, as it would at least prevent any potebntial for "the ref last week said..." I appreciate it also isnt a sort of thing you see a dozen times a game - but equally isn't the once in a lifetime scenario we occassionaly expend our energies on here



didds

 

[crossref]

Dhdhdbdnd

 

[thepercy]

Offside line - From where the ball is thrown in. I guess you mean the that throwers team mates are infront of the thrower in terms of being further forward (closer to the opps DBL), in which case if memory serves the non throwing team get a scrum for a forward pass. As long as the catcher is legal and the offside players aren't material in terms of interfering with legal players coming for a tackle then we're all good.

What law do you use to justify this?

 

[crossref]

What law do you use to justify this?

to be fair to Arabchief, he is backed up by the 'senior ref' who OB quotes in #56

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.

Remember the scenario
- Red 5 is running back toward his own line, chasing a blue kick
- Red 10 gathers the ball, meaning Red 5 is offside in open play
- Blue 6 tackles red 10 into touch and takes a QTI to Blue 12
- Red 5 tackles Blue 12

Both Arabcheif and the Senior Ref apply a PK to Red 5 for being offside.

The only way that this could be correct is if the QTI created an offside line - for if Blue 6 had managed to strip the ball and pass it to Blue 12, no one would say Red 5 couldn't tackle him.


Of course we all think both Arab and Senior Ref are both wrong. a QTI does not create a offside line.

Another possibilty is that Arab and SR are right, and we are all wrong.

Although another possibility is that Senior Ref is not considering exactly the same scenario we are....

 

[Dickie E]

Not perfect by any means. The player stops 10m away from the player who called Mark, whereas at a QTI you are arguing that a player offside before the ball went into touch is free to tackle the receiver from a QTI.

Nothing about tackling intended. My posit was solely about "being in an offside position before ball becomes dead then benefiting from that when the ball becomes alive again".

I am challenging the "senior ref's" assertion (shown here) because there may be examples where it isn't true:

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.

 

[OB..]

Remember the scenario
- Red 5 is running back toward his own line, chasing a blue kick
- Red 10 gathers the ball, meaning Red 5 is offside in open play
- Blue 6 tackles red 10 into touch and takes a QTI to Blue 12
- Red 5 tackles Blue 12

Both Arabcheif and the Senior Ref apply a PK to Red 5 for being offside.

The only way that this could be correct is if the QTI created an offside line - for if Blue 6 had managed to strip the ball and pass it to Blue 12, no one would say Red 5 couldn't tackle him.

Under 10.6.c.ii the pass puts Red 5 onside. The question of a QTI offside line does not arise in that case.

In the scenario where Red 10 is tackled into touch, Red 5 was offside before the ball went into touch and the question is whether he should be allowed to benefit from being offside.

Although another possibility is that Senior Ref is not considering exactly the same scenario we are....

There has been no consistency throughout.