Offside confusion

[Guyseep]

So after trying to wrap my head around the unusual SA try against ENG from this weekend and reading up on Law 11 I am confused.

I have drawn 5 scenarios and I am curious what the correct call would be. The biggest confusion I have is regarding law 11.4(f) and how it applies to my examples 2, and 3

Law 11.4(f)states:
The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges
down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre
line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and
the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an
opponent but is not charged down.

and Does the act of charging it down satisfy 11.3(c) and put everyone onside?

11.3(c) states:
Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside

For the example diagrams I drew assume that:
-The red and blue arrows indicate the direction the team is playing toward. The black arrow shows the path of the ball
-Blue #10 does not move or attempt to put anyone onside after kicking it.
-Red #10 charges down the ball(or partially charges it down) and then does not advance.
-In examples 2 and 3 Blue #7 does not have time to move out of the 10m zone and catches it immediately
-In example 5, Red #7 catches it immediately and does not have the chance to retreat behind Red #10

 

[Ian_Cook]

1, 2, 3 and 4 - the distance and position downfield of Blue 7 is irrelevant. He is made onside by Red 10 touching the ball as he charges it down

5. Red 7 is offside (he played the ball that was last played by a team-mate behind him before being made onside under Law 11.2 or 11.3


The 1om law will be confusing you here. The moment Red 10 touches the ball, the 10m Law does not apply

 

[Guyseep]

1, 2, 3 and 4 - the distance and position downfield of Blue 7 is irrelevant. He is made onside by Red 10 touching the ball as he charges it down

5. Red 7 is offside (he played the ball that was last played by a team-mate behind him before being made onside under Law 11.2 or 11.3


The 10m law will be confusing you here. The moment Red 10 touches the ball, the 10m Law does not apply

Gotcha. This is as I expected, but got confused. So the 10m law stops being applicable only in the case of a chargedown or intentionally played/touched ball by Red 10? But if Red 10 catches it the 10m law is still in effect?

 

[Dickie E]

I scored a try many years ago by being in the Blue 7 position.

I was having a bit of rest in the opposition in-goal (having chased something or the other) when my team mate kicked the ball, it took a deflection off a charger-downer, ball landed in my arms, touchdown, try epper:

Guyseep, it seems to be widely acknowledged that an "attempted" charge-down (ie your scenario 1) has the same effect on putting players on side as a "proper" charge down.

 

[Dickie E]

So the 10m law stops being applicable only in the case of a chargedown or intentionally played/touched ball by Red 10?

Be careful here. If Red 10 attempts to catch the ball but knocks it backwards Blue 7 has NOT been put onside.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Be careful here. If Red 10 attempts to catch the ball but knocks it backwards Blue 7 has NOT been put onside.

I agree.

Whether it bounces off him, or he is attempting to block its path doesn't matter. That action puts Blue 7 onside. Its different if he attempts to gain possession of the ball and then loses it. Blue 7 remains offside and must start retiring .

 

[Davet]

An opponent playing the ball dies NOT put you onside under the 10m Law. No action by an opponent can do that.

Confusion exists because the 10m Law does not apply in the case of a charge down. It's not that you get put onside under 10m Law if the ball is charged down, rather you were never offside under it in the first place.

You are probably offside in general play, however. If you are, then the charge down, an opponent playing the ball, puts you onside in that case.

 

[Dixie]

The last three contributors (Dickie E, Ian and Davet) are spot on here. Think of the 10m law (11.4) as somehting completely "other" than what has gone before. So 11.1 to 11.3 dealw ith the normal issues of offside in general play. 11.4 deals with eht wholly separte subset of circumstances in which the offside player is ahead of a line 10m shy of where the ball will land. We are not assisted in this mental spearation byt the fact that the sanctions for ignoring 11.1 to 11.3 appear at the end of 11.4(f); but the iRB does not write its law book to help those who participate or watch the game; it does so to keep costs down by employing schoolboys on training weeks.

 

[crossref]

I agree with the technical analysis above, BUT

in a real game situation it seems to me to be relevant to ask WHY blue 7 is up where he is.

Just taking example 1

How did blue 10 get the ball - let's say it was passed back from a ruck..

So blue 7 is more than 10m up field, sounds like he was in an offside position at the ruck (after a previous tackle or something)

If blue 7 was hanging around on the wrong side of a ruck not hurrying back then he is a lazy runner liable to penalty, and in that case I don't think he is suddenly played onside by Red's partial charge down.
So in THAT scenario, I would PK him.

Just saying that real life is more complex than the diagrams.

 

[Phil E]

I agree with the technical analysis above, BUT

in a real game situation it seems to me to be relevant to ask WHY blue 7 is up where he is.

Just taking example 1

How did blue 10 get the ball - let's say it was passed back from a ruck..

So blue 7 is more than 10m up field, sounds like he was in an offside position at the ruck (after a previous tackle or something)

If blue 7 was hanging around on the wrong side of a ruck not hurrying back then he is a lazy runner liable to penalty, and in that case I don't think he is suddenly played onside by Red's partial charge down.
So in THAT scenario, I would PK him.

Just saying that real life is more complex than the diagrams.

No, no, no. The charge down puts all of the kickers team onside. You cannot penalise blue 7 unless you were already playing advantage for him being offside.

 

[Taff]

... If blue 7 was hanging around on the wrong side of a ruck not hurrying back then he is a lazy runner liable to penalty, and in that case I don't think he is suddenly played onside by Red's partial charge down. So in THAT scenario, I would PK him. Just saying that real life is more complex than the diagrams.

Under the 10m Law, an offside player can only be put onside by a team mate.
If a player is a "lazy runner" only an opponent (or the player himself) can put him onside.

And the 10m Law only applies to offside players; so when the ball is touched in flight or charged down, all the offside players are now onside. Ie you can forget the 10m Law in that case.

 

[crossref]

No, no, no. The charge down puts all of the kickers team onside. You cannot penalise blue 7 unless you were already playing advantage for him being offside.

that's sort of thing I mean. If he was already penalisable, and you are playing advantage, he doesn't suddenly become OK just becasue an opponent touches it.

 

[Phil E]

that's sort of thing I mean. If he was already penalisable, and you are playing advantage, he doesn't suddenly become OK just becasue an opponent touches it.

But that's not what you said, you never mentioned advantage being played. Just because he is offside doesn't mean he automatically gets pinged. If you weren't playing advantage, you can't suddenly decide you don't like him being there and penalise him because he gets the ball.

 

[menace]

Then I think you're wrong...if the blue was able to kick then it is general play (after the ruck or even multiple rucks), and as soon as the opposition intentionally touches the ball the lazy runner ,as you put it, is automatically at that instant put on-side as a result of 11.3 c. Lazy or not he's now onside and just in a fortuitous position. It may not be 'right' but the laws allow him to play the ball now.

Ie referring to

If blue 7 was hanging around on the wrong side of a ruck not hurrying back then he is a lazy runner liable to penalty, and in that case I don't think he is suddenly played onside by Red's partial charge down.
So in THAT scenario, I would PK him.

Just saying that real life is more complex than the diagrams.

 

[Guyseep]

Having started this thread, let me say that everyone is on side before the Blue 10 kicks the ball.
There is no need to ask why Blue #7 is where he is.
If you must then assume the red team kicked it downfield, Red #10 chases and Blue #10 recovers it deep in his half.

 

[Davet]

Menace, yes within reason. But a lazy runner - loiterer, as described in Law - must not be allowed to benefit from loitering.

 

[crossref]

Menace, yes within reason. But a lazy runner - loiterer, as described in Law - must not be allowed to benefit from loitering.

that's what I am getting at.

a lazy runner is offside already and if he isn't getting onside smaertish he is liable to PK
but you won't generally penalise him unless he interferes with play.

If he is offside, loitering, not getting back, but not interfering with play then most likely you will be ignoring him

but if he suddenly collects a kick from his team mate then he is interfering with play. I don't think the fact that red got a finger to it make him immune from punishment.

 

[OB..]

that's what I am getting at.

a lazy runner is offside already and if he isn't getting onside smaertish he is liable to PK
but you won't generally penalise him unless he interferes with play.

If he is offside, loitering, not getting back, but not interfering with play then most likely you will be ignoring him

but if he suddenly collects a kick from his team mate then he is interfering with play. I don't think the fact that red got a finger to it make him immune from punishment.

About 20 years ago our #3 ended up under a pile of bodies near the opponents goal line when trying to drive over. The ball was quickly recycled and another ruck formed on the other side of the pitch. The scrum half decided to try a drop goal, but it was partly charged down. It dropped nicely into the hands of our #3 who had just managed to get up from the earlier ruck. He promptly fell down again over the line and the referee allowed the try.

I think it would have seemed odd to describe him as a lazy runner.

I take your point, but I am not convinced it is the best approach.

 

[crossref]

About 20 years ago our #3 ended up under a pile of bodies near the opponents goal line when trying to drive over. The ball was quickly recycled and another ruck formed on the other side of the pitch. The scrum half decided to try a drop goal, but it was partly charged down. It dropped nicely into the hands of our #3 who had just managed to get up from the earlier ruck. He promptly fell down again over the line and the referee allowed the try.

I think it would have seemed odd to describe him as a lazy runner.

I take your point, but I am not convinced it is the best approach.

I would allow that try!

(you'd have to have a heart of stone to deny it )

 

[Ian_Cook]

that's sort of thing I mean. If he was already penalisable, and you are playing advantage, he doesn't suddenly become OK just becasue an opponent touches it.

That is different from what you originally said.

"in a real game situation it seems to me to be relevant to ask WHY blue 7 is up where he is."

When you are playing advantage, you have in effect already penalised him, and are only allowing the opponents to take that advantage, but when the charge down happens that advantage ends.

in a real game situation it seems to me to be relevant to ask WHY blue 7 is up where he is.

There are legitimate reasons why Blue 7 might be up where he is, e.g. his team might have lost a maul in which he was a participant, and the Red SH put up box kick. The ball bounced so no mark, and Red 10 chased the kick and was the one who partially charged Blue 10's clearing kick. In this case, Blue 7 was never offside and may be roughly where I would expect him to be having just extricated himself from the remnants of the maul.