Offside in-goal

[Davet]

PK if he ignoresthe refs instruction to stop.

Discussion with ref he didn't seek to manage it.

 

[Dickie E]

It is also a matter of inculcating good habits.

There is some sense to that but it is the same with any other non-material offence.

 

[chopper15]

I've queried it myself, and was told the latest IRB directive to refs makes it clear. If he's offside and moving forward, its a PK.

Any chance of us seeing the IRB directive to determine if the interpretation justifies the action taken by the ref in the scenario #1?

It strikes me that OB's comment, 'It is also a matter of inculcating good habits., is a bit doctrinal if we don't get a look see.

 

[Taff]

Any chance of us seeing the IRB directive to determine if the interpretation justifies the action taken by the ref in the scenario #1?

OB gave a link in post 7 of THIS thread.

 

[SimonSmith]

I agree with the penalty.

It may seem non material, but he is still gaining yards that he is not in fact entitled to. That gets him closer to the receiver.

You let that one go, difficult to enforce later when it really does become material

 

[chopper15]

I agree with the penalty.

It may seem non material, but he is still gaining yards that he is not in fact entitled to. That gets him closer to the receiver.

You let that one go, difficult to enforce later when it really does become material

But the offsider was behind his goal-line and the catcher was in his own half, Simon.

Surely 11.4(a) can’t be ignored in this scenario?

When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may
land.


And Taff, the scenario that OB gives reference to is nothing like the one we're discussing which is relevent to 11.4(a).

 

[JonnoNeath]

I can't yet see anything in the thread which indicates that the offside player was beyond the imaginary 10m line. He was simply in front of the kicker...offside in open play.

Donaldo, was the player in front of the imaginary 10m line?

 

[SimonSmith]

OK, I must have missed something.

How, when we apply 11.1, is the player not offside:

11.1 OFFSIDE IN GENERAL PLAY
(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three
things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.
(b) Offside and interfering with play. A player who is offside must not take part in the game.
This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.
(c) Offside and moving forward. When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside.

My bold

 

[Ian_Cook]

Dickie, to your point: let's assume that the kicker is the hindmost man and can't be bothered (or isn't able) to chase his kick. All his team-mates are offside, adn thus out of the game. In law, they must stand still until a) the red team has caught the ball, and b) has either run 5m or passed. Given that everyone on the Blue side is on or behind the 5m line, then Red, with a flying start at the half-way line, should be travelling at pace and 45m away from the nearest opponent.

Now, if we allow offside blue players to move forward while the ball is in the air, they might reasonably be expected to make it to the 22 when the catch is made, and perhaps a further 6-7m by the time the catcher has run 5m or passed. Thus, when Blue crosses the halfway line, the nearest defender is only 22m away, instead of 45m. Attacking options and prospects of territory have been severely limited - breakdown will be 28m behind where it ought to be. PK, as per iRB directives. Why would you not? Have the Aussies so quickly fallen out of love with the fast open game they've been asking the rest of the world to play?

I agree 100%. ANY amount of territory covered downfield by an offside player is territory he is illegally stealing from his opponent.


There is no escaping from the fact that any player in an offside position who heads downfield and makes, say, 10m before he is put onside by his team-mate is 10m further downfield that he is allowed to be, and this has the potential to bring him into play earlier that would have been the case had he adhered to the offside law, in other words, he had gained materially from breaking the Law.

This was the whole basis of the Springboks' tactics in 2009; a player like Fourie Du Preez would kick ahead and chase hard after his kick, overtaking other players who were making progress downfield whilst offside. Du Preez would then arrive to pressurise the kick receiver, and he would be followed up by players who were several metres ahead of where they should have been because they had made illegal progress (and therefore gained a material advantage) before they were made onside by Du Preez overtaking them.


Cane the offside players off the park I say!! :norc:

 

[PaulDG]

Surely 11.4(a) can’t be ignored in this scenario?

When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may
land.

Chopper.

That bit of Law gives an explicit example of when a player must be considered as "offside and interfering with play" - it's about establishing the importance of the 10m Law (which is one of those that tends to get forgotten at the lower levels).

It's not the only time a player in front of a kicker is offside and interfering with play.

And this season, in accordance with the IRB's desire to create a more running game that appeals to SH TV audiences, we are directed to penalise any lardy 65 year old prop who doesn't start to jog backwards.

 

[Dixie]

But the offsider was behind his goal-line and the catcher was in his own half, Simon.

Surely 11.4(a) can’t be ignored in this scenario?

When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may
land.

Chopper, I'm not sure you've fully understood this 10m law. If the ball will land on the Red 10m line, all Blue players who were in front of the kicker and who were between the half-way line and the Red 10m line must retire to the half way line, and wait there to be put onside by one of their own players. Anyone who was offside but wasn't in the Red half of the field must simply stand still and wait to be put onside - either by their own player, or by the opposition dropping the ball, running 5m, kicking or passing.

Now, in the scenario in question, the FH is kicking from deep within his in-goal, and the offside player was also in-goal. The ball would land on the opposition 10m line. We are 50m away from any possible application of the 10m law. It's simply not relevant to this discussion.

 

[OB..]

And this season, in accordance with the IRB's desire to create a more running game that appeals to SH TV audiences, we are directed to penalise any lardy 65 year old prop who doesn't start to jog backwards.

Jog backwards? No, I don't think so. He has to stand still, that is all the law requires. Jogging backwards is only required under the 10m law.

 

[PaulDG]

Jog backwards? No, I don't think so. He has to stand still, that is all the law requires. Jogging backwards is only required under the 10m law.

My understanding is the directive requires players to take positive steps to put themselves onside.

Standing still being no longer adequate as it still gives an advantage.

 

[Taff]

My understanding is the directive requires players to take positive steps to put themselves onside. Standing still being no longer adequate as it still gives an advantage.

I've just had a quick squint at the directive, and it says

A player who is in front of a team mate who has kicked the ball should retreat and must not move forwards until played onside ...

Must admit that's not how I understood it. :chin:

 

[OB..]

Tricky, when that is not what the law requires. And they tell us there are no new laws!

 

[Taff]

Tricky, when that is not what the law requires. And they tell us there are no new laws!

Exactly what I thought. I suspect therefore that it's just badly worded and in trying to keep matters simple and concise, they've inadvertently caused confusion. Must admit I've not seen an elite ref insist on an offside player in general play retreating - they usually just say "Stand still white" which does make more sense than the directive as written.

 

[Dixie]

It's a typical iRB cock-up. The Dublin schools have a work experience programme, and they let the 15 year-old draft the directive having been given a quick intro to Laws 11.1 and 11.4. The result - conflation of the two.

It is impossible to ping someone under the Directive because they are not committing an offence. If yo end up red carding someone for repeatedly not committing an offence, you'll look pretty stupid at the hearing.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper, I'm not sure you've fully understood this 10m law.

Now, in the scenario in question, the FH is kicking from deep within his in-goal, and the offside player was also in-goal. The ball would land on the opposition 10m line. We are 50m away from any possible application of the 10m law. It's simply not relevant to this discussion.

Thanks Dixie I recognise what you're all on about, I was merely pointing out:

Because the distance in this paticular scenario between in-goal and where the ball landed is so great, the player was in no position to interfere with play and the IRB video eg is not relevent to the discussion, I was merely wondering why the apt wording of 11.4 (a) couldn't be used as a 'way out' for any fair minded ref.:hap:

 

[SimonSmith]

Have you read the thread or just the posts you want to?

Ian's post on the SA tactics is the most pertinent one. They may not be directly impacting play, but they ARE stealing yards to which they are not entitled.

And "fair minded refs" my arse

 

[Donaldo01]

I can't yet see anything in the thread which indicates that the offside player was beyond the imaginary 10m line. He was simply in front of the kicker...offside in open play.

Donaldo, was the player in front of the imaginary 10m line?

No. the 10m law is a red herring.

Actually, had I read Law 11 more carefully, I would have saved myself the trouble of posting (with my emphasis)

(a) A player who is in an offside position is liable to sanction only if the player does one of three things:
• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.
(b) Offside and interfering with play.A player who is offside must not take part in the game.
This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.
(c) Offside and moving forward.When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside.

Personally, I think (c) above covers the discussion on the directive nicely - especially as it covers my understanding of same. If the player is not within the 10m zone they must stand still. There is no requirement to retreat (although they may do so presumably!).

The directive quotes law 11.1(a).

That's all clear now then!