Offside in-goal

[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!). Oh .... I'm basing all this on the fact that the directive quotes law 11.1(a).

That's all clear now then!

 

[Dixie]

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!).

Oh .... I'm basing all this on the fact that the directive quotes law 11.1(a).

That's all clear now then!

11.1(a) does indeed cover it: the offside player is liable to sanction if he ... [2nd bullet] moves forward, towards the ball. 11.1(c) merely clarifies and emphasises this second bullet of 11.1(a).

 

[chopper15]

Accepting the 10m law is not going to wash and as this particular scenario is classified as 'in general play', why can't a 'fair ref' use 11.3 a, b or c to 'materially' override the 11.1 (c) bearing in mind the 50m distance involved?

I'm also considering how much of a prat the ref would appear to be to the crowd when awarding a PK at such a distance for a few unfortunate steps taken before being put on-side by either the kicker or the fielder.:sad:

I'm surprised that a ref would even consider a PK in those circumstances when he can justifiably use 11.3.

 

[Taff]

So in effect when looking at offside in general play, this directive has just told us to

• ignore "materiality" and
• to strictly penalise offside players who move forward?

 

[ex-lucy]

well chopper i do it quiet often
i call "wait black" .. they move i blow ...
typical scenario, Sat p.m. match:
5m scrum to black, black 10 kicks the ball from 5m behind scrum .. blakc back row charge upfield ..."wait black" as the kick goes up. They continued to move towards the catcher. Peep. "6 and 8 black offside" "blue, your option ... scrum there or penalty there ..."

 

[chopper15]

So in effect when looking at offside in general play, this directive has just told us to

• ignore "materiality" and
• to strictly penalise offside players who move forward?

Assuming you're referring to the IRB directive, Taff, the scenarios are different. Their clip justifies the decision. But where such a distance is involved, as with the scenario under discussion, materiality IMHO has to be taken into consideration to avoid a pratfall.

So why not let 11.3 take precedence over 11.1 (c) when the distance involved won't materially affect play?



ex-lucy; I'm merely stating that refs' discretion should be used where an appreciable distance is in evidence.

 

[Taff]

... where such a distance is involved, as with the scenario under discussion, materiality IMHO has to be taken into consideration to avoid a pratfall. ... So why not let 11.3 take precedence over 11.1 (c) when the distance involved won't materially affect play?

As I understand it, 11.3 (BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS) will kick in after the the oppos either

• Run 5m with the ball or
• Kick or pass the ball or
• Intentionally touch the ball.

In the meantime, he's offside (and will now be penalised if he moves forward) until he's put on side either by a team mate or an oppo. Once he's put onside, hey it's open play crack on and go where you like.

 

[Davet]

Chopper - you seem to feel that if the player is offside and moves forward then if he is a long way - for a given value of "long way" - from where the ball will land the ref should simply deem it immaterial.

Most refs would feel that the player moving forward is gaining an advantage, he gives himself more time to cover the same distance - ie if he had to wait until played onside before strting to move forward he would have to do so more quickly - use more energy, get more tired etc.

Most refs will not simply ping such a player, but they will loudly remind the player to stand still, and wait to be put onside.

If a player ignores such an instruction then he will get pinged, by any ref who has a sense of fair play.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Most refs will not simply ping such a player, but they will loudly remind the player to stand still, and wait to be put onside.

If a player ignores such an instruction then he will get pinged, by any ref who has a sense of fair play.

and would have the full support of his assessor in both suggested actions.

 

[tim White]

Gaining 5m near the try line transaltes to being 5m further upfield when you eventually make the tackle, but you also reduce time and space available for the non-infringing team and perhaps force them into wrong options.

I would suggest IT IS MATERIAL -it is for the ref to apply the law and directives to free up the space in midfield for the good of the game.

Note to all spectators; to insinuate that any referee is anything other than 'fair minded' is just about the worst insult you can hurl -why do you think players get sent off for doing it?

 

[chopper15]

Chopper - you seem to feel that if the player is offside and moves forward then if he is a long way - for a given value of "long way" - from where the ball will land the ref should simply deem it immaterial.

Most refs would feel that the player moving forward is gaining an advantage, he gives himself more time to cover the same distance - ie if he had to wait until played onside before strting to move forward he would have to do so more quickly - use more energy, get more tired etc.

Most refs will not simply ping such a player, but they will loudly remind the player to stand still, and wait to be put onside.

If a player ignores such an instruction then he will get pinged, by any ref who has a sense of fair play.

Davet, all along my focus was on the original scenario and to claim a PK to be a 'good decision' I thought was simply unfair in those particular circumstances.

Considering the distance, a PK struck me as unrelated to the offence taking place back near the goal-line, and I'm sure the spectators would be utterly bewildered why it was given.

Now for the first time there's 'fairness' coming into the discussion . . . your 'most refs will not simply ping such a player, but they will loudly remind the player to stand still, and wait to be put onside' has reassured me.:clap:

And tim W, if you were venting your spleen on me I hope you will appreciate why 'unfairness' cropped up, it was in reference to that scenario and I assure you I had no intentions of casting such aspersion on your fraternity.

Perhaps you mixed my thread up with #39 which I thought rather wayward . . . but perhaps I misunderstood the comment:sad:

 

[OB..]

As I understand it, 11.3 (BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS) will kick in after the the oppos either

• Run 5m with the ball or
• Kick or pass the ball or
• Intentionally touch the ball.

In the meantime, he's offside (and will now be penalised if he moves forward) until he's put on side either by a team mate or an oppo. Once he's put onside, hey it's open play crack on and go where you like.

If he moves forward before being put onside, then he is liable to a penalty against him. That remains so even if later he is "put onside" - the referee was playing advantage unless he ruled it immaterial.

 

[chopper15]

If he moves forward before being put onside, then he is liable to a penalty against him. That remains so even if later he is "put onside" - the referee was playing advantage unless he ruled it immaterial.

Of course, in the original scenario the ref should've played advantage instead of awarding a premature PK. :clap: :clap:

So it wasn't a 'good decision' after all. Thank you, OB.

I only wish someone had come up with that 'fairness' at the outset.:sad:

 

[Davet]

If the opposition gain possession of the ball 50m downfield where is the advantage compared to a PK on the 5m line?

It may well be that the referee would not play avantage in a situation where it appeared somewhat difficult to achieve.

Simply waitijng to see what happens as a matter of vcoursecan lead to lot of time lost to a game, Better refs will read the situation and make a decsion.

 

[OB..]

Of course, in the original scenario the ref should've played advantage instead of awarding a premature PK. :clap: :clap:

So it wasn't a 'good decision' after all. Thank you, OB.

I only wish someone had come up with that 'fairness' at the outset.:sad:

You are wildly overstating my view. I was addressing the scenario where a player puts himself in an offside penalty position and is subsqeuently "put onside". That does not erase the original offside offence. That situation could only happen if the referee etc.... I was not advocating that the referee should do that. In general he shouldn't.

 

[Taff]

If he moves forward before being put onside, then he is liable to a penalty against him.

Ok. I understand it so far.

... That remains so even if later he is "put onside" - the referee was playing advantage unless he ruled it immaterial.

Not sure I follow you now. Do you mean we should not blow up too early and wait to see if any advantage accrues to the non-offending side?

 

[Davet]

Think fast, blow slow.

But don't hang around half the game waiting to see if something comes of it. Judge whether it will or not as quickly as possible, and avoid wasting time by playing long advantages that then come to nothing.

 

[OB..]

Davet - I couldn't have put it better.

Taff - my point was that the question of a player being put onside after committing an offside offence could only arise IF the referee had decided not to penalise the offence earlier. I was not addressing the question as to whether the referee should or should not have blown earlier (or even subsequently).

 

[Dixie]

So Taff, in the case where the offside player was in-goal and the ball was caught on the opposition 10m line, let's consider three possible scenarios:

a) ref sees the offside player advancing, shouts for him to stop, and he does so: he waits for the opposition to run 5m before setting off again, and tackles the ball carrier on the 22m line. Ref is happy - offence is immaterial, play on.

b) ref sees the offside player advancing, shouts for him to stop, but he does not hear: he advances to his own 10m line, and tackles the ball carrier there. Ref blows for the 5m PK.

c) ref sees the offside player advancing, shouts for him to stop, but he does not hear: he advances to his own 10m line, but is unable to tackle the ball carrier who advances to the 22m line before being tackled by another defender. Ref plays on - advantage gained.

This last one is somewhat contentious, and goes to the heart of the definition of advantage. If you compare the outcome of a) and c), they are identical, adn pretty much represent what should have happened if there had been no offence. The non-offenders were able to play the ball as they wished, and obtained 37m of territory - they had both tactical and territorial advantage. However, if you compare this outcome with the situation if you had blown immediately ... they've lost 18m (tackle on the 22 compared with 5m penalty) and foregone the chance of 3 points.

IMO, the comparison with the 3-pointer is not relevant to the question of advantage. However, this is not the way that advantage is assessed (particularly at the higher levels, where a PK in the red zone is treated as a marker to be returned to if a 5-pointer is not scored). Would be interesting to have the views of others on this.

 

[ex-lucy]

a) every time ..
i dont u/stand why we are having the debate ...

POB says that is what we should do..