[Law] Offside or no offside - Ospreys v SF

[Pegleg]

I'm not referring to the incident in question - just the phrase "he's entitled to loiter", which I don't think is the case - if he's in an on side position, he's not loitering and if he's in an offside position, he's not entitled to loiter.

If you're in an offside position and not retreating, you're going to run the risk of being penalised.

Tht is not what the law says. You can stand your ground as long as you are not offside under the 10 m law. The law is very clear on this. (11.1(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.)
If you are offide under the 10m law you must retreat. once youce doe so you can stand still until a team mate or an opponant "complete the job as re law 11.2 & 11.3.

Sadly you are being led by the TV refs who get this wrong time and time again.

 

[DocY]

Tht is not what the law says. You can stand your ground as long as you are not offside under the 10 m law. The law is very clear on this. (11.1(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.)
If you are offide under the 10m law you must retreat. once youce doe so you can stand still until a team mate or an opponant "complete the job as re law 11.2 & 11.3.

Sadly you are being led by the TV refs who get this wrong time and time again.

So under which circumstances would you apply 11.9?

 

[ChuckieB]

consideration of the 10m law is relevant to a point though. There was a kick and, as an extended play, you must have at least firstly considered whether he was within 10m and whether you were then to have applied the rest of the 10m law provisions. This is to help determine how he would have then been played onside.

Having decided he was not, you can then apply the right general provisions which are less restrictive than those in the 10m law.

 

[ChuckieB]

So under which circumstances would you apply 11.9?

I see this as a very credible challenge.

He was offside by definition, i.e. in front of a team-mate who last played the ball - the kicker

He took one step back, at best, so you might quite reasonably consider him loitering.

He has definitely benefited by being put onside by the action of the opposition.

11.9 - The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action. Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line

This seems to trump my previous thinking. No try!

 

[DocY]

I see this as a very credible challenge.

FWIW, my rule of thumb: is the player waiting for a team mate or an opponent? If I think he's waiting for his team mate, play on, if I think he's waiting for an opponent: loitering.

In fact I had one a couple of seasons ago: a second row not retreating after a bit of kick tennis, waited for the fullback to pass then went up for the tackle. PEEP! "But sir, he passed the ball!". Gave his game away a bit. What do they say about a little knowledge?

 

[Camquin]

As ever the law is poorly worded.
Marginal calls - which for those of us without a TMO have to be made in the heat of the moment - will cause debate.
I suspect there would have been as much debate it the referee had blown for offside.

To me it comes under no C&O offence- then try not to blow the whistle.

 

[ChuckieB]

FWIW, my rule of thumb: is the player waiting for a team mate or an opponent? If I think he's waiting for his team mate, play on, if I think he's waiting for an opponent: loitering.

In fact I had one a couple of seasons ago: a second row not retreating after a bit of kick tennis, waited for the fullback to pass then went up for the tackle. PEEP! "But sir, he passed the ball!". Gave his game away a bit. What do they say about a little knowledge?

This is a great example that pretty much has it all and demonstrates the likely rationale for 11.9. Sadly, can't put the clip into the law book though. Evidently resulted in incorrect outcome on the pitch!

 

[Pegleg]

So under which circumstances would you apply 11.9?

If the player was offside, probably not after a kick, so no 10 mtr law applying, and close enough to impact upon an opposition player. The law is clear here. The player is out side the 10 so deemed not to impact the catcher.

Let me reverse the question to you. When you ping a player who complies with the law not to move forward and he says but the law book says.... How are you going to justify ignoring the law book sections to which I, and others, have referred?

Law 11.1 / 2 / 3 / 4 all point to the player being legal why does 11.9 trump them all?

 

[Pegleg]

FWIW, my rule of thumb: is the player waiting for a team mate or an opponent? If I think he's waiting for his team mate, play on, if I think he's waiting for an opponent: loitering.

In fact I had one a couple of seasons ago: a second row not retreating after a bit of kick tennis, waited for the fullback to pass then went up for the tackle. PEEP! "But sir, he passed the ball!". Gave his game away a bit. What do they say about a little knowledge?

Indeed, he knew he could stand his ground and be put on-side by the opposition player. Why? Because that is what the law book says.

 

[Taff]

For me, the try is good.

The player in question was obviously offside but probably (just) outside the all important 10m line across the field. Ie there was no C&O offence under the 10m Law. Once he was put onside by an opponent - play on.

On a slightly separate point, assuming for a minute that he WAS within the 10m area, given that he can now only be put onside by the actions of a teammate, at which stage could we forget about him? At the next tackle / ruck / maul? :chin:

Not looking to undermine. I just had it as him suggesting "outside the 10" as the receiver outside the 10m line, not 10 metres distance (on reflection not relevant in itself). The 2nd statement on its own, not wrong in itself, is applicable in general play, and thus not relevant either as regards a kick head situation, which this is, when the 10 law specifically applies.

I'm just curious Chuckie, but are you from Cornwall?

 

[Dickie E]

On a slightly separate point, assuming for a minute that he WAS within the 10m area, given that he can now only be put onside by the actions of a teammate, at which stage could we forget about him? :chin:

If he is inside 10 metres he needs to actively retire until 1 of 2 things happen. He either reaches the 10 metres or an onside team mate runs past him. At that stage we can forget about him.

 

[The Fat]

For me, the try is good.

The player in question was obviously offside but probably (just) outside the all important 10m line across the field. Ie there was no C&O offence under the 10m Law. Once he was put onside by an opponent - play on.

On a slightly separate point, assuming for a minute that he WAS within the 10m area, given that he can now only be put onside by the actions of a teammate, at which stage could we forget about him? :chin:


I'm just curious Chuckie, but are you from Cornwall?

Taff,
The player who is offside under the 10m law must retire behind the imaginary 10m line. Once outside the 10m he can then stand still the same as any of his other team mates who were in front of the kicker.
Does that answer your question?

 

[ChuckieB]

For me, the try is good.

The player in question was obviously offside but probably (just) outside the all important 10m line across the field. Ie there was no C&O offence under the 10m Law. Once he was put onside by an opponent - play on.

On a slightly separate point, assuming for a minute that he WAS within the 10m area, given that he can now only be put onside by the actions of a teammate, at which stage could we forget about him? :chin:


I'm just curious Chuckie, but are you from Cornwall?

Yeah. Wasn't great was it! it must just come from mixing with you guys. Where do you come from? LOL.

Caught you having changed your original post! But to answer your edited question, we can't forget about him for a short while.

Firstly he must retreat the 10 metres. Once he has complied, he might remain offside but can't be penalised specifically under the 10 metre rule.

To be played onside, other onside team mates must run past him. It's the only way. You can now forget about him. However, luckily for him this might be achieved before he has actually run the full 10m.

 

[Taff]

Taff. The player who is offside under the 10m law must retire behind the imaginary 10m line. Once outside the 10m he can then stand still the same as any of his other team mates who were in front of the kicker. Does that answer your question?

I think it does yes. I've always struggled a bit with the 10m Law - a hell of a lot happens in a very short period of time and the law as to how an offender gets put onside takes a bit of thinking about; time which we don't normally have. Thankfully, at my level offsides under the 10m Law are pretty rare. So in a nutshell, are we saying:

• If the offender DOESN'T retire to the 10m line - PK / scrum advantage. Normal advantage laws apply.
• If the offender DOES retire to the 10m line - he can be put onside by an opponent the same as everybody else. Ie by an opponent kicking, running 5m or passing the ball.

... Where do you come from? LOL.

Not far from Llanelli. AKA "Gods Country". :biggrin:

 

[ChuckieB]

I am prepared to accept that there are a number who see only one view on this.

I myself am a subscriber, after much consideration, to the loitering law trumps all provision. I have changed my tone. Some have been less able to accept an alternative point of view and one has even placed me on an ignore list for enquiring too deeply on another thread when trying to clarify a contentious point.

I justify for myself and this is what is important for me and how I have come to the conclusion.

• He is offside at some point. "In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball." There is an offside line for him because of the kick.
• Because he is offside an not making any obvious moves to retreat (perhaps one step only) he may be reasonably considered to be loitering
• He remains offside for at least the period he is not made onside by his own team. As such(11.9) "A player who remains in an offside position is loitering."
  

Even If you see him as being made onside by the opposition you are then ignoring the really important provision of 11.9, in bold " [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." That this statement is complemented with its own specified sanction means it must be important enough to have to consider in the first place.He clearly benefitted from being played onside by his opponents, if you saw the onside that way, and so within the provision set out there is clearly sufficient reasoning for me to penalise in this instance. Curiously, I am now also noting it is a straight penalty kick and does not include the additional scrum option at the place the ball was last played by one of his team mates.

And then:

Separately, as regards the loitering provisions for offside, this is not England v Italy where a number quite reasonably supported the determination that without an offside line the loitering rules cannot be applied. Here there is an offside line in the first place which makes it different. I am happy with that and certainly this case helps cement that understanding as well.

 

[ChuckieB]

opponent kicking, running 5m or passing the ball.
Not far from Llanelli. AKA "Gods Country". :biggrin:

You see, there's another interpretation that will be disputed and will get you into trouble! Our Yorkshire brethren would never accept that


Llanelli's a country now, is it?

 

[Taff]

... Curiously, I am now also noting it is a straight penalty kick and does not include the additional scrum option at the place the ball was last played by one of his team mates.

Why not?

If a player is offside there is always a PK / scrum option.

 

[ChuckieB]

Why not?

If a player is offside there is always a PK / scrum option.

It's a specific law. It seems to have it's own specific sanction. Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line.

That's why I was suggesting it was curious.

 

[The Fat]

So ChuckieB,
The two fullbacks decide they are going to have a game of kick tennis. Let's say each is just outside their own 22 and all other 28 players are somewhere in between but none are within the imaginary 10m line of the opposition's fullback.
Each fullback kicks the ball 4 times while their team mates stand still and watch the ball sail backwards and forwards over their heads and alternating between being offside, then onside, then offside again and so on.
Eventually the Red fullback decides it's time to play some footy and, while the Blue fullback is shaping to kick yet again, he calls to a couple of his team mates to drop behind him and when he receives Blue's kick he decides to run the ball and passes to his #12.
Blue #8, who until now has been standing 12m from Red fullback, now moves forward and nails the Red #12.

Considering your post re loitering, are you really going to penalise Blue #8 for loitering or are you going to play on or perhaps even rule something else?

 

[ChuckieB]

So ChuckieB,
The two fullbacks decide they are going to have a game of kick tennis. Let's say each is just outside their own 22 and all other 28 players are somewhere in between but none are within the imaginary 10m line of the opposition's fullback.
Each fullback kicks the ball 4 times while their team mates stand still and watch the ball sail backwards and forwards over their heads and alternating between being offside, then onside, then offside again and so on.
Eventually the Red fullback decides it's time to play some footy and, while the Blue fullback is shaping to kick yet again, he calls to a couple of his team mates to drop behind him and when he receives Blue's kick he decides to run the ball and passes to his #12.
Blue #8, who until now has been standing 12m from Red fullback, now moves forward and nails the Red #12.

Considering your post re loitering, are you really going to penalise Blue #8 for loitering or are you going to play on or perhaps even rule something else?

If I have understood your scenario. Immediate reaction, yes. But not for loitering on its own but for the action of the tackle. I am seeing the scenario is no different, whether it has been going backwards or forwards for a while or once only. 8 has benefitted by pinning a player down and halting an advance when he should have been working his way back onside behind his own teammates.

On a lighter note, why do you suppose forwards hate the kicking game? They know it could force them to have to retreat several times over, effectively yo-yoing up and down the park and it puffs them out, not to mention the poor old ref! They are invariably never played onside unless perhaps the kicking game becomes squeezed and it is then normally the kicker or another back who is the one who makes the intervention from an onside position. Other than that, they probably end up closer than 10 metres if it becomes really tight, and they end up getting penalised for that first!