[Law] Offside or no offside - Ospreys v SF

[Dickie E]

I myself am a subscriber, after much consideration, to the loitering law trumps all provision.

As described by someone else, I view loitering to occur in a non-kicking phase of play. For example, at a ruck that Red wins. A Blue player is offside and is meandering back through the Red centres and tackles the Red #12 who has just received the pass. He could not argue that he was put onside by the Red passes.

 

[Pegleg]

If the payer has to reteat, why does the law say@

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:
• ...
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• ....

Why not say "does not retreat"? The requirement to retreat comes under thw 10 mtr law. Loitering will apply in some case but clearly not here.

The "shout" to players in front of the kicker but not "within 10" is "WAIT!" not "Retreat!"

 

[DocY]

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?

11.9 is the more specific law covering the specific situation, so it takes precedence, just as 12.1 (c) (knock on into goal) overrides 12.1 (a) (normal knock on) by covering the specific situation in question.

 

[The Fat]

11.9 is the more specific law covering the specific situation, so it takes precedence, just as 12.1 (c) (knock on into goal) overrides 12.1 (a) (normal knock on) by covering the specific situation in question.

DocY,
I would ask that you read my post #39 and ChuckieB's response at #40 and then make comment please. I'm getting the feeling you are leaning towards penalising for loitering as well. Am I correct in assuming that?

 

[Phil E]

Surely the biggest crime here is the pass that could have been intercepted by a one armed pensioner?

 

[DocY]

DocY,
I would ask that you read my post #39 and ChuckieB's response at #40 and then make comment please. I'm getting the feeling you are leaning towards penalising for loitering as well. Am I correct in assuming that?

I haven't been referring to this particular example, just the general premise that you can be penalised for loitering after a kick. I see nothing in the laws to contradict that. If you're offside at a ruck or maul you can't be put on side by an opposition pass, anyway (11.8).

In your ping pong scenario, I'd probably err on the side of saying he was loitering.

 

[ChuckieB]

So here's another angle. Not conclusive on its own but just to demonstrate the sort of evidence that might help support my stance on laws that can't be ignored and trump anything else.

Quickly taken tap penalty which is a kick. Players from offending side are at best meandering back towards the mandatory 10 metres. At six metres the attacking team passes and the ball is intercepted by a meandering, non-running player , who has only retreated 5 metres from the line of the kick.

Would you ping him?

Yes, In all likelihood. It can't be right.

Under what law? You would be in the territory of 21.7 which covers the whole situation.

Not applying would suggest you could allow our meandering player to be made onside after the ball has moved 5 metres.

But you are able to apply this law as it is specific, i.e. it exists in it own right.

Our loitering law is thus a law that exists in its own right. It is a catch all to sweep anything up anything else that we "know" can't be right or fair. I have him as loitering as he is making not effort to retire beyond the specified offside line, i.e. the moving kicker or his onside advancing teammates

I certainly can't see it as inferring it only applies to a non-kicking phase of play. It comes right at the end of the section and the fact it mentions "The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action." is the hardening agent in the filler.

 

[ChuckieB]

I haven't been referring to this particular example, just the general premise that you can be penalised for loitering after a kick. I see nothing in the laws to contradict that. If you're offside at a ruck or maul you can't be put on side by an opposition pass, anyway (11.8).

In your ping pong scenario, I'd probably err on the side of saying he was loitering.

I sensed DocY was at least considering the loitering laws might well come into play although, as he indicted, he hasn't been referring to this one specifically.

It's not the loitering that is the immediate issue. It is the combination of the loitering and then specifically the intercepted pass which the offending player benefitted from.

Our rule of thumb. If it looks wrong then it probably is. In England v Italy, many thought it looked wrong but then, when we couldn't find reference to an offside line in a tackle only situation, a number softened their stance.

 

[ChuckieB]

Surely the biggest crime here is the pass that could have been intercepted by a one armed pensioner?

and sadly, I would have pulled him back with a wry smile on my face.

 

[The Fat]

and sadly, I would have pulled him back with a wry smile on my face.

And sadly, you would have been wrong to do so:wink:

 

[Dickie E]

Our rule of thumb. If it looks wrong then it probably is.

Chuck, you make a strong case. However, the corollary is "if it looks right it probably is". Hugh Pyle's action looked fine to me.

 

[The Fat]

So here's another angle. Not conclusive on its own but just to demonstrate the sort of evidence that might help support my stance on laws that can't be ignored and trump anything else.

Quickly taken tap penalty which is a kick. Players from offending side are at best meandering back towards the mandatory 10 metres. At six metres the attacking team passes and the ball is intercepted by a meandering, non-running player , who has only retreated 5 metres from the line of the kick.

Would you ping him?

Yes, In all likelihood. It can't be right.

Under what law? You would be in the territory of 21.7 which covers the whole situation.

Not applying would suggest you could allow our meandering player to be made onside after the ball has moved 5 metres.

But you are able to apply this law as it is specific, i.e. it exists in it own right.

Our loitering law is thus a law that exists in its own right. It is a catch all to sweep anything up anything else that we "know" can't be right or fair. I have him as loitering as he is making not effort to retire beyond the specified offside line, i.e. the moving kicker or his onside advancing teammates

I certainly can't see it as inferring it only applies to a non-kicking phase of play. It comes right at the end of the section and the fact it mentions "The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action." is the hardening agent in the filler.

In your quick tap kick scenario. the retreating/meandering player is penalised because he is still offside and interferes with play. The fact that the player taking the quick tap runs 5m is irrelevant in that it could be any distance from 0.001m to 9.999m. The result would be the same if the retreating offender hadn't been made onside by a team mate before he got back the required 10m.

In the OP, the white player is already complying with the Law in that he was outside the imaginary 10m line and was not moving forward. The Law doesn't say he must continue to retreat until he reaches his offside line or a team mate runs him onside.

Your response to my scenario (kick tennis) in post #39 was that you would ping the Blue #8 for loitering and for tackling the Red #12 even though the #8 had complied with all he was required to do. He was in an offside position when his own fullback caught and then kicked the ball but he was outside the 10m zone and did not move forward. He was then put onside when the Red fullback kicked the ball, then he was offside, then onside etc etc etc. He wasn't loitering because he had already complied with the relevant Laws.

An example of loitering would be as follows.
Blue 6 tackles Red 5 and a ruck forms (offside lines in play). After the ruck, Blue 6 is slow to his feet and Red move the ball down field 5 metres where another tackle and ruck take place (new offside lines). Blue 6 makes no effort to retreat as the ball is passed from the Red 9 to Red 10 who is 6m on the other side of Blue 6 (remembering of course that the pass or any number of passes does not put Blue 6 onside after a ruck). Red 10 runs 5m with the ball and Blue 6 turns and tackles him. Even though an opponent has run 5m with the ball, Blue 6 is still guilty of loitering and is therefore penalised. Had Blue 6 been making an effort to get back on side i.e. was not loitering, when Red 10 had run 5m with the ball, Blue 6 could have turned and legitimately tackled him. The referee must decide if, in such a case, Blue 6 was making an effort to get onside or if he was loitering in an offside position in an attempt to gain an advantage.

 

[ChuckieB]

Making a strong case is the best an advocate can ask for!

This separate thread went on for 9 pages and got quite emotive. It was certainly similar but pretty much all was debated within the 10m law/goal line context:

Re: But how is he supposed to defend ,Sir? Offside in-goal

A not dissimilar situation in a game involving my son. Flyhalf in deep in goal, all in front, and hoofs it up the pitch and promptly slips falls over thus eliminating any immediate possibility of own players playing others on side! Reliant on actions of the opposition.


​

It took quite a few pages to get the point that the scenario successfully hoofing the ball up the pitch. Many, including me, agreed the offside player could indeed be made onside by the actions of the opponents. Loitering wasn't even mentioned until the scenario developed further (Flip flop I think it was).

However with my new found understanding of the loitering law, which I had not even considered, I am now of the view that my original assessment for a non retreating player being played onside was wrong.

So I take away something new even it was a changed understanding.

 

[The Fat]

Making a strong case is the best an advocate can ask for!

This separate thread went on for 9 pages and got quite emotive. It was certainly similar but pretty much all was debated within the 10m law/goal line context:

Re: But how is he supposed to defend ,Sir? Offside in-goal

A not dissimilar situation in a game involving my son. Flyhalf in deep in goal, all in front, and hoofs it up the pitch and promptly slips falls over thus eliminating any immediate possibility of own players playing others on side! Reliant on actions of the opposition.


​

It took quite a few pages to get the point that the scenario successfully hoofing the ball up the pitch. Many, including me, agreed the offside player could indeed be made onside by the actions of the opponents. Loitering wasn't even mentioned until the scenario developed further (Flip flop I think it was).

However with my new found understanding of the loitering law, which I had not even considered, I am now of the view that my original assessment for a non retreating player being played onside was wrong.

So I take away something new even it was a changed understanding.

To be completely honest, I find it difficult to comprehend the upshot of what you just posted.
Make it simple for me please.
Are you saying that now you have considered the Law related to loitering, you will now consider any player, who is in front of team mate who kicks the ball, who is not subject to the 10m Law but is simply standing still rather than retreating, is now likely to be guilty of loitering?

 

[ChuckieB]

The quick tap scenarios is just demonstrating that inspite of everything we think we know, specific laws do override. 11.9 is specific law and must be considered.

If you consider our scenario, a player not retreating is actually still offside. It is only subsequent actions or inactions of himself or others that can help him then comply.

• Do not get active in play,
• Allowing a player to play him onside

Other actions:

• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

actually make him liable to sanction immediately.

If you happen to see him as onside by the opponent, then evne then I readily see 11.9 kicks in and the referee makes sure he does not benefit.

Of course if you do not see him:

• standing there;
• in an offside position;
• making no realistic attempt to retreat (just like not rolling away - a judgement call) and;
• in the hopes that an opponent might play him onside;

As being considered loitering then of course you will allow play to continue. I would like to change your mind but I accept that you may not.

I just happen to say the evidence is compelling enough to allow me the application of a law that encompasses the specific circumstances and supporting my call of an infringement.

 

[ChuckieB]

To be completely honest, I find it difficult to comprehend the upshot of what you just posted.
Make it simple for me please.
Are you saying that now you have considered the Law related to loitering, you will now consider any player, who is in front of team mate who kicks the ball, who is not subject to the 10m Law but is simply standing still rather than retreating, is now likely to be guilty of loitering?

Yes.


only If he becomes active by his subsequent actions and then benefits as a result of not having being made onside by his own side but by the actions of an opponent. 11.9 caters for this. Other laws support him not being pinged until such time......

 

[The Fat]

ChuckieB,
I accept we are not going to agree on your use of the loitering law but could I just make the suggestion that before you start pinging players over and over again by invoking your interpretation of the loitering law, you discuss this at length with senior members of your Society/Association, Referee Coach/Assessor or more senior/experienced referees. You may find you are at odds with the majority and then we are in the old "This ref said this last week, Sir" situation.
Cheers,
The Fat

 

[The Fat]

The quick tap scenarios is just demonstrating that inspite of everything we think we know, specific laws do override. 11.9 is specific law and must be considered.

If you consider our scenario, a player not retreating is actually still offside. It is only subsequent actions or inactions of himself or others that can help him then comply.

• Do not get active in play,
• Allowing a player to play him onside

Other actions:

• Interferes with play or,
• Moves forward, towards the ball or
• Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).

actually make him liable to sanction immediately.

If you happen to see him as onside by the opponent, then evne then I readily see 11.9 kicks in and the referee makes sure he does not benefit.

Of course if you do not see him:

• standing there;
• in an offside position;
• making no realistic attempt to retreat (just like not rolling away - a judgement call) and;
• in the hopes that an opponent might play him onside;

As being considered loitering then of course you will allow play to continue. I would like to change your mind but I accept that you may not.

I just happen to say the evidence is compelling enough to allow me the application of a law that encompasses the specific circumstances and supporting my call of an infringement.

A player who is offside in general play following a team mates kick, is not required by law to run back to where the kick was made. A lot of your argument seems to rely on the assumption that he must.

 

[ChuckieB]

At this Easter time, ever heard the saying;

"A prophet is not accepted in his own country"?

I have been dying to get that one in :biggrin:.

 

[ChuckieB]

A player who is offside in general play following a team mates kick, is not required by law to run back to where the kick was made. A lot of your argument seems to rely on the assumption that he must.

Certainly not. Loitering is a perception based on evidence you gather and see. Sometime your perception may be different to others and it can put you at odds with the pack.


There is a saying in business, "if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got"
The take from that is. "to not challenge is to inhibit the possibility of advancement." or something like that.

However best I tail off with the comments on this one. I want to contribute to the forum, not irritate.