[Law] Offside or no offside - Ospreys v SF

[The Fat]

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.

Not irritated mate.
Concerned that if you go it alone in your area, however right you believe you are, you may unintentionally do more harm than good.
Cheers

 

[Rich_NL]

I don't think it's my role as referee on the pitch to 'correct' the laws in line with the faults I perceive in them...

 

[Pegleg]

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.

That is failing to retreat 10 mtrs from a PK and NOT being ahead of your side's kicker. A totally different scenario!

The point about the player not being required to retreat IF more than 10mtrs away is, I would guess, that WR does not consider it to be loitering. Hense the requirement to not move forward.

 

[ChuckieB]

I don't think it's my role as referee on the pitch to 'correct' the laws in line with the faults I perceive in them...

Indeed, we should all agree to that.This is not a correction but an interpretation.
So not making things up as we go along.

 

[Pegleg]

I suggest you ask at your society meeting what is correct. I know what is expected here.

 

[Camquin]

It is quite hard to come up with a situation where you are put onside by the actions of the opposition where it is impossible to argue that you are or were loitering.
So what did the law makers intend - apart from another gin.

 

[DocY]

It is quite hard to come up with a situation where you are put onside by the actions of the opposition where it is impossible to argue that you are or were loitering.
So what did the law makers intend - apart from another gin.

If a player was making a reasonable effort to get to an on side position it'd be pretty hard to say he was loitering.

 

[The Fat]

If a player was making a reasonable effort to get to an on side position it'd be pretty hard to say he was loitering.

A player who is ahead of the kicker, providing he is not within the 10m zone, is only required by Law to not move forward or towards where the ball will land. If he complies he is legal. He doesn't need to make a reasonable effort to get to an onside position.

- - - Updated - - -

If a player was making a reasonable effort to get to an on side position it'd be pretty hard to say he was loitering.

A player who is ahead of the kicker, providing he is not within the 10m zone, is only required by Law to not move forward or towards where the ball will land. If he complies he is legal. He doesn't need to make a reasonable effort to get to an onside position.

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how I did that

- - - Updated - - -

Not sure how I did that

 

[Pegleg]

It is quite hard to come up with a situation where you are put onside by the actions of the opposition where it is impossible to argue that you are or were loitering.
So what did the law makers intend - apart from another gin.

I would argue that loitering involves being in close proximity to them similarly to the principle behind having to be at least 10 metres away so as not to interfere with the player.

 

[didds]

It is quite hard to come up with a situation where you are put onside by the actions of the opposition where it is impossible to argue that you are or were loitering.
So what did the law makers intend - apart from another gin.

I'd just put it down as another totally unconsidered possible outcome when the 12 year drew up the law.

Funnily enough two njights ago I was chatting with a mate of mine who was describing a similar sort of situation in football about a non ninterfering but offside plauer that stands still, gets put onside by defenders actions that is then presented with a scoring opportunity after a defelction. He couldn;t have been there to score if he hadn't been initially offside but "not interfering with play" and legal.

didds

 

[ChuckieB]

As a post script from me on this (not new information as such), I can surmise from all my understanding that the 10 Metre law was introduced as some form of safety buffer for the player waiting to catch a ball. He knows he has at least a period of grace from a player who is not allowed within 10m proximity and most likely someone who he doesn't immediately have his eye on when he is looking up for the ball. As such we see an immediate penalty for what might end up as a dangerous play situation.

If he at least knows such player has to be brought onside at some point, by the kicker or an onside player coming from behind the kicker, it won't be a surprise to him and he will be better prepared or preparing for it as a fair contest.

I am happy to suggest that it is not something to be mixed up with what we have been considering here. We can set the 10m law aside (it was at least 10 most likely, I think we all agree).

The loitering law for me is there only to address a totally separate issue. It's not one of safety but specifically of fairness. I err on the side of guys not being lazy and hanging around when they should be taking steps to get onside or be made onside by their team.

I can see no indication in the laws requiring us to differentiate between completed rucks, where the offside line melts away, and kick aheads, where the offside line remains.

Of course then we see the laws on offside in general play do then go on to mention the opponent making you onside. I accept that. But the offside laws certainly go on to say, in 11.9, while you might be onside you should not be permitted to have gained from your action of loitering which, if you accept it as loitering, is what you were doing at the time you were made onside.

 

[ChuckieB]

That is failing to retreat 10 mtrs from a PK and NOT being ahead of your side's kicker. A totally different scenario!

The point about the player not being required to retreat IF more than 10mtrs away is, I would guess, that WR does not consider it to be loitering. Hense the requirement to not move forward.

Just used it as an example of a specific law overriding other laws that we already apply, which was a backstory in the discussion.

As I said, ......just to demonstrate the sort of evidence that might help support my stance on laws that can't be ignored and trump anything else.

 

[Pegleg]

You've not explained why that law trumps the others as opposed to the reverse. As I said speak to your society and listen to the senior guys.

 

[Pegleg]

As a post script from me on this (not new information as such), I can surmise from all my understanding that the 10 Metre law was introduced as some form of safety buffer for the player waiting to catch a ball. He knows he has at least a period of grace from a player who is not allowed within 10m proximity and most likely someone who he doesn't immediately have his eye on when he is looking up for the ball. As such we see an immediate penalty for what might end up as a dangerous play situation.

If he at least knows such player has to be brought onside at some point, by the kicker or an onside player coming from behind the kicker, it won't be a surprise to him and he will be better prepared or preparing for it as a fair contest.

I am happy to suggest that it is not something to be mixed up with what we have been considering here. We can set the 10m law aside (it was at least 10 most likely, I think we all agree).

The loitering law for me is there only to address a totally separate issue. It's not one of safety but specifically of fairness. I err on the side of guys not being lazy and hanging around when they should be taking steps to get onside or be made onside by their team.

I can see no indication in the laws requiring us to differentiate between completed rucks, where the offside line melts away, and kick aheads, where the offside line remains.

Of course then we see the laws on offside in general play do then go on to mention the opponent making you onside. I accept that. But the offside laws certainly go on to say, in 11.9, while you might be onside you should not be permitted to have gained from your action of loitering which, if you accept it as loitering, is what you were doing at the time you were made onside.

Ask yourself why an offside player can't advance to the ball. Why does the wording not say "an offside player must retreat"?


Can't wait for the answer.

 

[ChuckieB]

Ask yourself why an offside player can't advance to the ball. Why does the wording not say "an offside player must retreat"?


Can't wait for the answer.

Here goes........

I can't tell you what it doesn't say, only what it does say, which is then verifiable.

..........."However, the offside player cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.

Note "interferes with play" comes first, followed by or not and. As such "interferes with play" is a mutually exclusive activity. It can happen independent of direction of movement just the same as moving forward is itself an independent movement requiring a sanction in its own right.

Can't wait for your response.

 

[Pegleg]

The "OR" indicates options; "If you do this OR that OR the other." They have equal validity.

A player only has to move 10 mtrs away from the player IF he is within 10. If he is already outside he dones not need to do so as he is already 10 mtrs away. He must not move towards the ball. The law says what he must not do. It does not say what he must do. Why? It's because he has a choice, stay put or retreat His call.

As suggested take guidence from your society. If they have the same view as you then happy days for you. Alternative they might just stop you getting a rough time from an advisor.

 

[winchesterref]

I think for me, the definitions must be read in conjunction with the laws for this scenario.

[LAWS]DEFINITIONS

At the start of a game all players are onside. As the match progresses players may find themselves in an offside position. Such players are then liable to be penalised until they become onside again.

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.

Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.

In general play, a player can be put onside either by an action of a team-mate or by an action of an opponent. However, the offside player cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.[/LAWS]

The final part - "or fails to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands" holds the answer for me. A specific situation - kick forward - where the player complied with the relevant law, was then played onside, and took advantage legally.

 

[Camquin]

Looking back Loitering is not in the 1991 laws - so do we, nonchalantly looking at OB, know why it was added?

 

[Dickie E]

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.

To support this argument have a look at the sanction for 11.9 which says [LAWS]Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line[/LAWS]

The concept of an "offside line" only makes practical sense at a ruck, maul, etc. Where is the offside line for a kick in general play?

 

[chbg]

For me the second sentence is 11.9 helps to define loitering:


[LAWS]11.9 Loitering

A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. 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.

Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line[/LAWS]

The loiterer, whilst not appearing to take an active part, affects how the opposition wish to play the ball by his very presence e.g. perhaps he stops them going down the blind side, even though they have passed the ball and so put him back onside under 11.8.