That's covered by 11.8.Yeah, its for the lumbering forward meandering back on side at a ruck with his arms in the air "accidentally" getting in the opposition's way
That's covered by 11.8.Yeah, its for the lumbering forward meandering back on side at a ruck with his arms in the air "accidentally" getting in the opposition's way
They stuck it in 11.8 - just before your favourite law.And if the authorities want to see it as specific to a ruck or a maul situation, and not a kick in general play, stick it in those two laws instead.
I would say not. Just being clear that I wasn't with my post. You know how these internet conversations can get taken the wrong way.
Anyway, just to reiterate in a non vindictive way, I think you're floggin' a dead horse there mate.
If somebody can find an example that would help a lot.It should be there for good reason.
That it hasn't been applied does not mean it is not adding anything useful.
If you are going to referee in a way that differs from everyone else in your society, you are doing everyone a disservice.
According to ChuckieB's profile he is a fan not a referee, so this may be a moot point?
Good for you.Factually, a moot point. But just only in the short term. Found a course for June having already completed the necessarily preliminaries. therafter yes a probability. This is just extra curricular learning.
Why all the watching and analysing and then not seek to put it into it in practice, I thought? Wish I'd considered it earlier!
If somebody can find an example that would help a lot.
Do I need to point out yet again that we ignore the restriction on handling in a ruck so that the scrum half can get play moving more easily?
If you are going to referee in a way that differs from everyone else in your society, you are doing everyone a disservice.
But yes, I agree, a player who is doing as you describe is complying with the Laws
http://rugbyonslaughter.blogspot.in/2017/04/ref-explains-how-player-40m-ahead-of.html?m=1
some more here - some of it accurate, most of it not.
most not accurate you say? Commentators or officials?
I am trying to see my way onside with you guys here. Honestly I am!
This time you might sense me trying to find some common ground at least.
To have the commentary has added some new information that sets out the refs on field determination that it was a try.
We now know he determines the player to be deemed onside by the pass. Ok with that as before, I hadn't checked if it was that or if he had moved 5m first? Ian, I see now suggests both would have been ok.
We know he recognises the player has taken a step back and so not liable for offside and advancing
From that I might even just be prepared to infer, although I am exceptionally dubious, from that one step back that he does not even consider the player as loitering!
If such were to be the case then what the hell is 11.9 for! It is massively specific and even sits in its own section. If it can't even catch this, it's absolutely useless as a law and utterly pointless. The guy was being lazy, seen as unacceptable in other situations, and got a try from it. That can't be right in my mind.
most not accurate you say? Commentators or officials?
Commentators but nothing new in that.
As I've said before, I see 11.9 for phases where there is a clear and unambiguous offside line such as rucks & mauls. I don't completely accept OB's view that 11.8 adequately covers these situations.
Here's why. 11.8 says:
[LAWS]If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team.[/LAWS]
It doesn't say that this player must attempt to get onside. It could have, but it doesn't. Under 11.8, this player can happily stand somewhere in the opposition back line while the ruck progresses as long as he isn't interfering. If we only rely on 11.8, once the opposition run the ball 5 metres our offside friend is back onside and free to tackle.
11.9 prevents our friend from doing so. Might be a clumsy bolt-on law but there you are.
I agree with DickieE. "Loitering" is a term used exclusively in reference to offside lines at phases.
"Loitering" is only used in four Laws in the LotG
Law 11.9, which we are discussing, and which appears immediately after Law 11.8 PUTTING ONSIDE A PLAYER RETIRING DURING A RUCK, MAUL, SCRUM OR LINEOUT
[LAWS]LAW 16.5 OFFSIDE AT THE RUCK
(b) Players must either join a ruck, or retire behind the offside line immediately. If a player loiters at the side of a ruck, the player is offside.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]17.4 OFFSIDE AT THE MAUL
(b) A player must either join a maul, or retire behind the offside line immediately. If a player loiters at the side of a maul, the player is offside.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]20.12 OFFSIDE AT THE SCRUM
(i) Loitering. When a scrum is forming, players not taking part in it must retire to their offside
line without delay. If they do not, they are loitering. Loiterers must be penalised.[/LAWS]
Conversely, Law 11.1 almost allows loitering when a player is offside, but with provisos...
[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]
In this case, the White player was offside in General play, and subject to Law 11.1. So long as, while still offside, he did not take part in play, or move forwards or towards the ball, I would not expect him to be PK.
My follow up question has to be, why do those here see it as applying to the situation for unambiguaous offside sidelines only?
That horse's hide will be tanned by now