Offside under 10 meter law after a kick to touch?

[FightOrFlight]

In a game today I pinged a team under the 10 meter law even though the ball was out of play. However in a similar case later on with the other team I did not...much to their displeasure!! Just wondering if it got it right.

Here's what happened....lineout...throwing team in their 22. They go off the top and back to 10. He kicks the ball and slices it a bit so it goes into touch and is caught by oppo winger about 1-2m further out than where the lineout mark was. None of the kicker's forwards had retreated the 10m from where they were set at the lineout and so stopped the quick throw which the winger had a look at taking but didn't as they were all there. I pinged the kicking team for offside under the 10m law. Correct call?

Later in the game with teams reversed a similar slice in the 22 off a lineout(it was a pretty gusty day) but the ball rolled past the rail and bounced off a spectator's leg and so was "off the paddock" and touched and so the quick throw was off...however again the kicker's forwards were blocking the throw but as the quick was now off I saw it as not material and just called the lineouit as was. They were not happy seeing as I pinged them for it earlier.

Do we think I got this right?

 

[PaulDG]

I'm going to say this is one the Law Lords ought to be sorting out with a proper ruling or a look at the Good Book.

You can see it from those forwards point of view - the ball is in touch, they're all still standing there so both sides are expecting a line out.. it would be bizarre if one side's forwards had to jog back 10m and then 10m back to the LoT, wouldn't it? In fact, isn't there every chance that another ref on another day would ping them for leaving the lineout?

And then there's the way you saw it.. This "zombie ball" that isn't dead but isn't on the pitch either.. and a tactical option for a quick throw that would have been unrealistic a few years ago but looks like a good option far more often with our new view of things...

You made your decision. I think it can easily be supported by Law, so yes, you got it right.

But I don't think the Law Lords really meant this to be an outcome, nor many of the other things we've discussed about potential offsides and zombie balls.

Hopefully that ruling will come up in my lifetime.

 

[Dickie E]

out of intetest, where did you award the PK?

 

[Blackberry]

I would interpret it as......
the offside players are ok if they don't interfere with a quick lineout, like retiring players at a quick penalty being OK if they don't interfere.

 

[PaulDG]

I would interpret it as......
the offside players are ok if they don't interfere with a quick lineout, like retiring players at a quick penalty being OK if they don't interfere.

How many of them (forwards, after all!) would even realise there's a possibility they're offside? The ball is in touch - their instincts are to walk towards the LoT, not to run 10m back from it.

 

[Taff]

How many of them (forwards, after all!) would even realise there's a possibility they're offside? The ball is in touch - their instincts are to walk towards the LoT, not to run 10m back from it.

My guess is that very few would consider themselves offside while the QTI option exists, but I'd bet you a pint that very few had read the memo from a couple of years ago either. I'm sure someone will have a link to it somewhere.

When the QTI was introduced it changed things.

 

[crossref]

How many of them (forwards, after all!) would even realise there's a possibility they're offside? The ball is in touch - their instincts are to walk towards the LoT, not to run 10m back from it.

My guess is that very few would consider themselves offside while the QTI option exists, but I'd bet you a pint that very few had read the memo from a couple of years ago either. I'm sure someone will have a link to it somewhere.

When the QTI was introduced it changed things.

Quick throw ins were introduced decades ago weren't they?

 

[Taff]

Quick throw ins were introduced decades ago weren't they?

I'm not sure exactly when they were introduced, but I thought that in their current form (ie throw can go backwards etc) I thought that was only 3 - 4 years ago.

 

[FightOrFlight]

In fact, isn't there every chance that another ref on another day would ping them for leaving the lineout?.

Well I think that enters the territory of a ref penalising anyone for anything for any reason. The ball was off the top to 9 and back to 10 who was standing the typical pretty boy mile and a half distance from the defence! They could hardly have thought I was going to ping them. The back rows went to try and block in vain. It was the tight 5 types that lingered around the lineout.

out of intetest, where did you award the PK?

10m from the line where the ball was caught, 5m in field. I remember teasing this out with a ref coach before. The law book did not specify where the PK mark was so he said that given the fact that other offside PKs are on the offside line then the PK mark should if the law is consistent be 10m from where the ball is caught or bounces given that the imaginary 10m line in this case is the line by which they are offside.

I would interpret it as......
the offside players are ok if they don't interfere with a quick lineout, like retiring players at a quick penalty being OK if they don't interfere.

See this is the issue...by being there they interfered with the quick throw. It was not intentional but they still stopped it and made no attempt to even retire a little bit. They knew full well the 10 was going to kick.

The main thing that swung it was the fact some made no effort at all to retreat and just stood still even though I told them to move back when the ball was in the air and I suspected the ball may be caught in touch. Some may even have walked the metre or so forward to mark the lineout.

I meant to mention earlier that the number 3 from the offending team asked if they were taking the PK or the scrum so.....I think he knew full well what just happened!

 

[Dickie E]

I wonder then when they CAN start to move up to the new LoT.

Ball crosses touchline, AR puts flag up, QT is not going to be taken, etc.

Assuming the #10 was the player closest to his own goalline then he and only he can move forward to prevent a QT. If he doesn't do this then the QT is an option in perpetuity.

 

[FightOrFlight]

I wonder then when they CAN start to move up to the new LoT.

Ball crosses touchline, AR puts flag up, QT is not going to be taken, etc.

Assuming the #10 was the player closest to his own goalline then he and only he can move forward to prevent a QT. If he doesn't do this then the QT is an option in perpetuity.

Well those in the 10m zone have to move back out of it...when they do they wait to be played on by teammates or if the QT is taken they are back on once out to the 10m area(played on my action of opponent - passing the ball)

If the QT can be taken but the player with the ball chooses not to I would view it was no effect and leave them to go to the new LoT as long as the reason he chose not to was not because their presence and lack to retreat is stopping him.

If the 10 is furthest back(though a lot of teams have a winger on line with him to chase and play everyone on...or if the oppo get to him try and hit the ruck and hold the fort until the rest get back) then those ahead of him who have retreated out of the 10m or are already out and not moving forward are played on when the QT is taken again through the action of an opponent passing the ball.

 

[PaulDG]

Quick throw ins were introduced decades ago weren't they?

I don't know the date (OB??), but they've been around for a while, yes.

But until the ELV and subsequent incorporation into Law that the ball could be thrown backwards and not just perpendicular to the touch line, they were rare as they were often a poor tactical option.

The backwards throw has, as it was intended, made them more common.

And the Law hasn't caught up with what this means both in terms of Offside and in what is or is not legal in denying a QT. (Is it legal to run to deliberately touch the ball in order to deny the opposition a QT opportunity? Should it be?)

 

[Ian_Cook]

Quick throw ins were introduced decades ago weren't they?

Yes they were, al least as long ago as 1996 (OB.. will know for sure), but until relatively recently they always had to be straight along the LoT, which meant you didn't see them as often because the player either had to throw it to himself, or a team-mate would have to position himself along the LoT to receive the throw.

Since 2008/09, they only have to be "not forward", which means there are potentially more players on the pitch immediately able to receive a QTi. hence, you now see a lot more of them.

 

[crossref]

I'm going to say this is one the Law Lords ought to be sorting out with a proper ruling or a look at the Good Book.

.

I think the IRB video from last season did the job

2 Offside when the ball is kicked to touch thereby preventing quick throw ins

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=9&guideline=5

which suggests that FightorFlight was quite correct in his decisions.

I agree though that this IRB guidance is pretty sparse. the title does make it clear that an offside player cannot interfere with a quick throw in, but it doesn't make it clear whether he has to actually retire under the 10m law when that applies.

 

[PaulDG]

which suggests that FightorFlight was quite correct in his decisions.

Yes. But you can see how, on another day, a different referee would penalise the same group of forwards, not for the 10m Offside but for retiring and hence "delaying the lineout".

Which would mean a FK not a penalty, of course. But, more than that, either decision is one that will startle any spectators and players (just as it did in this case) because, once the ball is in touch, "everyone knows" forwards must go to the LoT to form the lineout.

This isn't a "Double Movement" issue where there's confusion about what those words actually mean, this is something "new" to the game where there's not sufficient Law from above to clarify things for Old Heads.

 

[crossref]

i don't disagree, and it was a shame that the IRB 'clarified' it with a piece of video and no text. They could be more forthcoming.

Questions I'd like them to address specifically

- does the 10m law apply if the kick goes to touch ?
- is the quick throw a pass, such that it puts opponents onside (except of course those caught under 10m law, if that applies)
- is an onside player allowed to chase after a loose ball and touch it, in order to prevent a quick throw?
- if you are in front of your kicker (and offside) does that mean you cannot advance to the LOT until either the QTI is no longer on, or you are put onside.

 

[Ian_Cook]

i don't disagree, and it was a shame that the IRB 'clarified' it with a piece of video and no text. They could be more forthcoming.

Questions I'd like them to address specifically

- does the 10m law apply if the kick goes to touch ?
- is the quick throw a pass, such that it puts opponents onside (except of course those caught under 10m law, if that applies)
- is an onside player allowed to chase after a loose ball and touch it, in order to prevent a quick throw?
- if you are in front of your kicker (and offside) does that mean you cannot advance to the LOT until either the QTI is no longer on, or you are put onside.

It could have been worded relatively simply, and without getting into the complications of "zombie" ball or offside when the ball is in touch....

[LAWS]

19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(j) When the ball is kicked into touch, team-mates who were ahead of the kicker must not do anything to prevent quick throw in from being taken.

[/LAWS]

 

[crossref]

It could have been worded relatively simply, and without getting into the complications of "zombie" ball or offside when the ball is in touch....

[LAWS]

19.2 QUICK THROW-IN
(j) When the ball is kicked into touch, team-mates who were ahead of the kicker must not do anything to prevent quick throw in from being taken.

[/LAWS]

that doesn't answer any of my four questions!

it also begs 5th - players in front of the kicker can surely be put onside by the kicker, after which they are free to defend the QTI

 

[FightOrFlight]

that doesn't answer any of my four questions!

it also begs 5th - players in front of the kicker can surely be put onside by the kicker, after which they are free to defend the QTI

But those in the 10m zone have to make an effort to retire out of it...not just stand there and wait for a teammate to play them on. If they retire back 6m and are then played on then yes they are onside but only if they were making the attempt to retire when they were played on.

 

[OB..]

Quick throw ins were introduced decades ago weren't they?

Some time between 1959 and 1974, but originally the throw had to be along the line of touch. That restriction was removed in 1992.