Offside under 10 meter law after a kick to touch?

[FightOrFlight]

In essence - with kicks maybe but there are still times when the ball is in touch and the QTI is still on when we do whistle eg a foot in touch.

We need to blow the whistle but that doesn't preclude the QTI IMO or am I out of step?
.

I see your point here, however I was talking about kicks or other situations when the ball is not carried into touch

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I see your point here, however I was talking about kicks or other situations when the ball is not carried into touch

I know you were - but like many threads we've morphed into talking about something slightly different. In this case not radically different (for a change) and I think it warrented a small comment.

I do take your point however.

 

[crossref]

I know you were - but like many threads we've morphed into talking about something slightly different. In this case not radically different (for a change) and I think it warrented a small comment.

I do take your point however.

I think it's part of the same issue -- there are number of ambiguities surronding Quick Throw In. These ambiguities have been there a long time and didn't matter because QTI was quite rare, but three recent changes have made QTI much more common (being able to throw backwards, being able to walk forwards towards to the LoT, being able to take a QTI after a KO into touch) so the ambiguiites have been brought into focus.

 

[crossref]

the ambiguities I'd like to see the IRB resolve

- whistling protocol when the ball goes into touch and QTI throw in is on. (I'd like to see a 2xpeep protocol as above, first peep indicates touch, second peep indicates no QTI)
- 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, or is the burden on you simply to not defend the QTI.

 

[Taff]

.... These ambiguities have been there a long time and didn't matter because QTI was quite rare, but three recent changes have made QTI much more common (being able to throw backwards, being able to walk forwards towards to the LoT, being able to take a QTI after a KO into touch) so the ambiguiites have been brought into focus.

Exactly my point. In it's "current form" the QTI is very new.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Take it one step at a time ....

Step 1. Ball in the air, players within 10m must retire, they don't and are subject to sanction: PK at the place of the nearest player. In the OP that would have been at the original LoT. If no 'opponent waiting to play the ball' then ?????

Step 2. Ball caught in touch. Does ball in touch cancel off-side? Law 6.A.7(e) requires a whistle when the ball is 'out of play' so this would indicate that it does.

Step 3. Does the presence of players "prevent" the QT? Or did the thrower just chose not to?

If you don't whistle for the 'not retiring' when the ball is in the air then when the ball is caught all players can return to the LoT and then QT and LO laws apply.

Good, but really, a QTI is the taking of an opportunity, and that opportunity might not always be possible simply because of what happened immediately beforehand. For example, a player kicks to touch immediately he catches the ball from an opponents kick. He doesn't get a lot of distance and the ball goes into touch close to where his still retiring team-mates are. There is probably no opportunity for a QTi anyway. Those players are entitled to walk to the line of touch to form a line-out and, although technically they were offside under the 10m Law at the moment the ball was kicked, should not be penalised just because of where they happen to be when the ball crosses the touchline.

However, the play that I object to is the one I see in a similar scenario where the kick goes into touch some distance beyond those players, and one of them turns and sprints to towards the ball for the express purpose of challenging a QTi. For mine, this player was offside under the 10m and took advantage of that fact.

[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.
A player who receives an unintentional throw forward is not offside.
A player can be offside in the in-goal.[/LAWS]

 

[PaulDG]

- is an onside player allowed to chase after a loose ball and touch it, in order to prevent a quick throw?

Come to that, is an offside player allowed to chase after a loose ball and touch it?

The ball isn't in play, after all.

 

[FightOrFlight]

Found this on the Leinster Rugby Referees website in the "ask the duty ref" segement. Duty ref here is Paul Haycock(IRFU Level 3, AIL, B&I Cup and European AR):

Question 2: Hi Duty Ref, 15 green kicks the ball directly into touch (inside 22) at the halfway line. Green 14 (loitering on the halfway line) never retreated when hisfull back kicked the ball and would be considered offside however because the ball went directly into touch the offside didn’t have material affect on play. Red 10 catches the ball in touch and looks to take a quick lineout but doesn’t take it as Green 14 is standing 5meters in from play waiting to contest any possible quick throw. Does the fact that the green player is now gaining an advantage from
initially being in an offside position mean he should be penalised or because the ball was made dead by going into touch means it doesn’t matter where he was before the ball went dead. Penalise Green 14 for never retreating or play on? My instinct says play on but feel that it looks wrong as Green has gained an advantage by being offside.
Answer: To prevent/defend a quick throw being taken the player must have been complying with law when the ball went out of play. If the player was offside under the 10 metre law, he must have been retreating towards his goal line when the ball went out. Likewise if the player was offside but not within the 10 metre law, then provided he was not moving towards the ball when the ball went out he may take a position to defend the quick throw. If the player fails to comply with the above they should be penalised as offside as their prevention of the quick throw is material.

 

[ChrisR]

I was starting to think that if the ball was caught in touch that it would be considered 'in play' if a QT was on. However, the definitions declare that a ball in touch is 'out of play'. 'Dead' is defined as out of play.

In the Leinster scenario if a player was complying with law, either retreating (was in 10m) or standing still, then they can move to contest the QT. The more I think about it the more sense it makes and the broader the application. Or am I missing something?

 

[FightOrFlight]

I was starting to think that if the ball was caught in touch that it would be considered 'in play' if a QT was on. However, the definitions declare that a ball in touch is 'out of play'. 'Dead' is defined as out of play.

In the Leinster scenario if a player was complying with law, either retreating (was in 10m) or standing still, then they can move to contest the QT. The more I think about it the more sense it makes and the broader the application. Or am I missing something?

In the PK I awarded what swung it was that no effort was made at all to retreat...had they been moving and had gone some distance back I would have been more sympathetic

 

[Browner]

10m law is essentially 'catcher' protection. Off FOP catching invariably means the approaching players are usually recognising of the landing area & are already decelerating .... so it's [arguably] less important.

I wouldnt penalise under 10m law when the ball lands outside the FOP. My memory says i've never had a risk to a catcher as a result of non application of 11.4 in such circumstances.

QTI prevention offences stand separate to this .

 

[crossref]

so in two nearly consecutive posts there's Browner saying the 10m law doesn't apply for a kick into touch, and Paul Haycock(IRFU Level 3, AIL, B&I Cup and European AR) saying it does

Browner I'm not saying you are wrong, I am saying that the IRB need to actually answer this one and make a call.

 

[Ian_Cook]

10m law is essentially 'catcher' protection. Off FOP catching invariably means the approaching players are usually recognising of the landing area & are already decelerating .... so it's [arguably] less important.

I wouldnt penalise under 10m law when the ball lands outside the FOP. My memory says i've never had a risk to a catcher as a result of non application of 11.4 in such circumstances.

QTI prevention offences stand separate to this .

While I agree that the 10m law does protect the catcher, it is not the reason for having it.

The 10m applies while the ball is still in flight, and if players who are offside under that Law continue to advance toward where the ball is going to land/be caught, they are liable for penalty.

The advice I have from a few current referees I know in NZ seems to agree with what Paul Haycock is saying; that if those players who were offside ahead of the kicker continue to advance, even after the ball has crossed the touchline, they are still liable to be penalised, because

1. they were offside at the time the ball was kicked.

2. the ball going into touch is not specified as one of the ways that a player who is offside can be put onside.

3. they are having a material effect on play.

 

[Taff]

... The 10m applies while the ball is still in flight, and if players who are offside under that Law continue to advance toward where the ball is going to land/be caught, they are liable for penalty.

Not only "continue to advance" they are required to actively retreat until put onside or they've reached the 10m line. I'm sure it's what you meant.

And by moving back, I mean moving back towards their goal line. I think it was St Nigel who PKd an Irish player for moving across the field but still within the 10m. I think his exact were "Moving across the pitch isn't good enough".

 

[OB..]

And by moving back, I mean moving back towards their goal line. I think it was St Nigel who PKd an Irish player for moving across the field but still within the 10m. I think his exact were "Moving across the pitch isn't good enough".

How old was the player?!

Before 2000 the 10m offside line was in fact a 10m circle.

 

[Taff]

How old was the player?! Before 2000 the 10m offside line was in fact a 10m circle.

IIRC it happened in the Ireland v All Blacks match just a few weeks ago.

I often wonder how many people still think it's a circle? A couple of examples:

• About a year or so ago I was watching a match on telly and the on screen "graphic" clearly showed the 10 metres as a circle.
• I was speaking to an assessor after my game, and he mentioned that I'd missed a player not retreating the full 10m. As he was speaking he was drawing an imginary circle on the bar table.

 

[Browner]

While I agree that the 10m law does protect the catcher, it is not the reason for having it.

The 10m applies while the ball is still in flight, and if players who are offside under that Law continue to advance toward where the ball is going to land/be caught, they are liable for penalty.

The advice I have from a few current referees I know in NZ seems to agree with what Paul Haycock is saying; that if those players who were offside ahead of the kicker continue to advance, even after the ball has crossed the touchline, they are still liable to be penalised, because

1. they were offside at the time the ball was kicked.

2. the ball going into touch is not specified as one of the ways that a player who is offside can be put onside.

3. they are having a material effect on play.

I agree by the letter of the law it should happen, but in the case of a skewed kick from the 10 [OP] then i don't think it'll ever get penalised ...... but if anyone can find an example on vid, i'd like to see it. My guess is, that like many other "technical" laws it's ignored in the context of the OP.

 

[Browner]

I think it was St Nigel who PKd an Irish player for moving across the field but still within the 10m. I think his exact were "Moving across the pitch isn't good enough".

vid clip anyone?

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

vid clip anyone?

I tried putting "Non pompous Nigel Owen quotes" into Youtube and it came up with no results!:biggrin:

 

[Taff]

vid clip anyone?

If it helps anyone find it, I think the offender was Paul O'Connell and Ireland were playing from right to left, which I think was the 1st half.