Quick throw in and offside

[wayner]

Teams are Red v Blue. Blue #15 kicks the ball a long way upfield and ball goes into touch. Blue #1 is offside as he is 30m ahead of #15 - but he doesn't advance and starts to retreat. The ball goes into touch. Red tries to take a quick throw at the line out but Blue #1 tries to stop lineout throw. Is Blue #1 offside or is the offside negated when the ball goes into touch?

 

[Dickie E]

Teams are Red v Blue. Blue #15 kicks the ball a long way upfield and ball goes into touch. Blue #1 is offside as he is 30m ahead of #15 - but he doesn't advance and starts to retreat. The ball goes into touch. Red tries to take a quick throw at the line out but Blue #1 tries to stop lineout throw. Is Blue #1 offside or is the offside negated when the ball goes into touch?

For me, provided he was complying with law before ball went into touch (ie not moving forward or retiring if within 10 metres) then he is entitled to participate in the game once ball is in touch. He can't "stop lineout throw" but can legally contest for the ball if a quick throw in is taken.

caveat proiciens

 

[Camquin]

If he is legal, he is permitted to legally mark the thrower from 5m in field and cause them to decide it is safer to take the line-out.

 

[OB..]

He was complying with the law by not moving forward, but that does not in itself put him onside. While retiring he is not allowed to interfere.

However the paragraph on Loitering in the 2017 book does not seem to be covered in the 2018 book.

It is often claimed that the ball going into touch removes any offside lines, but the point is not covered in the laws and seems moot.

 

[crossref]

Agree
It's a shame that when WR put up some videos to explicitly address the OP question, those videos don't help .. the videos showed offside players who continued all the time to advance , ie the straightforward case.

For the player who obediently stood still at the kick .. I would agree that the Law is moot
.. but Dickie's approach in #2 seems sensible .. once the ball is in touch they can advance and legally contest the throw

 

[beckett50]

IMO the player is complying with Law by retiring and not interfering with play.

 

[OB..]

IMO the player is complying with Law by retiring and not interfering with play.

However he is still offside. So the question is at what point does he become onside again? We are now back to the conundrum about whether the ball being in touch nullifies any offside situations.

I think "zombieball" should have a role here. For as long as a QTI is on the cards, offside lines persist, but as soon as it becomes clear that there there cannot (or is not going to be) one, players can move into their lineout set ups.

 

[Dickie E]

I'm picturing poor ol' Wayner back at the clubrooms:

"Wayner, what did you learn from the refs?"

"well, there's this thing called 'zombieball' ... "

 

[Dickie E]

I think "zombieball" should have a role here. For as long as a QTI is on the cards, offside lines persist, but as soon as it becomes clear that there there cannot (or is not going to be) one, players can move into their lineout set ups.

under the right circumstances the QTI can be on the cards until 2+2 on LoT. Given that no-one can move forward except the kicker (or a team mate behind him), it might be up to the kicker to run up & be one of these :horse:

 

[The Fat]

Dickie E has the correct decision back at post #2

 

[Camquin]

The laws have to many corner cases missing,
Adding them in would make the law book longer - but would make it much easier for referees, and therefore for players and viewers.
Try to make the laws easier to understand by making them shorter, was always a fools errand.
.

 

[crossref]

It's unfortunate that the specific Law that would support OB argument.. that you shouldn't benefit from loitering .. was deleted .

(Yet another difference for my table .. can't understand why that Law would go)

 

[OB..]

Dickie E has the correct decision back at post #2

Only if making the ball dead in touch nullifies any offside lines.

Unfortunately the law does not seem to cover this, and I don't know what top level practice is. What is your source?

 

[The Fat]

Only if making the ball dead in touch nullifies any offside lines.

Unfortunately the law does not seem to cover this, and I don't know what top level practice is. What is your source?

Our instruction from ARU (Now AR just because someone thought the ARU brand was "on the nose") has always been that the player ahead of the kicker must be complying with all requirements prior to the ball going into touch. Having done so, the player is able to "rejoin" the match.

 

[OB..]

Our instruction from ARU (Now AR just because someone thought the ARU brand was "on the nose") has always been that the player ahead of the kicker must be complying with all requirements prior to the ball going into touch. Having done so, the player is able to "rejoin" the match.

Thanks. Is anyone aware of a similar ruling in the UK?

It leads to the "unfair" situation where the ball goes into touch near an offside player getting up from a ruck who, having complied with the law, has gained a considerable advantage.

 

[menace]

Thanks. Is anyone aware of a similar ruling in the UK?

It leads to the "unfair" situation where the ball goes into touch near an offside player getting up from a ruck who, having complied with the law, has gained a considerable advantage.

Just supporting Fats post...this is in our game managment document. The last point is pertinent to this discussion.

When the ball is kicked in general play, any player of the kicking team in front of the kicker is offside.
• Offside players who are advancing are cutting down options for counter attack and forcing the receiving team to kick as their first option. Referees must penalise offside players and should no longer rely on continually verbally managing these players because by advancing they have already had an impact on play.
• With a long kick downfield, referees may be able to manage an offside player. The referee should call only once for the player to stop. If the player does not stop immediately (not just slow down), they are liable to penalty.
• With a short or high kick, there will be little or no opportunity for the referee to manage and players must immediately act as per Law or they are liable to penalty.
• Offside players must be dealt with even when the ball looks like it will go into touch because a quick throw may be an option. Once the ball is in touch, offside no longer applies and offside players may move forward toward a lineout or where a quick throw is being attempted.

This last point started as a focus area few years ago...and if i recall correctly I thought it stemmed from a global focus.and im sure we discussed it to death on here at the time?

 

[ChuckieB]

Thanks. Is anyone aware of a similar ruling in the UK?

It leads to the "unfair" situation where the ball goes into touch near an offside player getting up from a ruck who, having complied with the law, has gained a considerable advantage.

Don't know the origins of the QTI (always been there in my lifetime) but I hardly suspect they were thinking about all the possible combinations of players offside when they introduced it. Unfair it may be in the eyes of some, but you can't have everything and this is perhaps one of those occasions and tbh, does it adversely impact the game as a result? I guess the positives of getting the ball back into play quickly as a principle outweighs the potential negatives which aren't so frequent.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Thanks. Is anyone aware of a similar ruling in the UK?

It leads to the "unfair" situation where the ball goes into touch near an offside player getting up from a ruck who, having complied with the law, has gained a considerable advantage.

I seem to remember the IRB (as was) Saying that a player should not gain from being in an offside position by being able to prevent a QTI. He should co0mply with the Offside law until either . He returns to a legal poition OR a QTI is no longer an option in which case he could approach the line of touch as normal.

I'll try to find it.

 

[ChrisR]

If the 10m law is applied to where the ball goes into touch and remain in force as if the ball lands in the FOP then that would eliminate the advantage of being in the vicinity. Players beyond the 10m who did not advance would be put onside by the ball going into touch.

I think that this approach is a fair compromise and would be justifiable. Would it be supported by law? I think so as the 10m law doesn't require the ball to land in the FOP.

 

[VM75]

However he is still offside. So the question is at what point does he become onside again? We are now back to the conundrum about whether the ball being in touch nullifies any offside situations.

I think "zombieball" should have a role here. For as long as a QTI is on the cards, offside lines persist, but as soon as it becomes clear that there there cannot (or is not going to be) one, players can move into their lineout set ups.

OB, You'll recall that some posters think that touchline 'inventive' pretences [aka NZMAB & their ball rolling away & regathering charade v Lions] can exist (I don't agree) under which "as soon as it becomes clear" might not be entirely clear at all ! further adding to this complication etc.

Hense my overriding dislike of the notion of prolonged delay QTI's being allowable.