[Law] Offside or no offside - Ospreys v SF

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
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.
Oh is that what that emoji is! .....Wrong interpretation.........Again!
 

OB..

, Advises in England
It should be there for good reason.

That it hasn't been applied does not mean it is not adding anything useful.
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.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
According to ChuckieB's profile he is a fan not a referee, so this may be a moot point?
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!
 

OB..

, Advises in England
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!
Good for you.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
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.
Quite agree. It is for me to pull anyone over the line on this. I won't be trying to push against a juggernaut on this.

Currently I have my doubts about a couple of things, this being one. another relates to the Law 19 amendments which is going to rear its ugly head for us her in July, or so I believe, while some have suggested it is just adds hassle to deal with, I have suggested elsewhere, it has left some very specific and confusing contradictions.

Best

CB
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
But yes, I agree, a player who is doing as you describe is complying with the Laws
Provided, in my opinion, he isn't taking a path to deliberately interfere with play (eg cross a passing channel). If he is going to cross a passing channel I'd expect him to take a less direct route.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
I used a photogrammetry program called "Agisoft Photoscan" to measure their relative positions.



The Black player catching the kick is 5.5m inside his own 10m line; the White player who intercepts the pass is 3.3m inside the Black half of the field at the time the Black player catches it, so he was 12.2 m from the imaginary line through the Black catcher. Therefore, "Offside Under the 10M Law" is not applicable.

However, the White player is still offside in General Play, but the difference is that he can be made onside by the actions of his opponents (which cannot happen under the 10M law).

Its quite clear that the White player does not advance until the Black player has run 5m (its 5m in any direction, not 5m forwards).

IMO, the try is good!
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
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?
 
Last edited:

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
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:
If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team.


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.
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
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?
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

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.


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.


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.


Conversely, Law 11.1 almost allows loitering when a player is offside, but with provisos...

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.


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.
 
Last edited:

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
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:
If the player remains offside the player can be put onside only by the action of the opposing team.


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.
Firstly. Thanks for taking the time to set it out.

My follow up question has to be, why do those here see it as applying to the situation for unambiguaous offside sidelines only? Guidance from somewhere perhaps?

With my new boy's eyes I see:

In a kick situation, our friend is pretty similar. He is not bound to get himself onside, nor are his teammates bound to get him onside, although they are an option that our original friend does not have. The only thing our friend has to do is, not advance, not interfere with play or fall foul of the 10m rule. Why should he subsequently be treated any more favourably to our lazy player in 11.8, just because there is no defined offside line?

I am suggesting that it would certainly be more consistent to treat the two situations, both arising from lazy players not actively retreating, as loitering and hence swept up. If you use 11.9 to that end, as I think you can, it would make much more sense, i.e. be consistent and penalise lazy play equally for both scenarios.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
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

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.


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.


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.


Conversely, Law 11.1 almost allows loitering when a player is offside, but with provisos...

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.


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.
Thanks also for explaining this. Detailed but worth the effort. Not guidance to apply it as such, but inferred perhaps by association of the word loitering to specific areas, (note the lineout is missing!).

If as you say, loitering is almost permitted for other situations, e.g this one might be a definitive one, I hope you might at least be suggesting that if you interpret it that way as seems to be the standard, at the very least it is odd.

i would go so very much further. The law could be a bit of an ass and need to be changed! One could be hardly surprised if the public cry foul on this.

But you might have got me as regards why you see it this way. I'll need to sleep on it before I concede!
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
My follow up question has to be, why do those here see it as applying to the situation for unambiguaous offside sidelines only?
Because the 11.9 sanction uses the term "offside line":

Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line


for offside in general play the term "offside line" in not used. Rather:

Sanction: When a player is penalised for being offside in general play, the opposing team chooses either a penalty kick at the place of infringement or a scrum at the place where the offending team last played the ball.
 
Last edited: