Touched in flight

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#61
one topic per thread is nice idea - -- that's a MOD job, to split a thread inot two if it starts to drift

the OP scenario is similar to Yarde, I think
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#62
May I have your views on this please?

U14 school match.

Blue is attacking and are five metres out from Red try line.

Red turnover the ball, and pass it back, over the try line towards the dead ball line. Red kick to clear their lines. Most of red are in front of the kicker. Blue touch the ball in flight, it balloons up and is coming down, inside the 22, about 15 metres from the try Line.

Blue player reaches up to try and catch the ball above his head as it falls, only to parry it backwards over his head straight into the arms of the very lazy Red prop wandering back. The Red prop instinctively catches it as he can't react quick enough to do anything else.

is Red prop onside or offside?
My straightforward answer to the OP is

Was the Red prop loitering ?
- if he was loitering then it's a PK, because the referee makes sure no one can benefit from loitering
- if he wasn't loitering (ie he was making a bona fide and speedy effort to get onside) then it's play on, the blue touch played him onside from the kick

From your description alone , it's impossible to judge whether or not he was loitering. You have to be there

The one clue, perhaps, is that he is described as lazy,so perhaps he was loitering

11.9 Loitering
A player who remains in an offside position is loitering. A loiterer who prevents the opposing team from playing the ball as they wish is taking part in the game, and is penalised. The referee makes sure that the loiterer does not benefit from being put onside by the opposing team’s action.
Sanction: Penalty kick at the offending player’s offside line
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
#63
It's not really what I am suggesting.

The OP is about underage rugby offside when ball was touched in flight. Bringing up an example from the Elite game, (which some feel is vaguely similar,) but is so different it probably just confuses the issue, is not that helpful.
No need for mods to split threads, just for a little common sense, answer the question asked, ignore the usual attempts to hop on soap boxes.

Which touch plays him on side? First touch, only does so if it's a charge down, right?
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#64
Genuine question: How difficult is it to start a new discussion entitled "Maryland Yarde offside or not?"

- - - Updated - - -

BCH24 has asked an interesting question and is surely entitled to a answer; one that covers the OP, "ball touched in flight" situation. Injured player in offside position, gets up to receive a try scoring pass, surely only confuses the search for an answer to BCH24's question.

Practically every single discussion on these forums gets bogged down in the way Phil-E suggests in #50

BCH24's question was answered correctly by DickieE in post #2!!!
In Post #35, BCH24 thanked for our thoughts. However to elaborate further...

The OP said "Blue touch the ball in flight, it balloons up and is coming down, inside the 22, about 15 metres from the try Line". This makes me think the Blue player who touched the ball got a sizeable chunk of it. This sounds like a charge down as described, but without seeing it, I can't be certain

As soon as a player kicks the ball with teammates ahead of him, then offside under the 10M Law may come into play.

11.4 OFFSIDE UNDER THE 10-METRE LAW
(a) When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead, the offside player is considered to be taking part in the game if the player is in front of an imaginary line across the field which is 10 metres from the opponent waiting to play the ball, or from where the ball lands or may land. The offside player must immediately move behind the imaginary 10-metre line or the kicker if this is closer than 10 metres. While moving away, the player must not obstruct an opponent or interfere with play

Since the Kick by the red player was made in-goal, and the ball was coming down 15m from the goal-line, the Red prop was certainly offside under the 10M Law. However, if it was a charge down, then the Red prop is made onside. The Law is clear and unequivocal on this

11.4 (f) The 10-metre Law does not apply when a player kicks the ball, and an opponent charges down the kick, and a team-mate of the kicker who was in front of the imaginary 10-metre line across the field then plays the ball. The opponent was not ‘waiting to play the ball’ and the team-mate is onside. The 10-metre Law applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but is not charged down.

However, even if by some fluke of player positioning, the red prop was not offside under the 10M law, but only offside in General Play, he would still be made onside by the touch of the ball by the Blue player

11.3 BEING PUT ONSIDE BY OPPONENTS
In general play, there are three ways by which an offside player can be put onside by an action of the opposing team. These three ways do not apply to a player who is offside under the 10-Metre Law.
(c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.

Conclusion: The answer to the OP's question depends on one or two things
1. whether the Red prop was offside in General Play or Offside under the 10M Law
2. if the latter in 1. above, then whether Blue's touch of the ball was a charge down or not.

If the Red Prop was offside in General Play, then he is made onside by any touch of the ball in flight by the Blue player.... play on!

If the Red player was offside under the 10M Law, and the Blue player's touch was a charge down the red prop has been made onside by that touch... play on!

If the Red player was offside under the 10M Law, and the Blue player's touch was NOT a charge down, then the Red prop has NOT been mad onside.... PEEP! PK to Blue!

There is NO wiggle room under other offside Laws to make him offside because it might "look wrong" or you don't like the fact that he is made onside.
 

tim White

, Referees in England
#65
Re; Yarde; I'm going to throw in Law 10.4.m -acts contrary to good sportsmanship. When apparently injured he was apparently out of the game and receiving attention from the physio and as such the defence disregarded him, this was clearly a deception. I'm not sure I would blow for it but I am sure it feels wrong not to blow for it -let's ask the defenders how they felt.
 

Thunderhorse1986

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#66
Am I being thick in saying that once the ruck or maul ends, the offside lines from that ruck or maul are obsolete? We move into general play and the offside lines apply from that area of the game not from the prior ruck?

So for Yarde, the ruck was over, we are now in general play, and he plays the ball from an onside position (behind that of a team mate who previously played the ball)?

You might consider him "loitering" or "acts contrary to good sportsmanship" (I agree it doesn't "look" right which is sometimes a good reason to blow the whistle) but I don't think it can be offside in a general sense.
 

Phil E

, Referees/Trains Referees in England
#67
Am I being thick in saying that once the ruck or maul ends, the offside lines from that ruck or maul are obsolete? We move into general play and the offside lines apply from that area of the game not from the prior ruck?

So for Yarde, the ruck was over, we are now in general play, and he plays the ball from an onside position (behind that of a team mate who previously played the ball)?

You might consider him "loitering" or "acts contrary to good sportsmanship" (I agree it doesn't "look" right which is sometimes a good reason to blow the whistle) but I don't think it can be offside in a general sense.
Think about it...So, it would be alright (with you) if half my team stay upfield behind the defence, and just stand there.
They wait for a ruck to finish, then one of their team kick the ball ahead and we have half their team waiting to catch it and score.

Loitering isn't contrary to good sportsmanship, it's offside and is a specific offence with a sanction of a penalty kick.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#69
Think about it...So, it would be alright (with you) if half my team stay upfield behind the defence, and just stand there.
They wait for a ruck to finish, then one of their team kick the ball ahead and we have half their team waiting to catch it and score.

Loitering isn't contrary to good sportsmanship, it's offside and is a specific offence with a sanction of a penalty kick.
but Yarde wasn't waiting, he was injured.. should a player receiving treatment be counted as a loiterer ?
 
Last edited:

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#70
Re; Yarde; I'm going to throw in Law 10.4.m -acts contrary to good sportsmanship. When apparently injured he was apparently out of the game and receiving attention from the physio and as such the defence disregarded him, this was clearly a deception. I'm not sure I would blow for it but I am sure it feels wrong not to blow for it -let's ask the defenders how they felt.
would it be the same if he WASN'T offside -- eg if you are being treated 40m behind the play, and completely onside, and then the oppo make a break, is it bad sportsmanship to get up and make a tackle ?

If not, if that's OK, then it means it all revolves around offside and specifically - does being injured in an offside postion amount to loitering ?
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#71
Think about it...So, it would be alright (with you) if half my team stay upfield behind the defence, and just stand there. Yes, we would be defending 7.5 attacking players with 15
They wait for a ruck to finish, then one of their team kick the ball ahead and we have half their team waiting to catch it and score. Good The 7.5 players are offside in general play, easiest way to get ball back and 3 pts

Loitering isn't contrary to good sportsmanship, it's offside and is a specific offence with a sanction of a penalty kick. It is also tactically detrimentally, any benefit of loitering is easily exploited with normal rugby non offending team
This may be your worse argument ever. My response to the appeals to absurd is in red.
 

Thunderhorse1986

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#73
Think about it...So, it would be alright (with you) if half my team stay upfield behind the defence, and just stand there.
They wait for a ruck to finish, then one of their team kick the ball ahead and we have half their team waiting to catch it and score.

Loitering isn't contrary to good sportsmanship, it's offside and is a specific offence with a sanction of a penalty kick.
Phil, I think we agree in general - my point was more to say "let's forget about the ruck offside, this is now general play, as the ruck is over". So loitering is a way of being offside in general play. If you consider Yarde to be loitering, is that still the case here after he is put onside by a player from his team running in front of him? Or does it become irrelevant after he is "overtaken". Also CR's question - can an "injured" player be loitering. Very tricky. I'd be inclined to penalise on how it looks, but struggling in law to explain why.
 

Thunderhorse1986

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#74
Phil, also, in your scenario, if your team kick ahead and half your players are ahead of the kicker, they are offside in general play, or under 10m law. They are ahead of the player from their team who last played the ball. But I wouldn't consider them offside from that prior ruck any more, as the ruck is over.
 

TheBFG

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#77
Come on we've all used that "never on-side" call, like others have said, it "just doesn't look right" :chin:
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
#78
would it be the same if he WASN'T offside -- eg if you are being treated 40m behind the play, and completely onside, and then the oppo make a break, is it bad sportsmanship to get up and make a tackle ?

If not, if that's OK, then it means it all revolves around offside and specifically - does being injured in an offside postion amount to loitering ?
That sounds like BOD's tackle against Munster, injured, onside and applauded for the gutsy tackle.
 

Thunderhorse1986

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#79
You don't need to explain it.

"Blue 7 lazy runner, never back onside."

That's all you need to say.
For a player who is offside at the ruck and then interferes with play before being put onside - never back onside etc

But this is different. Say #7 Blue makes a tackle on Red. Ruck 1 forms which Red win, and then take the ball forward 10 yards, where they are tackled and a new ruck is formed (Ruck 2). As Red 7 is getting up he is still in front of Ruck 2 (closer to the opposition DBL) so is offside from that. But at Ruck 2 his teammate Blue 9 turns the ball over and carries the ball forward. When Blue 9 runs in front of Blue 7, Blue 7 is now onside and can receive the pass.

(similar to what happened with Yarde but without the injury, and assuming Blue 7 was never "loitering")
 

Not Kurt Weaver

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/usa.png">
#80
Think about it...So, it would be alright (with you) if half my team stay upfield behind the defence, and just stand there.
They wait for a ruck to finish, then one of their team kick the ball ahead and we have half their team waiting to catch it and score. These are just exaggerations to justify your factual statement below, not sarcastic. Sarcasm involves some humor/humour. These exaggerations aren't even witty

Loitering isn't contrary to good sportsmanship, it's offside and is a specific offence with a sanction of a penalty kick.
Americans just don't do sarcasm, do they?
Are you using sarcasm here, also?

Do not confuse US Americans with Canadians (as both are americans). Canucks do not understand sarcasm.

Sarcasm is a mocking humor to prove a pt. Your original statement above is neither mocking or funny.

Here are some examples for your future reference:

"Brits use nonstick pans to fry eggs", or "Brits love fluoride" or "I so glad that Pom came to join our club"