Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Abbey
Veteran
Joined: 07 November 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13193
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Topic: Offside at quick throw-in Posted: 18 October 2015 at 5:26pm |
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
|
|
scarletman
Veteran
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy
Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Heol-y-Cyw
Status: Offline
Points: 12299
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2015 at 9:02am |
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
|
|
KID A
Moderator Group
Joined: 16 August 2004
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 27572
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2015 at 11:28am |
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
| Now for a more important question - Have you ever ran off the pitch at the end because you were busting for a Thora?
|
|
scarletman
Veteran
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy
Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Heol-y-Cyw
Status: Offline
Points: 12299
|
Post Options
Thanks(1)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2015 at 12:29pm |
KID A wrote:
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
Now for a more important question - Have you ever ran off the pitch at the end because you were busting for a Thora? |
M6 MAYBE !
|
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
|
|
Abbey
Veteran
Joined: 07 November 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13193
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2015 at 6:29pm |
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
| Cheers for that. I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.
|
|
dr_martinov
Veteran
Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Tycoch
Status: Offline
Points: 13286
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2015 at 6:50pm |
Abbey wrote:
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
Cheers for that.
I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.
|
I assume you are referring to the Australia game? The scrum half certainly does make an attempt to play it: he tries to catch it!
This plays the Scotland player onside so knock-on against Scotland.
|
|
scarlet_rob
Veteran
Joined: 16 August 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 5039
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2015 at 9:07pm |
dr_martinov wrote:
Abbey wrote:
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
Cheers for that.
I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.
|
I assume you are referring to the Australia game? The scrum half certainly does make an attempt to play it: he tries to catch it!
This plays the Scotland player onside so knock-on against Scotland. |
The more I watch it though I can't rule out that Strauss didn't give it a knock with his shoulder.
|
|
Abbey
Veteran
Joined: 07 November 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13193
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 19 October 2015 at 11:28pm |
dr_martinov wrote:
Abbey wrote:
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
Cheers for that.
I also learned another rule on Sunday. I didn't realise that the ball merely hitting an opposing player plays him onside. He has to make an attempt to play it and not by accident.
|
I assume you are referring to the Australia game? The scrum half certainly does make an attempt to play it: he tries to catch it!
<span style="line-height: 1.4;">This plays the Scotland player onside so knock-on against Scotland.</span> | Yes, the Aussie game. The Times was pointing out that it was onside as the Aussie attempted to play it. I'd always assumed any contact was fair game. So, if a player's kick accidentally hits the body of an opponent, does that not play any team-mates in front of the kicker onside?
|
|
Abbey
Veteran
Joined: 07 November 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 13193
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 October 2015 at 8:15am |
Good piece in today's Times by Owen Slot (Chief Rugby Correspondent).
He argues that if the letter of the law states that Joubert couldn't go to the TMO, he could if you use the wording of law 10.2(a) literally (yes, new to me as well). It is the law which states that you can use the TMO for intentional offending (e.g. Mainland's "deliberate" knock-on). Logic dictates that if Welsh was penalised for a non-accidental offside, it was therefore deliberate and law 10.2(a) comes into effect. At least that's what Owen Slot's lawyer friends insist. The professional referees he's consulted say "no" which, he goes on to argue, is what is wrong with rugby as it is largely down to individual referees' interpretation. How, for instance, do you categorically judge a borderline case such as Maitland's intentions as deliberate? It's all down to the opinion (and, I suppose, professional judgement) of the referee and, if consulted, the TMO.
Perhaps we should have lawyers instead of assistant referees?
|
|
dr_martinov
Veteran
Joined: 06 August 2005
Location: Tycoch
Status: Offline
Points: 13286
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 20 October 2015 at 9:17am |
Abbey wrote:
Yes, the Aussie game. The Times was pointing out that it was onside as the Aussie attempted to play it. I'd always assumed any contact was fair game.
So, if a player's kick accidentally hits the body of an opponent, does that not play any team-mates in front of the kicker onside?
|
Yes, as had I - but it does state "an attempt to play the ball". I think if the Scottish player just bashed it forward and it bounced off an Aussie head then it would have still been offside.
The kick example I believe is slightly different as it would count as a charge down.
I think the issue is this "accidental offside" refs are calling: this definitely implies there's two levels of offside and two levels of punishment, which isn't what the rules say.
But god knows. A mate and I were being very complimentary over the refereeing at this WC saying it's good that it hasn't yet been an issue or decided a game but there was always bound to be one.....
|
|
scarletman
Veteran
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy
Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Heol-y-Cyw
Status: Offline
Points: 12299
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 October 2015 at 11:17am |
11.3 Being put onside by opponentsIn 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. (a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. (b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside. (c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside.
|
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
|
|
aber-fan
Veteran
Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 21 October 2015 at 2:35pm |
scarletman wrote:
11.3 Being put onside by opponentsIn 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. (a) Runs 5 metres with ball. When an opponent carrying the ball runs 5 metres, the offside player is put onside. (b) Kicks or passes. When an opponent kicks or passes the ball, the offside player is put onside. (c) Intentionally touches ball. When an opponent intentionally touches the ball but does not catch it, the offside player is put onside. |
I must say that the offside law is one of the most baffling - possibly THE most baffling - to us non-refs out there.
Can you further clarify what actions the player is permitted to take while the 'defender' is carrying out a, b or c?
Is a player offside if he CONTINUES TO ADVANCE towards the player fielding the kick ahead, without getting to within 10m?
Is a player offside if he STANDS STILL and makes no attempt to retreat - whilst being in front of the kicker form his own team?
Thanks for any help on this!
|
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|
aber-fan
Veteran
Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 January 2016 at 7:24pm |
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
What did you make of an incident in the recent Connacht game, when one of their players during a period of aerial ping-pong banged the ball into touch 50 yards downfield. The ball was caught by a Scarlet (DTH, maybe?) who clearly thought about taking a quick throw in, but he couldn't because a Connacht player - fully 50 yards in front of the kicker - was standing in front of him.
Would you have penalised the Connacht player for not retreating, even though the throw in was not taken? I'm pretty certain it would have been but for his presence?
(it seemed to me that Connacht regularly left a player high up the field for this purpose, though the example I mention was the most blatant.)
|
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|
scarletman
Veteran
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy
Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Heol-y-Cyw
Status: Offline
Points: 12299
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 January 2016 at 8:50pm |
aber-fan wrote:
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
What did you make of an incident in the recent Connacht game, when one of their players during a period of aerial ping-pong banged the ball into touch 50 yards downfield. The ball was caught by a Scarlet (DTH, maybe?) who clearly thought about taking a quick throw in, but he couldn't because a Connacht player - fully 50 yards in front of the kicker - was standing in front of him.
Would you have penalised the Connacht player for not retreating, even though the throw in was not taken? I'm pretty certain it would have been but for his presence?
(it seemed to me that Connacht regularly left a player high up the field for this purpose, though the example I mention was the most blatant.) | Hi Aber, Technically as the ball has gone into touch, it is not live until it has been played, so would I have penalised him, no, Had we taken the quick throw in the I and every referee on the planet would have penalised him in a heartbeat!
|
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
|
|
aber-fan
Veteran
Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 January 2016 at 6:26pm |
scarletman wrote:
aber-fan wrote:
scarletman wrote:
Abbey wrote:
At the Australia v Scotland game, the Aussie full back caught a long Scottish kick just in front of his try line and kicked it straight back over the touch line at the opposing 10 metre line. The Scots took a quick throw in but one of the Aussie forwards carried on running towards the ball carrier and tackled him (he was on the halfway line when the kick was taken on his own try-line)
Now, listening to Nigel Owens on the ref-link at Parc y Scarlets, he often tells attackers who are offside that they cannot continue to advance just because the ball is dead.
Surely the offside line isn't re-set during a quick throw-in?
|
Massive grey area this one ....
Yes he was offside in front of the kicker but, the ball went dead, and the Scots decided to take the throw in option. As a line of touch has been drawn(by the Scot's option to take a quick throw in) , the Aussie is allowed to be in position to contest the lineout as if there was a set restart (i.e. keeping the gap, and not encroaching the 5m line) as there is only a receiver, and the ball has to travel at least 5m to be a valid throw in, as soon as the receiver receives the ball he is fair game.
However, a lot of Referees (myself included) follow the "first offence" option which in this case I would have awarded a penalty to Scotland for the Aussie not retreating !
|
What did you make of an incident in the recent Connacht game, when one of their players during a period of aerial ping-pong banged the ball into touch 50 yards downfield. The ball was caught by a Scarlet (DTH, maybe?) who clearly thought about taking a quick throw in, but he couldn't because a Connacht player - fully 50 yards in front of the kicker - was standing in front of him.
Would you have penalised the Connacht player for not retreating, even though the throw in was not taken? I'm pretty certain it would have been but for his presence?
(it seemed to me that Connacht regularly left a player high up the field for this purpose, though the example I mention was the most blatant.) |
Hi Aber,
Technically as the ball has gone into touch, it is not live until it has been played, so would I have penalised him, no, Had we taken the quick throw in the I and every referee on the planet would have penalised him in a heartbeat! |
Thanks, Scarletman.
This sort of thing happens far too often, IMO - the Scarlets coaches should tell the players to take the throw in in order to win the penalty - this would allow the Scarlets to gain touch in opposition territory AND throw in.
|
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
|
|
solihullscarlet
Veteran
Joined: 15 June 2008
Location: Cardiff
Status: Offline
Points: 7323
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 16 January 2016 at 11:15pm |
The problem with that is that we'd do it and the ejits we get reffing us wouldn't give it.
|
#UniteAndFight against the crooked Pro12
|
|