You've quoted the laws referring to offside from a ruck, maul or set piece.

Just noticed that.
Law 10.4c still stands.

I’m surprised you’re still going with this one, it’s pretty clear. I’m not convinced you’re going to be convinced, whether it’s in the laws or not, so I’ll leave you to it and no hard feelings.

It was from a set piece though, surely the laws apply to quick lineouts too.

Quick throw has no offside line as it doesn't have to be straight, it's just open play.

Only during an Ireland match could a hypothetical question, about an incident that didn't happen, that would not have mattered that most people have already forgotten about could be 3 pages

Are you sure about that? So if a defending player were ahead of the point the ball were thrown in he could immediately tackle a receiver of a quick throw? Seems counter intuitive.

By a strict analysis of 10.10,

1 - I can't tell if he retreats as he's off camera, but he looks to be making enough of an effort when he does come on screen.
2 - He doesn't actually affect play until he's been played onside.
3 - He does move towards the ball.

But it's probably not material enough, given the circumstances. I can see your point, but I reckon it's probably gonna fail the sniff test as it just doesn't look illegal on first viewing.

He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out.
From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.

Every single player in the Scottish team was offside once Jones got the ball, and didn't continue to retreat. I don't think there'd be a hope in the world that the TMO would turn it over, but I think this is a really interesting discussion.

Do you think Hooper's try should've been disallowed?

(1) Not every Scottish player showed up, after faffing around , in a position to run in a try. In rugby many offences are only penalised if they have a pertinent effect on the play.I'm not sure that getting into a position to take a pass would ever be considering interfering or having an effect on the play, it's a pretty passive action. In this case I think he was certainly moving enough to not be called for loitering. I thought the Jones try against the All Blacks was a better shout if under review, same situation but much closer to the ball.

(2) Have you a clip of Hooper's try ? https://streamable.com/adb2t

Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.

Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.

Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.

Hogg's movements are clear and obvious and yet..............

One of the top referees in the world who was a few yards away apparently did not notice Hogg offside.
Two other top referees acting as assistants apparently did not notice Hogg was offside.
The (STV) commentator, and Irish and Scottish co-commentators (both ex internationals) apparently did not notice Hogg offside even with the benefit of replays.
None of the English, Irish or Scottish ex-international pundits in the (STV) studio apparently noticed Hogg was offside even with the benefit of replays at half time and at full time.
None of the reports of the match I have read (including in Irish papers) mention Hogg was offside.

Just as well we have experts on here who are more knowledgeable than all of the above to keep us straight.

Fûck me but that’s precious.
You’re actually having a swipe at rugby fans, on a rugby forum, debating rugby laws?

How is this thread still going?

Its just a bit of fun debating the technical aspects of the laws, not everything on the internetz has to be taken too seriously.

Hoopers try - there was no establishment of an offside line so he would be fine*. There was both the lineout and the kick to technically put Hogg offside. I do agree though that Hogg does make some movement back during the play and I'm sure that would be enough to satisfy any referee if it did go to a referral. I would still argue he does gain an advantage from starting in an offside position though.

I have noticed that all of the bored referees have stayed well clear of this one!

* although, having thought about it, obviously the knock on establishes an offside line for the Sharks - would it not also do so for the Tahs? That's another law that strikes me as weird though. Why should a player playing a knock on from in front be a penalty, when if a player was in front of the passer, passer throws a clear forward pass to him, which he plays - would only be called for a forward pass and a scrum. Seems a little disproportionate.

He's offside once the ball crosses the touchline for the Scottish line out. From that moment on he has to be seen to be actively trying to get back onside, which is the line where the ball crossed the touchline. He doesn't. He faffs around and re enters play, never having got back onside, in a position giving an obvious advantage to Scotland. Could well have been picked up on TMO review.

Moot point as Scotland never scored from the position.

Fûck me but that’s precious.
You’re actually having a swipe at rugby fans, on a rugby forum, debating rugby laws?

Agreed, but a player chasing a kick, as Hogg was, can then loiter around behind the oppo defense, if they kick to touch and a quick lineout generates a kick in his general direction? Bit like a wendyball player hanging round the penalty box!
Seems he must/should make a real effort to go behind where the kick was from.

That reminds me of another one that has puzzled me - bit of ping pong results in a player being well up field when the ball is kicked to touch. Can that player then block the attempted quick lineout? He's certainly gaining an advantage from being offside when the ball was kicked to touch - he wouldn't be in position to stop the quick lineout without it - but does the ball going dead automatically put him onside?

I have now heard back from my RDO.

Here was my question:
Blue 10 kicks to touch. Blue 11 is well in front, but chases after the
ball anyway. It goes into touch. Red 14 gathers it and wants to take a
quick throw to Red 15, but Blue 11 is marking Red 15. Is Blue 11 legal?

And this was the answer:
My view is that he is not legal and he has gained an unfair advantage.
Regardless of the ball in touch, he was offside and would suggest he is
loitering (Law 11.9). It is not specific but think this would cleary be
equitable.

I also posed a corollary:
On similar lines, if the ball is caught in touch after time has expired,
can the catcher take a quick throw? In other words, is the ball dead
merely by being in touch, or only when the lineout is formed? The
definition of "dead" says the ball is dead when it "has gone outside the
playing area and remained there". In the case of a quick throw, it has
not remained, IMHO.

Answer:
Second point is a clear no in my humble opinion. By definition the ball
is dead as soon as it has crossed the line then made contact with
something. You could say then that if the ball crossed the line, hit
the ground and bounced back it did not remain outside the playing area?!
Scenario that player kicks the ball into touch (similar to Gomersall in
Samoa game when time had expired) and it is caught by Samoa who take a
quick throw and score!!

That reminds me of another one that has puzzled me - bit of ping pong results in a player being well up field when the ball is kicked to touch. Can that player then block the attempted quick lineout? He's certainly gaining an advantage from being offside when the ball was kicked to touch - he wouldn't be in position to stop the quick lineout without it - but does the ball going dead automatically put him onside?

Found this on rugbyrefs, a post by OB (I presume one and the same):

Yep, but they're talking about being in front of the kicker upfield and then interfering in play where the quick throw is taken.

The answer applies to PornDog's question.

The big question for me is whether Hogg was onside when he received (or not in this case) the pass, which he was. Everything he did before that was not material in influencing play apart from maybe gaining a better position to be in support as some here argue.