Planet Rugby Forum

They are offside alright.

“OFFSIDE AND ONSIDE IN OPEN PLAY

A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it. An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes:

Playing the ball.
Tackling the ball-carrier.

Preventing the opposition from playing as they wish.”

But they won’t be pinged unless they don’t:


Moving forward towards the ball? Yes. (Use the grass advertising to compare angle and meters advanced)
Still ahead of the ball carrier? Yes

It’s true but it’s not going to be blown often.



Finally, back onside but did they gain advantage from staying offside?



P.S. if the ball is passed to Sexton by Ringrose, Murray scores.

Flametop wrote:You’re now saying that refs don’t make mistakes?



Seriously, take a break from the keyboard.

Refs are essential to rugby and even more so than other sports.
There is a far higher duty of care in rugby, with loss of life/paralysis and concussion/brain damage very possible even where a ref has done everything correctly.

But they are players also. Players do make mistakes. Humans make mistakes.
Mistakes are far more likely to be make in a pressurized enviornment where a decision has to be made immediately, in a split second after a play has occurred. There are so many variables for a ref yo get tight it’s almost an impossible job to do correctly.

Why else was the TMO introduced? (Although there are rules in what circumstances it can be used)
The ref doesn’t always have the luxury of multiple replays in slow motion and freeze frames from multiple angles that commentators and supporters do in hindsight.
They doesn’t mean that the ref can’t be wrong and the fans right, particularly in the cold light of day after passions have cooled off.

While some commentators and supporters are quick to get it wrong, I have checked the laws and have asked the question based on doing so. I’m not screaming abuse on WB social media at him.

So calm down and stop being hysterical.

I am not saying refs are infallible.

What I am saying is that it is far more likely that several officials and other people who make their living in rugby were right than not. Especially as some of those were people with decades of top level rugby experience and who had access to the very replays and hindsight you mention.

Refs do get it wrong occasionally, but far less often than keyboard warriors think. When they get it wrong, it is usually where something happened in a flurry where it was hard to see what went on. Everything here happened in clear view. All three officials are top refs precisely because they rarely make mistakes in situations like this, no matter how pressurised.

In addition, the incident was reviewed from multiple angles by multiple people who are experienced and respected in rugby, yet not one saw anything wrong with it. I have never seen an incident where the ref made what was even a questionable call and not one single person outside a few folk on an internet forum pick it up. Especially in a case like this where what Hogg did was clear and obvious.

The original question posed on here is entirely reasonable as someone did not understand why Hogg was not offside. A reasonable response would have been to objectively analyse the facts and draw a conclusion. If that was different from the ref, work out why rather than assume the ref was wrong. It would also be reasonable to start from the premise that since no one apparently saw anything wrong with it, it was correct, so why was that the case? You started with the hypothesis the officials were wrong and Hogg was offside and then tried to prove it. The constant questioning of the ability and accuracy of refs massively annoys me, along with fans thinking they know better than people who have undertaken years of training to get to where they are.

The TMO is there to help the ref with things they did not see clearly, usually because they are watching play and it occurs elsewhere, or in the above mentioned confused situation. This was none of these, this was an open play call refs have been making as long as I have been involved in rugby.

Why on earth would the refs even give it a passing thought given Ireland got the ball back and Scotland gained no advantage from Hogg, whether on or offside?

Anyway, Flametop, fair enough. I suppose I meant they wouldn't be called offside unless they interfered with the ball ahead of play but you make a valid point regarding moving towards the ball and not retreating to get onside. I suppose, as Toro said earlier, this is something that just isn't policed as it's felt it's not particularly 'unfair' or against the spirit of the game.

What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

That reads clearly as a kick situation as if your team has possession they would have to be behind you so it’s actually impossible to move forwards towards the ball. Players run to where they think the play will end up, flankers have been doing this since the beginning of their existence.

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

That reads clearly as a kick situation as if your team has possession they would have to be behind you so it’s actually impossible to move forwards towards the ball. Players run to where they think the play will end up, flankers have been doing this since the beginning of their existence.

Except that flankers generally start from onside as they were attached to a scrum at the beginning of that phase of open play. That's what's dodgy about the Hogg one, he wasn't onside when that period of open play began.

EDIT If The Jones kick had been picked up by Hogg, would he have been offside - yes. That's your answer.

Looking at the Flametop still currently, cam. Hogg has been done to death!

Flankers, you say.
Spiritual guardians of the law book.

CM11 wrote:Looking at the Flametop still currently, cam. Hogg has been done to death!

If they were onside at the beginning of that period of open play, they remain onside until the next ruck/scrum/LO/etc. when a new offside line is established.

That's my understanding anyway.

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

That reads clearly as a kick situation as if your team has possession they would have to be behind you so it’s actually impossible to move forwards towards the ball. Players run to where they think the play will end up, flankers have been doing this since the beginning of their existence.

10.4.c deals with a kick but I take your point that you can't move forward towards a ball that's behind you!

And am I reading the law correctly that the ball being touched in flight doesn't put you automatically onside? As long as you were initially retreating? Is that new in the last while?

camroc1 wrote:

CM11 wrote:Looking at the Flametop still currently, cam. Hogg has been done to death!

If they were onside at the beginning of that period of open play, they remain onside until the next ruck/scrum/LO/etc. when a new offside line is established.

That's my understanding anyway.

Well, as the law states, they're technically offside but I think we've established that they don't do anything to be penalised. If they'd knocked into the Scot in the still above (and they probably did!), they could be penalised because they can't interfere with play at all so couldn't argue they were running a line.

camroc1 wrote:

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

That reads clearly as a kick situation as if your team has possession they would have to be behind you so it’s actually impossible to move forwards towards the ball. Players run to where they think the play will end up, flankers have been doing this since the beginning of their existence.

Except that flankers generally start from onside as they were attached to a scrum at the beginning of that phase of open play. That's what's dodgy about the Hogg one, he wasn't onside when that period of open play began.

That makes no difference according how some are trying to define an offside player. Doesn't matter where you started, if you are in front of the ball you are in an offside position, this is correct, but not necessarily a sanction. If said players are onside from a scrum and then run a line to where the ball should end up and block someone along the way it's a penalty, they are in front of the ball.

Hogg was not offside from the quick throw, there is no offside as there as it wasn't a lineout. BUT even if he was, he didn't attempt to play the ball until he was clearly onside. The big question only really hangs over the kick, and he was far from influencing anything during that split second so a penalty here would've been incredibly pedantic.

Toro wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

That reads clearly as a kick situation as if your team has possession they would have to be behind you so it’s actually impossible to move forwards towards the ball. Players run to where they think the play will end up, flankers have been doing this since the beginning of their existence.

Except that flankers generally start from onside as they were attached to a scrum at the beginning of that phase of open play. That's what's dodgy about the Hogg one, he wasn't onside when that period of open play began.

That makes no difference according how some are trying to define an offside player. Doesn't matter where you started, if you are in front of the ball you are in an offside position, this is correct, but not necessarily a sanction. If said players are onside from a scrum and then run a line to where the ball should end up and block someone along the way it's a penalty, they are in front of the ball.

Hogg was not offside from the quick throw, there is no offside as there as it wasn't a lineout. BUT even if he was, he didn't attempt to play the ball until he was clearly onside. The big question only really hangs over the kick, and he was far from influencing anything during that split second so a penalty here would've been incredibly pedantic.

A quick throw is a LO, and moves the offside line up to where the ball crossed the touchline.

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

That reads clearly as a kick situation as if your team has possession they would have to be behind you so it’s actually impossible to move forwards towards the ball. Players run to where they think the play will end up, flankers have been doing this since the beginning of their existence.

10.4.c deals with a kick but I take your point that you can't move forward towards a ball that's behind you!

And am I reading the law correctly that the ball being touched in flight doesn't put you automatically onside? As long as you were initially retreating? Is that new in the last while?

That's a charge down. The clarification is because they state if you are ahead of the kicker and in the 10m landing zone you MUST retire out of the 10m circle and 10m back and there is nothing an opposition player can do to put you onside (given that if you are ahead of the kicker but 10m back from the landing you can be put onside by the opp running 5m, playing at the ball etc)

The only exception to the bolded above is if the ball is touched, as in semi charge down. Then everyone is onside.

Toro, it’s not a 10m circle. It’s 10m on the kicker’s side of the ball landing/catching area from one touchline to the other.

camroc1 wrote:A quick throw is a LO, and moves the offside line up to where the ball crossed the touchline.

You can throw the ball in on an angle now, defenders can stand past the point where the ball went out AFAIK, otherwise it would be decidedly unfair.

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:What is being confused here a lot is the definition of being offside and what should be sanctioned. The WR site clearly states that being offside is not a penalisable offence in itself. Those Irish players are offside but not affecting play, as long as they are onside when they take part all good. Only from a kick is it clearly defined that you have to stop until you’re put onside, or the 10m rule.

Open play offside has it that you can't move forward towards the ball. So technically they could be pinged for initially gaining an advantage from breaking the law.

That reads clearly as a kick situation as if your team has possession they would have to be behind you so it’s actually impossible to move forwards towards the ball. Players run to where they think the play will end up, flankers have been doing this since the beginning of their existence.

10.4.c deals with a kick but I take your point that you can't move forward towards a ball that's behind you!

And am I reading the law correctly that the ball being touched in flight doesn't put you automatically onside? As long as you were initially retreating? Is that new in the last while?

That's a charge down. The clarification is because they state if you are ahead of the kicker and in the 10m landing zone you MUST retire out of the 10m circle and 10m back and there is nothing an opposition player can do to put you onside (given that if you are ahead of the kicker but 10m back from the landing you can be put onside by the opp running 5m, playing at the ball etc)

The only exception to the bolded above is if the ball is touched, as in semi charge down. Then everyone is onside.

Touched in flight isn't a charge down though and the law specifically mentions 'touched' by the opposition. At best it's not clear but your understanding is that touched in flight still removes the offside line?

Cam

Pretty sure from my googling that a quick throw doesn't establish an offside line and is seen as a continuation of open play.

Flametop wrote:Toro, it’s not a 10m circle. It’s 10m on the kicker’s side of the ball landing/catching area from one touchline to the other.

True, sorry. I still coach players to get the f out of the landing area in any direction before worrying about the 10m imaginary line. If you are 20m in front of the landing area you'd be well advised to not take a trajectory straight through that zone while retiring 10m behind it.

CM11 wrote: Touched in flight isn't a charge down though and the law specifically mentions 'touched' by the opposition. At best it's not clear but your understanding is that touched in flight still removes the offside line?

Touched in flight is exactly was I mean by a semi charge down, a player goes to charge down and gets a finger or whatever to the ball, this puts all players in front of the kicker onside.

CM11 wrote: And am I reading the law correctly that the ball being touched in flight doesn't put you automatically onside? As long as you were initially retreating? Is that new in the last while?

It seems to suggest that that is the case for those players within 10m of where the ball lands, yes (but players outside the 10m landing zone are still put onside by a touch). Which if you mostly block a kick so it just lands 1m or so behind the blocker, pretty much the entire defending team will be offside! I think that would cause mayhem if it were ever implemented.

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote: Touched in flight isn't a charge down though and the law specifically mentions 'touched' by the opposition. At best it's not clear but your understanding is that touched in flight still removes the offside line?

Touched in flight is exactly was I mean by a semi charge down, a player goes to charge down and gets a finger or whatever to the ball, this puts all players in front of the kicker onside.

I got that that's what you meant but I don't think it's clear in the laws. But your understanding is any touch during an attempted block down, no matter how realistic blocking the ball was?

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote: Touched in flight isn't a charge down though and the law specifically mentions 'touched' by the opposition. At best it's not clear but your understanding is that touched in flight still removes the offside line?

Touched in flight is exactly was I mean by a semi charge down, a player goes to charge down and gets a finger or whatever to the ball, this puts all players in front of the kicker onside.

I got that that's what you meant but I don't think it's clear in the laws. But your understanding is any touch during an attempted block down, no matter how realistic blocking the ball was?

No matter how realistic? I don't get your question.

It's pretty clear, touched in flight has to be during it's 'take off' per say, as it leaves the boot. On it's way down it would be 'played at' by the opposition not touched in flight, this puts you onside if you're outside the 10m but otherwise no.

It's simple, if the ball is touched by the opposition as it leaves the boot but continues up field, everyone in front of the kicker (who would normally be offside) is onside instantly.

CM11 wrote:Cam

Pretty sure from my googling that a quick throw doesn't establish an offside line and is seen as a continuation of open play.

Are you sure ?

A quick throw in is just another form of lineout. For example the player must have both feet outside the field of play, and the ball must travel five metres. I'd have thought that LO offside laws implcitly apply for a quick throw in, just as penalty offside laws apply for a quick tip penalty.

camroc1 wrote:

CM11 wrote:Cam

Pretty sure from my googling that a quick throw doesn't establish an offside line and is seen as a continuation of open play.

Are you sure ?

A quick throw in is just another form of lineout. For example the player must have both feet outside the field of play, and the ball must travel five metres. I'd have thought that LO offside laws implcitly apply for a quick throw in, just as penalty offside laws apply for a quick tip penalty.

Even before you could throw the ball in in any direction (but forward) you could take the quick lineout from any point behind the mark, I doubt there was an offside line created, otherwise it would be impossible to contest it, the defence would only be able to stand where the LO should take place.

Toro wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

CM11 wrote:Cam

Pretty sure from my googling that a quick throw doesn't establish an offside line and is seen as a continuation of open play.

Are you sure ?

A quick throw in is just another form of lineout. For example the player must have both feet outside the field of play, and the ball must travel five metres. I'd have thought that LO offside laws implcitly apply for a quick throw in, just as penalty offside laws apply for a quick tip penalty.

Even before you could throw the ball in in any direction (but forward) you could take the quick lineout from any point behind the mark, I doubt there was an offside line created, otherwise it would be impossible to contest it, the defence would only be able to stand where the LO should take place.

There is no offside line at a quick throw in

Hong Kong wrote:There is no offside line at a quick throw in

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote: Touched in flight isn't a charge down though and the law specifically mentions 'touched' by the opposition. At best it's not clear but your understanding is that touched in flight still removes the offside line?

Touched in flight is exactly was I mean by a semi charge down, a player goes to charge down and gets a finger or whatever to the ball, this puts all players in front of the kicker onside.

I got that that's what you meant but I don't think it's clear in the laws. But your understanding is any touch during an attempted block down, no matter how realistic blocking the ball was?

No matter how realistic? I don't get your question.

It's pretty clear, touched in flight has to be during it's 'take off' per say, as it leaves the boot. On it's way down it would be 'played at' by the opposition not touched in flight, this puts you onside if you're outside the 10m but otherwise no.

It's simple, if the ball is touched by the opposition as it leaves the boot but continues up field, everyone in front of the kicker (who would normally be offside) is onside instantly.

If you raise your hands as the ball is kicked out of sheer hope but it just grazes a finger, that would be an unrealistic attempt to block, IMO. Think ball to hand rather than hand to ball.

Or if there isn't actually any attempt to block down but the ball touches the opposition on its way up.

CM11 wrote: If you raise your hands as the ball is kicked out of sheer hope but it just grazes a finger, that would be an unrealistic attempt to block, IMO. Think ball to hand rather than hand to ball.

Or if there isn't actually any attempt to block down but the ball touches the opposition on its way up.

Haha, you really love confusing and complicating yourself. If it's touched and the ref calls it, everyone is onside.

I'd go as far to say if you kicked it into an opposition player who had their back turned and it bounced off any part of their body and went up field, everyone would be onside.

But the most common occurrence is when someone gets a hand to it.

Toro wrote:

CM11 wrote: If you raise your hands as the ball is kicked out of sheer hope but it just grazes a finger, that would be an unrealistic attempt to block, IMO. Think ball to hand rather than hand to ball.

Or if there isn't actually any attempt to block down but the ball touches the opposition on its way up.

Haha, you really love confusing and complicating yourself. If it's touched and the ref calls it, everyone is onside.

I think I'm on the same page I've always been on, I was just clarifying that things haven't changed as IMO the wording isn't very clear.

Hong Kong wrote:

Toro wrote:

camroc1 wrote:

CM11 wrote:Cam

Pretty sure from my googling that a quick throw doesn't establish an offside line and is seen as a continuation of open play.

Are you sure ?

A quick throw in is just another form of lineout. For example the player must have both feet outside the field of play, and the ball must travel five metres. I'd have thought that LO offside laws implcitly apply for a quick throw in, just as penalty offside laws apply for a quick tip penalty.

Even before you could throw the ball in in any direction (but forward) you could take the quick lineout from any point behind the mark, I doubt there was an offside line created, otherwise it would be impossible to contest it, the defence would only be able to stand where the LO should take place.

There is no offside line at a quick throw in

I remember seeing a game involving SA where there was a heavy prop lumbering downfield for a lineout, but his full back caught it and kicked it back and out almost exactly where he was standing. The opposition took a quick lineout to a girly back standing about 2 yards from the prop,who, being onside, was allowed to flatten him, and he did. Might have been Os Du Randt.

Gwenno wrote: I remember seeing a game involving SA where there was a heavy prop lumbering downfield for a lineout, but his full back caught it and kicked it back and out almost exactly where he was standing. The opposition took a quick lineout to a girly back standing about 2 yards from the prop,who, being onside, was allowed to flatten him, and he did. Might have been Os Du Randt.

There's no offside line 'created' from a quick throw but Os (or whoever) could be called offside because of the previous kick. I put a video earlier where it was sanctioned. That's the part OB was discussing on the quote from a refs page, and where loitering in an offside position could then be used to your advantage, but there isn't clarity in the law about such a situation.

No offside at a quick throw means open play continues, and you can go anywhere on the field to contest the throw (as long as you got there from an onside position supposedly)

Toro wrote:

Gwenno wrote: I remember seeing a game involving SA where there was a heavy prop lumbering downfield for a lineout, but his full back caught it and kicked it back and out almost exactly where he was standing. The opposition took a quick lineout to a girly back standing about 2 yards from the prop,who, being onside, was allowed to flatten him, and he did. Might have been Os Du Randt.

There's no offside line 'created' from a quick throw but Os (or whoever) could be called offside because of the previous kick. I put a video earlier where it was sanctioned. That's the part OB was discussing on the quote from a refs page, and where loitering in an offside position could then be used to your advantage, but there isn't clarity in the law about such a situation.

No offside at a quick throw means open play continues, and you can go anywhere on the field to contest the throw (as long as you got there from an onside position supposedly)

Could he have used the fat slow prop defence though? He was slowly lumbering back.

Gwenno wrote:

Toro wrote:

Gwenno wrote: I remember seeing a game involving SA where there was a heavy prop lumbering downfield for a lineout, but his full back caught it and kicked it back and out almost exactly where he was standing. The opposition took a quick lineout to a girly back standing about 2 yards from the prop,who, being onside, was allowed to flatten him, and he did. Might have been Os Du Randt.

There's no offside line 'created' from a quick throw but Os (or whoever) could be called offside because of the previous kick. I put a video earlier where it was sanctioned. That's the part OB was discussing on the quote from a refs page, and where loitering in an offside position could then be used to your advantage, but there isn't clarity in the law about such a situation.

No offside at a quick throw means open play continues, and you can go anywhere on the field to contest the throw (as long as you got there from an onside position supposedly)

Could he have used the fat slow prop defence though? He was slowly lumbering back.

Haha, for being there sure. But probably not for hammering a guy. But i've only ever seen it called once so who knows.

Toro wrote:

Gwenno wrote: I remember seeing a game involving SA where there was a heavy prop lumbering downfield for a lineout, but his full back caught it and kicked it back and out almost exactly where he was standing. The opposition took a quick lineout to a girly back standing about 2 yards from the prop,who, being onside, was allowed to flatten him, and he did. Might have been Os Du Randt.

There's no offside line 'created' from a quick throw but Os (or whoever) could be called offside because of the previous kick. I put a video earlier where it was sanctioned. That's the part OB was discussing on the quote from a refs page, and where loitering in an offside position could then be used to your advantage, but there isn't clarity in the law about such a situation.

No offside at a quick throw means open play continues, and you can go anywhere on the field to contest the throw (as long as you got there from an onside position supposedly)

correct - if player A is in front of his team mate who has kicked the ball and A advances towards the ball, he is liable to penalty. So if the opposition try to take a quick throw and A was there, interfering with the ball, he was never onside - he's not offside due to the quick LO

A slight deviation, but still an offside question. Usually in a ruck, when the attentive defending back line strays offside, the ref will warn them back, and they retreat, but sometimes he will still penalise them. Is this dependent on material influence on play, or for repeated offence, or just cos he's in a mood?

Gwenno wrote:A slight deviation, but still an offside question. Usually in a ruck, when the attentive defending back line strays offside, the ref will warn them back, and they retreat, but sometimes he will still penalise them. Is this dependent on material influence on play, or for repeated offence, or just cos he's in a mood?

or all 3!

It will usually because they have had a material affect on the play or for repeat infringements