Laws Question? Ask here!

Lost Ormond · 19-10-2021 03:45PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042853#Comment_118042853

What syd says makes perfect sense and is based on both photographic and video evidence. He may have retreated but he didnt retreat enough and was still offside.

Syds interpretation wasnt weird at all. He has the law right and his interpretation of the law is correct.

Jump_In_Jack · 19-10-2021 03:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042901#Comment_118042901

SO what law are you referring to?

sydthebeat · 19-10-2021 03:47PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042853#Comment_118042853

why would you post a pic of the ball clearly 10 meters ahead of the kicker and then try to frame your argument around that? thats not when the kick happened.. and all it does is serve to discredit any argument your trying to make

my pic is exactly when the kick happened and its undeniable that Beirne is moving forward when the kick happens.

and as for my "weird interpretation" ?? you havent attempted to post anything in the law book which attempts to back up your claim.. perhaps thats because theres nothing there... and what i posted is exactly whats in the laws??

sydthebeat · 19-10-2021 03:48PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042909#Comment_118042909

not only have i already numbered it, i quoted it 🙄

Jump_In_Jack · 19-10-2021 03:49PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042922#Comment_118042922

You numbered something, where? I didn't see a numbered law.

sydthebeat · 19-10-2021 03:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042929#Comment_118042929

Ah come on man.....

Jump_In_Jack · 19-10-2021 03:53PM

OK, for the last time, look at the post where I posted a screenshot. show me on that where you see an offside, and why.

sydthebeat · 19-10-2021 03:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042961#Comment_118042961

FFS

Just read all my posts subsequent to you posting your (misleading) photo

Jump_In_Jack · 19-10-2021 04:15PM

Look, it's pointless keeping repeating myself, see screenshots below showing the point at which Beirne starts to advance after the kick and when Scannell is in line or in front of Beirne's feet.

Scannell throwing up the ball, Beirne clearly in front.

Connecting with the ball, Beirne still in front, retreating facing forward.

Ball travelling just at edge of the screenshot, Beirne now behind the line and both of Beirne's feet now look to be behind Scannell's leading leg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf9Tjs2LmRQ

It's at 26 seconds in on this highlights reel on Munster's YouTube.

sydthebeat · 19-10-2021 04:33PM

nothings changed

he doesnt retreat AFTER the ball is kicked, which is whats required by the law.

he retreats BEFORE the ball is kicked, but, as you yourself have confirmed, he doesnt retreat to a point at which hes on side.

Jump_In_Jack · 19-10-2021 04:51PM

The law covering this is 10.6 a

In offside position moving behind the player that played the ball.

The only bit that's not clear is whether or not that means the feet or every part of the body.

If it only means the feet then Beirne was indeed behind the kicker and played himself back onside before advancing after the ball.

sydthebeat · 19-10-2021 04:57PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043264#Comment_118043264

its actually law 10.4.c which is applicable here.

ive already dealt with the "feet" aspect in my first post here, which you completely dismissed

Jump_In_Jack · 19-10-2021 05:19PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043298#Comment_118043298

No, that's the 10metre law, that's only for where the ball lands.

sydthebeat · 19-10-2021 05:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043441#Comment_118043441

oh sweet jesus I give up......

one last time, ill bold the applicable bits under

An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
Interferes with play; or
Moves forwards towards the ball; or
Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.

law 10.4.c deals with off side from a kick in open play... which is EXACTLY the situation we are discussing.

Jump_In_Jack · 19-10-2021 06:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118043684#Comment_118043684

You’re quoting it without understanding what it was there for.

thats specifically for an offside that is within 10 metres of where the ball lands.

otherwise a players doesn’t have to retreat.

a team mate can pass you to bring you on side without having to retreat.

KBurke85 · 19-10-2021 07:15PM

Lads move on. The game was Saturday. The try was given. Whether it should or shouldn’t have been doesn’t matter at this stage

randomname2005 · 19-10-2021 07:36PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118044093#Comment_118044093

But the question still stands. Is a player offside if

* They have one foot ahead of the kicker and one foot behind?

* They have both feet behind but are leaning forward, say, with one hand on the ground in a sprint start position?

Or in such a close call do we give the benefit of the doubt?

I didn't see anything in section 10 of the laws referring to feet position.

Jump_In_Jack · 20-10-2021 09:10AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118044206#Comment_118044206

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/definitions

Law definitions in alphabetical order, the following is under B:

Beyond or behind or in front of a position: Means with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate.

So to answer my own question, if Beirne's feet were both behind Scannell's feet, then he would have been onside.

Hard to tell from the screenshot, but it looks like both his feet were behind Scannell's front foot at one instant, but doubtful about being behind the back foot, so he wouldn't have retreated far enough to be on side by that definition, i.e. both Beirne's feet behind both of Scannell's feet.

randomname2005 · 20-10-2021 01:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118046336#Comment_118046336

And I read that differently - aren't laws open to interpretation great!

Law 10.1: 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

Law 10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player:

...
c: Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate .....

From the definition of in front of (or behind or beyond), both feet are required.

The laws state in front of so having only one foot in front of the team mate who last played the ball means onside.

20-10-2021 02:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118041992#Comment_118041992

The short version is that the relevant rule ("an offside player may be penalised if that player was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball...@) is contingent on whether a player is in front as opposed to behind.

By virtue of the fact that both Beirne's feet have to be in front of where Scannell is standing at the point of the kick for him to be liable to penalty, he was legitimately onside (you say in your post borderline but I think his trailing foot is ok, and anyway it was well within the ref's margin of error/appreciation to call it onside).

The definition of "in front" does indeed require both feet to be in front, as does "behind" require consideration of both feet. The relevant rule asks you to consider whether both Beirne's feet were in front of the kicker not whether both were behind.

sydthebeat · 20-10-2021 02:19PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047894#Comment_118047894

and the definition also suggest that context is very much part of the decision making.

ive no interest in rehashing this all again, as 'interpretation' is open to opinion, but to my eyes he was never on side.

Akrasia · 20-10-2021 02:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042672#Comment_118042672

He wasn't running forward, he was running backwards until after the ball was kicked. He may have been (very slightly) offside when the ball was kicked, but in the second after the ball was kicked he retreated by a about a metre and the kicker advanced to the line. That put beirne into an onside position and allowed him to chase the kick.

People may complain that the TMO didn't review it, he may well have seen this and from better camera angles and decided that Beirne was not offside when he began his chase

In the letter of the laws, Beirne did everything he needed to do to make his chase legal

Akrasia · 20-10-2021 02:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048029#Comment_118048029

Your eyes are deceiving you if you think he was already running forward when that ball was kicked

Akrasia · 20-10-2021 02:40PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118044093#Comment_118044093

It kinda does matter though because Connacht and munster are rivals and certain Connacht fans, media personalities and head coaches are trying to play up to a victim narrative where they are at the butt of disproportionately bad refereeing decisions.

There is more than enough evidence from this try in that one camera angle to dispute the 'obviously offside' or 'Connacht were robbed by a 17 man Munster' narrative, and if at the business end of the season instead of blaming referees if they are short of points to qualify for Champions cup rugby, they might regret leaving the 5 man overlap that made that try possible to begin with.

Bazzo · 20-10-2021 02:43PM

The sky is red

Bazzo · 20-10-2021 02:45PM

Bloody biased media personalities Peter Stringer, Tomás O'Leary and Alan Quinlan. They hate Munster.

Jump_In_Jack · 20-10-2021 03:01PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118047703#Comment_118047703

Great point,

My understanding now is that at the point of the kick the kicker's teammates only have to "not be in front", which means that they can't have both feet in front of both of the kickers feet. In other words, if they are in line or behind they are fine. Not sure what the part "except where the context makes that inappropriate." comes into it, perhaps that refers to when the hands are down on the ground too maybe.

However, my reading of it therefore is that once a player is offside at the point of the ball being kicked, that player has to get both their feet behind both of an on-side teammate's feet to be back onside again before they can advance.

Just to add, Law 10.4 c is called the 10-metre law, and it should be read in its entirety to make sense. While a player can be penalised for advancing when offside, the player can stand still if not interfering with the play, so they don't have to retreat from an offside position after a kick unless they are within 10m of where the ball lands. That law was brought in to prevent players interfering with the player gathering the kick, it has nothing to do with players far away from where the ball lands, so 10.4 c is totally irrelevant here i.e. it does not have anything to do with the Beirne offside situation at all.

For this situation, the only things that mattered were 1. That he was offside at the point of the kick, and 2. He had to get onside again before he could advance, which means getting both feet back behind an on-side player. Beirne therefore would have needed to retreat another few inches to be behind Scannell's back foot by my eye, but I could see how a TMO would want it to be definite to overrule a try and might say it was too close to call.

sydthebeat · 20-10-2021 03:23PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048416#Comment_118048416

law 10.4.c deals with offside from a kick

the "10 meter law" is part of that law as its also under the umbrella of "offside from a kick"

there is no separate law for "offside from a kick"... so your view that 10.4.c is ONLY the '10 meter rule' is wrong

hold my beer · 20-10-2021 04:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118048416#Comment_118048416

which is exactly what syd said in his original reply no?

sydthebeat · 20-10-2021 04:59PM

seems the incident is gone to word rugby for review

Hi Syd,

The Tadhg Beirne incident has gone to World Rugby for clarification.

As we've seen with the Rassie Erasmus saga, it might take some time for a verdict to be returned but the game's governing body will now deal with the question of whether Beirne was onside or offside.

After a formal request was submitted by the United Rugby Championship, World Rugby will gather a Law Review group to consider the incident, which has caused huge debate and discussion behind the scenes within the game - as well as publicly among supporters and pundits.

According to World Rugby's website, the group dedicated to clarifications in law is made up of Bernard Laporte, Rachael Burford, John O’Driscoll, and Mark Robinson.

The match official reviews for last weekend's URC have already taken place, of course, meaning that the much-discussed incident has been officially scrutinised at that level.

The42 understands that the review process leaned towards a narrow consensus that the try was correctly awarded - even if it has now gone to World Rugby for clarification. The review appears to have tentatively determined that Beirne was onside when Rory Scannell kicked the ball towards the Munster lock on the left side of the pitch.

As we discussed on Monday's edition of The42 Rugby Weekly Extra, it's unclear if Beirne's planted right foot meant he was onside or whether the rest of his body leaning out in front of Scannell meant he was offside.

The review into TMO Brian MacNiece and referee Chris Busby's handling of the situation seemingly suggests that Beirne's planted right foot was not ahead of Scannell, meaning he was onside. Beirne's left foot appears to be raised off the ground in the moment Scannell kicks the ball and the review has apparently focused on his planted right foot instead.

As we discussed on the podcast, it was a very marginal call despite the initial replay in full speed appearing to suggest that Beirne was offside. The Munster lock's effort to retreat even as Scannell is in the process of initiating his kick muddies the water, while Jean Kleyn's positioning just inside Beirne also partly obscures Beirne's right foot.

Immediately after the try, Busby did confer with MacNiece. Uninterrupted audio of the referee mic allows us to hear Busby saying, "Joey [Carbery], I'm going to put time off, time off lads" before he says, "We've a bit of time here Brian, just let me know if we're ok."

We can't hear MacNiece's response on the ref mic feed but Busby soon follows up with, "Super, thanks" after MacNiece has presumably confirmed the score.

The law books tells us that "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."

It also tells us that an offside player can be put onside when they "move behind a team-mate who last played the ball" or when they "move behind a team-mate who is onside," so World Rugby will likely examine whether or not Beirne moves behind Scannell after the kick, or is brought onside by the kick-chasing Chris Cloete.

In the 'definitions' section of the law book, we're told that "beyond or behind or in front of a position" means "with both feet, except where the context makes that inappropriate," so World Rugby has a huge amount to ponder here.

While the furore will die down, the clarification will be noted with huge interest by many.

Chat soon,

Murray [murray@the42.ie]

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments