Depends when the whistle came. If Gibson-Park was in possession when the ref blew, then surely Ireland should have got the put-in?
But JGP had the ball in hand and was heading towards the line?
I thought he whistled for a knock on but was then informed there wasn't one so gave the scrum to the team last in possession. I could be completely wrong as I was drunk and for some reason I haven't watched it back 😆
so....
was Luke Pearce, in the NZ game, right to:
a. blow the whistle when there was no offence
b. restart the game with a scrum to new zealand?
So we've gone from miles offside to he being onside
This isn't going away anytime soon.
Bullet points from Murray Kinsella to 42.ie members
"The Tadhg Beirne incident has gone to World Rugby for clarification"
"The match official reviews for last weekend's URC have already taken place"
"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"
"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"
Can I ask a question about the Beirne offside/inside discussion?
Mod note
Take it to PM or stop
Lads, the pair of ye are either on a windup or ye need a lesson in comprehension, I'm not replying anymore. If the player meets either of the two criteria then that whole law, 10.4 c, AKA the 10 metre law, does not apply. Seriously, I can't be any clearer than that.
10.4 contains 3 parts, penalty for interfering with play, penalty for advancing towards the ball, or a penalty for specific circumstances which I can't explain anymore, just you can't be within 10m of where the ball lands, or you have to retreat to an onside position.
jesus christ... the "specific case" is offside from a kick... it patently says it in the section
the bolded is the definition of a plyer being offside from a kick. if a player is offside when a team mate kicks the ball, they must immediately retreat until they are onside.
please feel free to find the other section of the law book which deals with being offside from a kick, but ill save you a trawl, you wont find any other section.
"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"
The first 'or' in that sentence man. Are you missing that or something?
Sorry, 10.1 deals with offside from any play, including a kick. Law 10.4 c is a specific case. I can't reply anymore, just google it yourself.
Exactly.
That's why 10.4.c is not just the 10 meter law, but actually the whole law pertaining to offside from a kick.
Which I've said 3 or 4 times already.
There is no other law which deals with offside from a kick.
You are not getting it, it means either option will satisfy the law.
You are missing the huge OR in that whole text
That post missed entirely the point that Scannell might have brought him back on side after the kick.
Sorry, your interpretation is completely wrong.
The law is specific to where the ball lands.
"10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a) Interferes with play; or
b) Moves forwards towards the ball; or
c) 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."
It used to be law 11.4 before the rewording of the laws in 2018, but world rugby insisted the interpretation of the law didn't change, they said the new wording would make it clearer.
So you can read the previous wording for even more clarification.
Anyway, the new wording is clear enough here, the ball lands much further than 10m away from Beirne, so he is already well clear of that law.
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]
which is exactly what syd said in his original reply no?
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
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.
Bloody biased media personalities Peter Stringer, Tomás O'Leary and Alan Quinlan. They hate Munster.
The sky is red
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.
Your eyes are deceiving you if you think he was already running forward when that ball was kicked
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/14c64318899f842b6017cd62ee423490.svg)
