Well we WAS robbed at MM, but 2 wrongs dont make a right & the MM decision was so obviously a mistake, whereas the Video ref & official last night had a chance to make the right decision & they seemed determined to make us Bulls win & give 50/50 calls to us.

Its ok by me as a supporter, but it makes our sport a bit of a joke if we have to depend on Referee decisions in order to have "talking points".

Absolute and utter twaddle and you know it! Teddy out of cot cos your lover Deacon was not playing!

Wonder if Bluey requests that Smith be banned from Headingley? The precedent was set last year with the Scousers obtaining a ban.

I'd ban all referees and the sooner the better.

How would that work? You'd have Leon Pryce running all round the pitch openly ttting everyone and fondling their bollox!!

I'd replace them with fans of the away side. It'd be a scream.

Everyone excluding the player playing the ball and the acting half back, as he would have been playing the ball he would never have been offside in those occasions

Webb was not playing the ball or acting half back and as a result offside

As quoted here:

Tvoc and King Monkey are right. Outstanding spot by Ian Smith, well done the officials on that one. I'd argue with KM though that Webb is offside until he gets behind the play the ball. I don't buy any of the 'attempting to get back' business. You're either offside or you're not. Webb was out of the play, until the next play the ball, which he would have been able to get behind.
I cannot remember any occurence of someone coming from infront of their own play the ball to support, although I'm sure it's probably happened on rare occasions. It can only happen in 2 sitiuations (mostly).

1. As last night, support runner goes through, doesn't recieve it, starts infront of his own play the ball.

2. Fullback returns kick and is tackled. Winger picks up from dummy half and breaks the line. Players that have failed to retreat onside support.

(Remember that it's different if a fullback or winger breaks the line straight from a kick)

I've just put your theory to the test.

I've just finished watching The Sharks V The Raiders from Saturday's games in the NRL via Setanta. Not once did a player on kick return or after tackle one pass the ball to a retreating forward who hadn't got back behind where the PTB took place.

Not once.

Not once?

NOT ONCE?????

Twice?

The problem I have with this is that in 99% of games the try would have been given and as has been said nobody would have noticed, that is not acceptable. This is a huge argument for either 2 refs as in NRL or video ref at all games. The result of a match should not be decided on the flip of a coin.

To the people mentioning Hanley, when this rule was introduced some years back it was mentioned that many of his tries wouldn't have counted and IIRC it was partly with him in mind that this rule was introduced later on in his career. It does actually make perfect sense, as a friend of mine said nobody like goal-hangers in football.

Regardless of this particular decision which I can accept was correct Leeds lost out on most 50/50 calls and were unlucky not to win the game.

As I said earlier, I remember this rule was highlighted (it probably already existed) when the scrum on tackle 6 was abolished and teams started punting the ball down field on the 5th and chasing it. A tactic initially employed was to have all the chasers set off before the PTB (ie. infront of the the PTB) so when the FB or Winger fielded the kick everyone was waiting for him. It took a while but soon refs had players chasing retiring behind the PTB (you can be infront of the kicker but not the PTB).
Good spot by Smith, bad luck for Leeds, but correct.
In fairness the last pass was also a mile forward - I don't think we have made such a hash of a clean break as that for a long time - probably we make so few this season the players don't know what to do when they happen anymore.

Game breaking refereeing decisions were the Ablett yellow card and the no penalty for clear bodycheck off the ball by Newton - surely a penalty in any other phase of play.
But in all honesty if we had played ANY rugby at all in the second half we would have annihalated the Bulls who (Menzies apart) looked toothless.

Thats the only issue I would have with the refereeing on Friday but it was still 50/50 in my book.

why is everyone still discussing this? The game is over no matter how much you whine about wrong descions ( that were right anyway) and the points are gone. Move on FFS

SHUT UP

Well i never!

100% cock on mate with those two statements

There's nothing wrong with that try. Joynt doesn't have to retire the 10m. He is an attacking player!!! Only the team defending has to retire 10m:

***3.1.12 Players of the side not in possession other than the marker and the acting half-back are out of play if they fail to retire 10 metres from the point at which the ball is played or to their own goal line. They should
only be penalised if they intentionally interfere with the play, actively or passively.***

Players of the attacking team only have to be behind the PTB, whether that be by 5 inches or 20metres. Joynt does that and then makes his way up field. There is no other PTB, so Joynt is onside all along

***3.1.13 Players of the side in possession other than the player playing the ball and the acting half-back are out of play if they fail to retire behind the point at which the ball is played or to their own goal line.***

I support the Bulls & have never considered Deacon to be the only player in the team - although he has won us many games - & anyway, you are the master at "Twaddle"



Ps If we are to win anything this year, then we need Deacon back to full fitness & top form, otherwise we do need another 7 asap.

Nah, I'm still a mere apprentice at that (although I'm working on it...) but I'll never attain the heights of twaddledom that...certain other posters, already excel at...

You are NOT the apprentice any more matey cos .........................

You're Fired

I'd agree entirely with that - pretty much common sense! We may already have a 7 in Jeffries anyway, and IMO its anyway a 6 we really need.

I'll see you at the tribunal...

According to Robbie Paul's analysis on the SLS today, this was a new rule brought in at the beginning of this season (if so, I don't remember reading about it).