sounds like someone is still bitter about 2002 to me

Thought Leeds were the better side but that doesn't alter the fact it was offside. At 11-10 anything could've happened.

Coupled with the fact we had two tries ruled out.

Yeah but they weren't tries.

I know. Hence they were ruled out.

As a neutral, it's simple it was offside, watching Smith's post match interview you could see he was slightly embarassed.

Having said that Yorkshire won

Clearly it wasn't!

[urlhttp://viewtopic.php?t=432905[/url

=redFeel free to comment on the thread in hand though, rather than just trolling. Carlos.

Exactly - Bentham looked at it enough times. It was hardly the obvious decision people are making out.

He looked at it repeatedly and came to the only conclusion possible IMO from the views he had. If, he had the over head view which was blocked by the gantry then he possibly would have ruled it out but in the circumstances he could do nothing else

Whether it was on or offside - it doesn't matter. The try was awarded & the resat is history. Maybe it was a payback for the Joynty "voluntary tackle"?

Do you even know what the rules are? Smith had to have both feet behind the ball

which was so close to call. It was a total 50/50 that went Leeds way! Just the same as: did eastmond knock on? some you get some you don't

For mine eastmond knocks the ball forward into donalds arm, at that point it's a knock on! a tough call, a 50/50 that went saints way.

Some you get some you don't.

You are the embaressment mate. Learn the rules if you are going to watch the game. It really will help you avoid making such a fool of yourself

Great game of no frills rugby and a shame that people will remember the "decision" rather than give all 34 players credit for really giving their all.

Thought Leeds just shaded it overall but was a titanic struggle at times.

.... and the Mick Withers/Leon Pryce fingernail???

Of course it was so "clearly offside" that a proffesional ref looked at it probably over 20 times and still gave it!! Get a grip FFS.
Looked perfectly clear to me that both his feet were behind the ball.
Why would Bentham deliberately give it if he knew it was offside?? I mean seriously??
What possible agenda could he have had?
Some of you lot need to get a grip and lets face facts, your ONLY try of the night came from a knock on but for some reason sky didn't show the side angle which would clearly have shown this.

You don't get 6 points for a voluntary tackle.

Can anybody please inform me when a rule was invented that you only need be behind the ball and not the man kicking the ball? It's a new one on me, only been watching for 30 odd years though so guess it passed me by

You are correct page 36 of the the RL rules, you need to be behind the kicker, no mention in the rulebook of being behind the ball.

Dear me 30 wasted years......



Its the same rule that applies to ALL offsides.

for example if the ball accidently hits a fellow team player then goes forward and is picked up by another team mate in front of the ball at the time of the first contact then the correct ruling is OFFSIDE

with me so far



Same rule applies to a player kicking the ball forward intentionally. If the player who receives the ball is in front OF THE BALL at the time of the kick then the correct ruling again is OFFSIDE.

Clearly Smith was always behind the BALL so was therefore ONSIDE.

The two Sky muppets are an embaressment and should learn the rules not make new ones up to suit the directors needs for controversy.

There is no relevance in this case to the relative postion of either players feet (standing or non standing)

HTH

These statements are a load of rubbish

funny that I was thinking exactly the same about yours.

Excert from Page 36

SECTION 14

OFF SIDE

When offside 1. A player is off side except when he is in his own ingoal
if the ball touches, is touched, held or kicked, by
one of his own team behind him.

Bentham clearly interprets this as a reference to the ball being the relevant marker not the relative postion of the two players.

I cant find any reference to your assertion that players have to be behind the kicker as oppossed to the ball.

What gets me is that sky have all this technology that can show if football players off side by using computer generated lines across the pitch. They can show where a 5" leather ball pitches and predict if it would hit the wickets in cricket. Christ, even the BBC can show u if a 4" tennis ball lands on a 2" white line.

Yet we are to believe that there is insufficient technology available to allow video refs to decide on off sides in RL. Give me a break.

It wasn't that decision that cost us the game, but it could have been.

Whatever rule it was using it was wrong. But lets forget that now.

Then he and you interpreted it wrong! Read it again it might sink in

why do I need to read it again it will not become any different. It is clearly open to interpretation and the CORRECT one apperently isnt yours.