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.

What saddens me is we have the technology but idiots using it>

Agree on that point...but surely its where McGuires foot is when kicking the ball that is the important point? On the freeze frame you can just make out the edge of the ball just beyond the Saints defenders leg and drawing a line along that point to Smith I reckon he's level,hence why Bentham gave the try.

nicked from the Leeds board just for you! conclusive evidence it was a try

Lol, that line isn't even properly parallel to the 10 metre line so that's cr@p for a start off.
Offside should have been the decision & no there was no doubt about it.
If you check other VR decisions for offsides they are decided with regard to where the feet of the kicker & chaser are, not the ball.

Smiths feet are behind the ball which is the reason it was given but ATEOD we won get over it!!!!!!

you really need to get over it! we all accept the call was a 50/50 and as with most vid ref calls they can and do go either way! To say there should have Been only one out come to the referral is nieve, blinkered and down right ignorant!

You are just not gonna have it that Bentham refed it to the letter of the law. Instead you think you have been robbed.

Most fans dont have a real clue what rules the refs are using as the only feedback we get most of the time is what the idiots on sky or the BBC tell us. Bentham gave the reason for his decision(both the players feet were behind the ball, which they were) and those sky fools just ignored the refs feedback via the director!

Thats why people like you are posting this crap, you dont know the rules! You only think you do. Your ignorance is painful! your own players don't have a problem with it. Why? Because they know the rules.

As you say that red line might not be 100% but it shows you it was increadibly tight! And noway can you rule it out without doubt! It's a stone wall 50/50 it went Leeds way.

dry your eyes mate!
I know it's hard to take!
I know how much the pain hurts!
But it's over!

ill tell you what pal..if that had been the other way round and it had been saints who scored the try..you'd have been on here now screaming blue murder..trouble is though if it had been us he would have disallowed it...we all know the little fart leans to leeds.

You've obviously not watched any leeds games that bentham and ganson have reffed this year.
Don't play the "woah is me" card we deserved to win and lets not forget the penalty against senior for the invisible barge!!
It was a tough call but when the reason was explained and you see the different angles and viewpoints without listening to the saints cheerleading squad in commentry it was a try!

Well clearly there was doubt wasn't there given the amount of time Bentham looked at the try.

Like I said before given the absence of the overhead shot which was obscured there was no other course of action possible other than to award the try. From some view it looked on/from some views it looked off.

Going back to teh Eastmond try that was disallowed, ignoring the tackle by Sinfield but the issue of whether the foot was in touch/not was the same. By some angles it looked in touch and by some it didn't. Had sinfield not made the tackle that try would have had to have been awarded

can i throw in the name MELI too .....

Lol @ Meli's positioning there. Big hole where it is painfully obvious where the 3 Leeds players are going to attack.

So you post a photo which appears to show smith in front of the kicker and the ball.

Your point being?

It shows smith behind the ball. But that's not the point. The point is as I've said many times is that at the very least/best/worst however you want to put it, it was a very very very tight call. A pure 50/50! It went Leeds way. No injustice, Bentham specifies the reason for the decision on sky via the director then hemmmings, after the game long and wilkin have both said it was a fair call.

There's about 6 points in there for you!

are you gonna accept that? No you just keep showing yourself up for what you are.

Unreal decision to be honest. Took one look at it in the ground, could see he was off side so sat me arris down and awaited the call... my ears almost fell off when the TRY was put up on the screen... bad call, and we didnt need it as we already had individuals on our own team coming up with clangers like kicks out on the full, kickc dead in goal, knock ons, etc etc...

Bentham got that one wrong , and will go down as the worst reffing call in GF history ( to date ), surpassing the "joynt fell over" call, and the "withers knock on" call.