It wouldn't be the Magic weekend unless a VR screwed the Bulls.

Great try by Kear wrongly disallowed.


Langley? Check, check.

There was no opponent waiting for the ball. The ball was kicked into empty space, and players of both teams went for it, but no Huddersfield player even touched the ball. It can be 100% said that no Huddersfield player "was waiting".


IF a Huddersfield player HAD "first secured possession", and Langley had not "iimmediately retired ten", then a penalty, but no such thing happened, so Langley never became under an obligation to retire.


This explanatory note to the laws does clarify, and is obviously designed to clarify, that the "encroachment" rule specifically only applies to an opponent WHO IS SET TO CATCH a kick. Not even Ken Davy would argue that any of his players was ever set to catch the kick.

=#FF0000[size=85Note to muppets:
I am discussing one isolated incident and my post is about how we keep getting inexplicably shafted by VR decisions. It is not about the game in general nor is it discussing the result. There is a separate thread about the rest of the game.[/size

According to the TV panel Langley is not allowed to approach within 10m of the defender catching the ball. Langley follows the kick so is judged to encroach (I presume). McGuire had a try disallowed at the end of the Wigan game for an incident that also didn't affect the attack or defence but again was apparently spot on by the letter of the law. Both daft IMO & without VR both would have stood.

Makes no difference if we cant takle or stop knocking on we had no hope in the red firey place of wining that game totally outclassed, need Nas ans sidlow back soonish.

Because it was labelled 'note to muppets' and you're not a muppet, Broady, you probably skipped over it.

In the case of Elliot Kear's try. Jamie Langley should have known to stay out of it. We make too many sloppy errors to win matches against top sides and that was one of them. Just annoying when minor infringements that have no influence on the passage of play get picked up after seeing monumental clangers like we have this weekend.

Er, but WHAT defender, there was no defender catching the ball. I don't think you've considered the detail I posted, Langley did not infringe either the letter or spirit of the rule (though he bloody well should have known not to get close, but that's another issue)

Langley was offside, get over it.

Seen plenty of similar incidents have a try scrubbed off in Sky games. In that instance it seems quite pedantic when he doesn't interfere with play but the ruling was consistent.

Langley was offside in the same way JJB was offside at Headingley earlier this year. Harsh, but it is what it is.

Sorry missed that last comment

I'm not under it, nor ever was. What do I have to "get over", exactly? Why do people make such totally irrelevant comments? Nobody is disputing that Langley was offside, so I suggest you try reading the OP and see if you have anything to actually add.

The question isn't whether he was offside, it is whether he broke any rule, and I've explained exactly why he didn't. Nobody has yet given a single reason why what I have said is wrong. All I ask is that the laws of the game be applied to the incident, and I argue they clearly weren't.

Murphy was the defender.

You seriously arguing Murphy was "waiting for the ball"? Or "set to catch the kick"? With respect, you cannot be serious.

Well what the hell else was he doing? Filling in his tax returns?

Murphy was waiting to catch the ball, Langley strayed within 10m
Offside.

Yes, he jumped up with Kear to catch the ball

He was within ten metres of a competition for the ball having been offside at the kick. I argue they clearly were.

Had you gone for a pint when that happened, because both players hands were very close to the ball.
Or had you had a few too many.???

so in your eyes Murphy who had jumped up for the ball with the Bradford player wasn't either :
A) a defender or B) trying to gather the kick ??

Please explain what role then Murphy played in this decision to 'not apply the rules' ?

I wouldn't bother. He is a lawyer. He is good at arguing, even if his point is hopelessly flawed and frankly baffling.

Of course he wasn't waiting, no player was waiting, because the ball was kicked into a space. Whatever you make of it, nobody can seriously argue that any defender was "waiting".

He was indeed both. But you, like others, seem unable to understand the simple wording of the rule. Which doesn't mention "trying to gather".

Ok please point me to where in the law it mentions a "competition for the ball" and I will agree. Clue: it doesn't.

"Interfering with Catcher 2. Any off side player who remains within ten metres of an opponent who is set to catch a kick up field by an opposing player shall be deemed to be interfering with or attempting to interfere with the catcher and shall be penalised unless the non-offending team gains an immediate advantage."

Seems clear enough to me. Unless of course Murphy wasn't trying to catch the ball but was just jumping up to look over the top of the Bradford players to see whether the Bradford fans had all gone home since they'd been so quiet.

Look. He has already said, and yet you are all still falling for his wind up. FA is clearly bored or having a quiet week and wants an argument. I'd leave it and he will go away. He is winding you all up, and you are falling for it.

I know he is talking nonsense - you know he is talking nonsense, we all know he is talking nonsense. Let him have his moment in the sun.