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.

You think?

Well probably not. But if they stop arguing with him then he will have nobody left to play with.

The term I used is a colloquialism of the type two normal people might use in a conversational setting such as this. You want me to pay heed only to those terms used in the official laws of the game, and then have us exchange increasingly tedious broadsides of sophistry until one of us, i.e me, walks away bored.

No.

I'm content to know that they've been calling similar incidents in this manner for a few years now. Cummings called it before the official did, we have benefited from similar rulings this season and other teams have had similar incidents ruled in the same way. From what I've seen of the NRL this year it seems pretty standard there too. This more than dispels any notion I might have that we were cheated, treated differently or had something bizarre and unjust fall out of the sky and land on our heads. For me, that's more than good enough.

The situation I originally described is more than adequately accounted for in the rules. If you haven't the wit to understand "shall not encroach within ten metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball" then there's probably not a great deal increasingly complex arguments about the same simple concept will do for you.

But of course you do understand it, so why we're even having this conversation is the real point of confusion.

You are right it was obviously a try. Have you thought of writing to the RFL and explaining it to them and demanding a replay or the record books be amended. It would be more useful than trying to have the decision reversed on here

But even if we did kick into space, you will always here the referee say "give him 10" before the defender even touches the ball.

Murphy jumped with Kear for the ball, Langley was offside, Langley was within 10m of Murphy and the ball.

However harsh it seems that it was disallowed, those are the rules. We can't have any complaints. Maybe your criticism should be at Langley for going within 10m when he was clearly offside.

We benefitted from a similar call against Leeds, so to say we were done over by the ref when it goes against us is childish.

No complaints from me. I think you're on your own on this one FA.

You know what? We are gonna get pages and pages of folks pointing out obvious stuff to FA, who will play dumb, and we will all go round in circles. Onlookers will look in and think this is somewhat pointless. They would be right.

FA knows exactly what he is doing here and, sadly, he is winning. He's BORED FFS!!! Start an anti-McNamara thread or something - he likes them.

What about a Chris Joynt Voluntary Tackle thread?

I'm not sure if even FA has the stamina to rival that. However the potential for thread drift is always there...

It was not a voluntary tackle and you know it. The ref did not give it. He slipped whilst preparing for the tackle from the Bradfoird player.

When Pumpetypump deleted that thread the club's fortunes nose dived.

Correct, it's all his fault. Also, it was never a voluntary tackle, any more than Jvt was about Jvt

If you are reading this, but you're not actually interested in a discussion of what the law in question says or means, then you're in the wrong place.

The law states that an offside player (which, to labour the point, Langley was) "
and shall immediately retire ten
metres from any opponent who first secures possession
of the ball."

How could that work? Can anyone disagree that on those plain words, if Murphy had caught the ball, and Langley had immediately retired ten, then under the plain words, he would have complied?

And as in the event NO opponent secured possession of the ball, I reckon that means as long as he doesn't interfere with play, Langely's ok, if dumb.

So Langley was only offside if Murphy had caught it?