Who? Pryce? Does he play for us? Oh. I thought he still played for you? Well, he may as well do. He hasn't been seen at Saints for months ... (Personally, I hope he becomes intimately familiar with those extremely comfortable benches at Knowsley Road next season with young Gary Wheeler taking his place)


When you have the answer to your question would you let us know, please? Personally, I can't see past Potter as being the problem but whenever I suggest that anywhere near Saints fans I generally get piloried. I just cannot see how a team that appeared to be fired up, happy as a team and at least with some attacking flair can turn into what we have seen develop over the last few months. From a Saints fan's perspective it is really sad, not so much the lack of silverware but rather to see our team spoiled in this way. Few fans are enjoying watching Saints at present. When Catalans played us at KR for our last match of the regular season I ended up watching them and cheering their efforts because we were so dire!

But as the rules don't specify the "back foot", why pick that?

Surely, the logical choice is the foot kicking the ball? If as the chaser you (iei your feet) are behind or level with the ball, it's fair enough?

Well it could do with clarifying, I've seen 40/20's given where the ball has crossed the 40 but the back foot is inside the 40. So I assumed the ref's judged it on the players back foot rather than where the ball is in the air as contact is made with the boot. Surely that ruling makes it almost impossible for a ref to make a call without slow motion replays?

Been there done that.



Most times things seems to have gone like that here, seems to be money issues behind it, directly or indirectly (and yes, I'm including first-half 2005).

Maybe its happening over your way now?

Good point.

Whilst not under the same part of the RFL rules, a sound, logical (IMHO) point.

You know what's done for Saints? The slowing down of the PTB. It no longer means they can charge up the pitch on Mr Potato Head or Roby's back anymore.

Wigan blame the salary cap, Saints blame the slow PTB.

Bradford blame everything else!

Player has to have both feet behind or level with the ball to be placed onside..the ball is the main object not the foot, he doesnt have to be level or behind kickers back foot otherwise he would be 2 foot behind the ball..ie clearly onside.

Agree on that, the fact that it is being debated, with nobody having a clear answer, is proof enough of that.



I'm not sure that I've seen that. But it is not inconsistent. In the case you cite, the BALL is outside the 40. So it has not been kicked from inside the 40. This would mean that the position of the ball, when struck by the kicking foot, is what fixes the relevant point on the pitch.

If that's right, then all the chaser had to be is feet not in front of the point where the ball was kicked by the kicking foot.

It would be consistent.

Simple. No more quick PTBs. The likes of Roby, Pryce, Long and Wilkin mostly look good running against a retreating defensive line. That's why they've been quiet all season. Last year Saints were dependent on quick PTBs, scoots from Cunningham and Roby and piggyback penalties. The loophole has been closed

Did i not say something similar at the top of the page?

No-one listens to me any more!

Exactly, Saints have been exposed as one trick ponies, especially so given the nucleus of their successful sides has grown old.

Where we were once derided as being biffballers with no plan B it now looks like Saints have been rumbled as simple dummy half scooters with no plan B either.

I don`t know where you got your copy from but mine only mentions the player; in front of the KICKER is offside.

Its what you get told on the refs course.

Agree, that hasn't helped them . . . . . . but I still think there is more.

Whilst the quick play the balls gave them the head of steam they were always good at the footie in broken play / throwing the ball around - which isn't QPTB specific.

There be (more/greater) trouble at t'mill, I tell ye . . . . ..

Aye, 'appen.

Agreed I've seen a fair few 40-20s given where the ball is being struck by the kicking foot over the 40m line but the non kicking foot is behind it.

That rule states:


If the example you cite is given as a 40/20 then clearly the position of the ball and the kicking foot "outside" the 40 is being held irrelevant, and the ref is judging the player to have kicked the ball from the point where he "is" i.e. where his back foot is.

I suppose that's the same as any other 'line' decision, i.e. you can hang over the touchline as long as you don't touch the ground, you can bat a ball back into play from feet 'outside' the pitch as long as you are in mid-air and have jumped from in-field.

But I still reckon that if the kick did not make touch, then to be onside, a chasing player would only have to be level with or behind the ball - even if his feet were both slightly outside the 40. Anyway that's how i think they interpret it.
Thinking about this,

[[url=http://images.yuku.com/image/pjpeg/48235dd3fac7acf219c6480dd7c7fc9901978fa.jpgOnside/offside clicky - you decide[/url =redEdited to prevent Sky being peeved over copyright. AUP 1.2b - Photographs (inc. images) may only be posted where you own the copyright, or have been granted permission to do so. - BP

I also found this in the rule book...

46.1.2 Onside/offside from a penalty.
An attacking player is offside during a penalty kick if he is in front of the kicker at the point the ball is struck. However, if the ball strikes one of the uprights and bounces back out to said "offside player" and he then goes on to score a match winning try the incident will be deemed as "funny" and the try will stand. (See rule amendment 49.2.4 - Funny)

[url=http://imgur.com/Mxt7T.jpgOnside/offside clicky - you decide[/url =redEdited to prevent Sky being peeved over copyright. AUP 1.2b - Photographs (inc. images) may only be posted where you own the copyright, or have been granted permission to do so. - BP