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?

Thanks.


Indeed I have.


What an idiotic suggestion. On what basis could they order a replay, and why on earth would you think that I want one?


Are you just being silly now?


Is [iTHAT[/i what I'm doing? I am analysing a quoted offside law, but to you, I'm not; to you, I think that the posters on RLFans have the power to reverse the decision, and so to you, I'm trying to get them to reverse it? Have I got your understanding right? If so, it's nuts.

Not exactly. Langley was in an offside position as the kick was taken as he was in front of the kicker. The laws only state that if offside, he shouldn't seek to gain an advantage, or influence the play.

Being offside is not an instant penalty. Some on here would do well to at least TRY to understand that. It ain't hard.

The question is when - according to that irritating (to some) thing, the letter of the law as written for us all to read, he should be penalised.

If the ball is heading towards a defender, who is set to catch it, and Langley gets within 10 then the law (not me) says as soon as the defender catches it, Langley must retreat the 10. However much some people don't like it, ans say they understand how the rules are applied etc etc., if this is not the rule then why is it IN the rule?

In Langley's case no opponent ever caught, or even touched, the ball, so Langley could remain offside as long as he neither sought to influence the play or to gain an advantage. He did neither, since a second after catching the ball, Kear touched it down.

Is it just me who thinks that there is only one person in the world who actually gives a feck here?

I'm not saying I did or didn't delete that historical thread. But what I can say with 100% certainty, is that I do not recall deleting it.

But consider this - wasn't VBFG a moderator back then? It seems plausible to me that he deleted the thread and is now doing a David Irving with the history books.

Someone just queried kear try decision on refs twitter thing. Here's official interpretation of rule.


@RFLReferees: RT @lukey_mawson Why was Kear's try ruled out against Huddersfield? Langley wasn't interfering why does it matter?


@RFLReferees: .@lukey_mawson (1/2) Langley offside & within 10m of catcher waiting for the ball.Policy dictates that as he’s within 10m he’s interfering.

@RFLReferees: .@lukey_mawson (2/2) Langley must recognise he’s offside or respond to ref’s prompt & retreat or the kicker should place him. JC

That explains it, then. As well as the Laws, there's a "Policy" which dictates that he was interfering. Shame the Policies aren't available to read.

I understand that it's the rule but its still stupid. If the player has no influence on the play then I don't see why it's a problem. I'm sure that in the JJB incident, he got involved in the play, so thus offside. Langley did nothing, so how would it be different if he was retreating from the try line still for example, he can be there as long as he is not involved in play.

As I understand it he was in front of the kicker & ran forward to get within 10m of the defender. If he had stayed >10m away it obviously wouldn't have been a penalty &, presumably, if he had been within 10m of the defender when the ball was kicked he wouldn't necessarily have been offside (& penalised) as long as he didn't attempt to interfere - usually stand with your arms in the air.

Think the officials were oversensitive, because of the Ganson affair and were looking for anything that could be misconstrued by the public & their paymasters. It apparently happened with two other teams tries as well. The problem with James Childs is that having done it once, he didn't apply the same principles to Huddersfield and never went to the screen on at least three occasions. The Bulls contingent at the game would at least have felt that the official was being even handed. Lets hope this motivates the officials to get it right and perhaps the linesmen need more involvement in the game.

after the 'clarification' to feeding the scrum which allowed the ball to hit the loose forward, before the actual rule book changed from demanding the ball went down the middle of the tunnel.

There are many incidents within a game where offside is ignored, most PTBs for a start, though top be fair to the referees how you can judge where a player is when the ball is, "played by the foot", when it rarely is, must be a bit unfathomable to say the least. That said, markers not square is rarely, if ever, punished when they don't actually get involved, which appears to contradict the somewhat perfunctory RFL explanation, which seems to suggest that they should be "deemed" to be involved just by being in an off-side position.