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.

Presumably either someone had a word in his ear about an offside or he had a doubt following the kick, so he referred it to the VR. On the others there was not that doubt so he didn't go.

Good point - the ref in the hi-viz shirt usually takes the flak - but often the other 26 "part time" ref wannabes on the pitch are behind some of the more bizarre calls

FWIW Murphy did catch the ball first, it was stolen off him one on one though, ergo Langley was offside and should have immediately retreated which he didn't


Also, by encroaching within 10m he automatically was "influencing play". Again, penalty.

100% correct call both in the letter and spirit of the law.

Disagree, he never, at any point, had control of the ball, but it's irrelevant now - who have you got next week?

Pure pedantry and semantics eh

Anyway, to answer your question - saints at home

Agree that it was the legally correct call, but in reality who would have had any complaint had it been given? I bet the vast majority of Hudds fans would have had no issue.

But I have to disagree that Langley was influencing play, unless his hair got in Murphy's eyes....

In all fairness, when was the last time Jamie Langley [iever[/i influenced play?

Ha ha, if you like!

Though, to be honest, more like it's over and did it actually have any effect on the result? I bet it helped a few pints go down in the pub whilst the match was being de-briefed.

Murphy never caught the ball, even his mother would concede that one.


Except even the RFL have admitted(well, simply stated without explanation) that the penalty was given because of the current "POLICY". I.e. not under the laws.

As for the "spirit", well, this was perhaps a text-book case of an incident where Langley being ahead of the kicker did not, in the event, make even the slightest of difference to what happened. It was a great move, the kick went up, Kear caught it fair and square and immediately touched down. I would be interested to know how you can argue that disallowing such a fine exhibition of skill is within "the spirit" of the game.

That's an extremely strange understanding of what a policy is.

Wasn't the word 'policy', used in the same kind of context where, these days, they usually say 'interpretation'? In which case, I believe FA has got it spot on. If it doesn't mean, " forget what it says in the laws of the game, this is what we want", what does it mean?

What is? I don't remember attempting a definition, nor did I even bring the word into the conversation - the RFL used the word in their explanation, but didn't expand on it.


I'm flattered to have maintained your interest, but I'm intrigued how your complaint of "sophistry" can be reconciled with your cryptic remark.

OK just to throw another spanner into the works, we have to agree JL was offside, by definition that as a snap judgement the VR chap automatically knew the distance between JL and EK was under 10 yds.(not metres) when he caught the ball and scored the try!

So if the letter of the law is being applied here why can't the referee go to the VR for a forward pass when a player has scored from that suspected forward pass, which is offside as the rule states unequivically? ?
i.e.

A defending player is offside if he/she is less than 10m away from the play-the-ball (or, if the play-the-ball is inside his 10m line, closer to it than the try-line is) when the ball is played. He is also offside if, during open play, he is closer to the opposition's try-line than the ball. At a scrum a defending player is also offside if he is less than 5m away from the base of the scrum.

An attacking player is offside if he is in front of the ball: if he is in front of a ball which is then kicked, he can be put onside if the kicker subsequently moves ahead of him before the ball is caught. If not, he must stand 10m away from the player who catches the ball (as if he were the acting half-back at a play-the-ball) or be penalised.

And when they say it's all about camera angles, hogwash...a player who passes the ball in a forward motion has instigated a forward pass irrespective of the direction of the ball. So watch the player and if it's missed, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team. If the referee has spotted a blatant forward pass in the defenders 10 mtr. section then he awards a penalty for offside.

That should stop a lot of the percentage forward passing play by any attacking side!!!


INOUT

The ref & VR got it spot on, as they did for virtually every call. Bulls missed 52 tackles IIRC. Perhaps that should be the focus of discussion. If a ref made as many blatant errors as Foster in that game then there would be a clamour for him never to ref again.
If a receiving player is in front of the passing player when it is passed he is offside, that is a very rare offence.