Not 100% sure, but I don't think it counts as an offside. If he's in front of the ball when played, isn't it something else? "Inactive" or some other stupid term?

Purely going on when Brent Webb was penalised for it at Odsal and had a try chalked off. He went behind the man in possession, but was still penalised.

I'm sure it's a different rule to offside and is essentially that you're not allowed to get involved until the ball is played again.

Ritz will be able to clarify this one for us I think.

Not sure about "Inactive" but if he was Offside then by the laws of the game he was definitely onside by the time he touched the ball.

Yeah but as I say, go back to the try that got chalked off at Odsal a year or two ago, when Webb was penalised for the same thing after he got involved. By that rule you've quoted, he would have been deemed onside again and therefore the try would have been given. So there must be something more to it than simply classed as offside.

Maybe the ref got the Webb decision wrong?

Got it.

From Section 11:



So attacking player in front of the PTB is classed as "out of play".

Then from same section you linked to:




They are classed as "out of play" and not "offside" and not played back in by the lines you've quoted. They are "out of play" until the next PTB.

Nope Mr Alibert was correct.

It's not very clear where he would be classed as "out of play" but if the same rules apply to the attacking team then this would bring him back into play


[i(h) having retired the distance prescribed in the preceding paragraph no player of the team not in possession may advance until the ball has cleared the ruck. A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost[/i


It's not very clear either way imo

I disagree. I think it's perfectly clear.

I don't recall the incident with Buderus (and have no intention of going back and watching it). But if it's the same as the Brent Webb one from Odsal, then he was "out of play" and therefore not eligible to be involved until the next PTB (which is when the advantage has gone). It's right there in Black and White.

I was just struggling to see where he was officially classed as "out of play" and where it says he cannot join in until the next ptb.

I admit I have not read the entire rule book but could not find these points.

I agree it doesn't actually say that. It explains when a defender comes back into play, but not the attacking player (the bit you quoted is referring to the defender).

For that, I can only judge on what happened with the Webb incident, where they clearly stated on commentary that he's not eligible to be involved again until the next PTB (I only remember this clearly because when I was at the game without the benefit of commentary, I was completely bemused as to why the try was disallowed).

The rules don't seem to clarify that properly though, you're right.

Given he scored from his initial out of play position would that not suggest the advantage had not been lost when he got the ball?

He didn't score

If he was offside then the try was fine

[i(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.[/i

If he was out of play then would the rule below bring him back into play? he was 5m out of play at the ptb
but received the ball 15-20 upfield from the ptd

[iA player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.[/i

This, coming from a Leeds troll, is rich trolling indeed, farcically ignoring that we all know the VR told Ganson to award a non-existent knock-on, which Ganson had ruled "play on", at MM last year.

Again, that last bit you quote, I believe is referring to a player on the non-possession team, not an attacking player. I am 99.9% sure he is not deemed "in play" again until the next PTB, and I'm sure I read that somewhere at the time of the last one, but can't for the life of me find it again now.

He definitely is not offside. That bit is clear. He is "Out of play". Even if that line did refer to attackers (which I don't believe it does), it's way too ambiguous as to when the advantage gained has been lost. Some would argue the advantage has gone when he's behind the man again. Some would argue he's gained an advantage for the whole term of possession. It's absolutely daft wording.

Teach me to jump into posts at work!

And as for the VR telling Ganson to give a penalty (that never was) that Ganson had never seen...

Wouldn't a non-possession player be offside and not out of play? what's the difference

By non-possession, I mean the team defending. The rule I quoted from section 11 clearly says that a player from the team in possession of the ball, who is not behind the PTB (except the man playing it and the acting half) is "out of play", not "offside". That is one of the only bits that is very clear about this. And if Buderus was in front of them, even by 1 yard, then he was "out of play".

I suppose there is the outrageous possibility that both the ref & VR saw the incident & judged it not an offence?

The point is, that is what the laws of the game state, so it isn't up for debate. The player is offside, but he is also out of play. (We know he is also offside, as rule 13 explains how he cannot be put onside; which clearly if he wasn't offside, would be illogical)

The difference is that a player offside is either put back onside or he isn't - it's a straight question of fact. Whereas a player who is out of play at a PTB can't take part in the next play unless "the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost", which leaves it up to the interpretation of the ref.

So, is it better to be "out of play" or is it worse? I think one big clue is in the rule which states that a player out of play is NOT put "on side" by any of the normal events in Rule 13. Why is that important? Well, because even if any of the events occur, such as a team-mate with the ball getting ahead of you, so that you WOULD now be immediately onside, under this rule, you're still not. You still, even then, can't take part unless BOTH (a) you are on side, AND (b) you haven't gained any advantage by not retiring. So I reckon the bar is a level higher.

Whilst the rule does not make a crystal clear dividing line, unlike offside, I would suggest that it is easy enough to judge which side of the line any given incident falls. I don't really see there is any problem in interpretation. If you are hanging about, without having made the 10, but then take a pass as the play progresses past you, the fact you have gained an advantage is plain as day. Including (a) you wouldn't have been there in the first place had you retired the ten; (b) you have taken up and utilised a key position illegally (even if unintentionally), to mention but two.

Given what the rules state, I can't see any realistic way that a player who actually takes up the ball from that position could ever be ruled NOT to have gained an advantage.

The ONLY way I can think of for that to be the case, is if he runs backwards further than where the PTB happened, to a point where he would have been ok if he'd been there at the time of the actual PTB.

That would certainly be one way, I'd agree. I reckon the logic of not being able to be put onside even by a team-mate with the ball running past you would be that you would still have the advantage of not having shuttled back 10 and then forwards.

This was such a howling error by the match officials that it took all the aggrieved Bulls fans well over 24 hours to discover it.
In fact it only came to light when it was pointed out in a post by tvoc on the Southstand site.
Perhaps you'd care to ask us for the 2 points back?

Not true Old Feller ................. this site had a thread featuring the very subject and I emailed sky before the end of the match.