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.

A poster by the name of Ritz mentioned an hour or so after the game, check his posts if you don't take my word for it.

This one... I said it to wife immediately it happened during the match, with been a ref myself i always look at why a try shouldnt be awarded against us..but to be fair he was only slightly offside, but offside so cant get involved with that passage of play..doesnt matter how far his player runs in front of him he is offside until the next ptb.

I saw the try last night. you can't actually see Buderus at the PTB but when it pans out he looks margiannly off-side, or out of play. Reading the laws out of play only refers to the defending side, but it is not unreasonable to assume it also refres to attacking. If he is off-side he is easily played on by the acting half running 20m. If he is out of play it should be a penalty as I read it.

But the laws do actually cover off the fact that an attacking player who is out of play cannot be put onside. See the notes to section 14 about offside [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/rugby_laws_book_2007_%20(2).pdfhere[/url

Buderus isn't offside, he is out of play and thus the laws of the game preclude him from being involved in that play of the ball.

But I do agree with you about the the replay angles; I didn't think they conclusively show whether or not Buderus was out of play either, but it would seem to be a fair assumption that he was.

i thought he should have had gone to the screen when walker lost the ball over the line. Looked like a steal to me and to not look at it is a joke. Also, was a penalty but not not sure a penalty try. BBJ had to reach the ball 1st and ground it at pace. The bounce could allow the cover to get reach him if it doesnt bounce perfectly in stride and there were too many variables for me to give the try.

BJB could have put the kettle on & made a brew & still beaten Ah Van (IIRC) to the ball over the line. I think the ball even stopped short of the dead ball line. You could claim he might have been shot by a sniper or suffered a heart attack before getting to the ball, but I am almost certain he would.

Totally agree (now - Sunday might have had a different repsonse)

I don't think there was much choice in awarding a PT to be honest. If they hadn't it would have opened the door for professional fouls every time someone put a kick through. Clocking off 20 minutes early cost us the game, not VR decisions

With regards to the VR not calling it...

I watched it again last night, he never rewinds it that far. He starts reviewing the clip from Burrow passing it to Buderus (who's already onside at that point), before going on to review the grounding. So, given that he wasn't asked to go back that far, you can't blame RS for not wiping the try off as he didn't see the offence during his reviewing of the grounding.

All your blame should be directed at Ganson.

HTH.

No. He isn't. Read the rules that have been posted.

HTH.

Hate to raise this, but - after the scandal that was Millenium Tragic (episode 1) how do we know Silverdud did not chirp in Ganson's ear that Buderus was onside and therefore no need to check the screen?

After all, Klein chirped in his ear that a penalty should be awarded when it cleasrly should not have, and then failed to chirp (we believe) when Tansey ran 30 metres in two nanoseconds, so there are precedents...