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.

Indeed, but laws are inherently subject to interpretation. Whilst FA's waiting for the Clapham omnibus the rest of us can get on with knowing that.

An old, not used for many a moon interpretation was that if you were offside and strayed inside the ten but weren't physically involved in play then it didn't matter. The current one is that by being inside the ten you inherently influence the decision making of those physically involved in play and thus influence play itself.

To say one or the other of these is mere policy and must therefore be not under the laws is grasping for not very much. That it is policy doesn't stop it from falling under the laws. That's the most obvious point in the whole thread, surely?

Probably deliberately, you skate over the key point that if a law states something AMBIGUOUS, then it is open to interpretation, but if the statement is unambiguous, then no interpretation is required nor indeed possible.


Then why does the relevant law (and I should perhaps stress that this is the 2013 version of the laws, so has been revised, and any historical anomalies or previous "interpretations" we can take to have been updated too):

If you can be d, just tell me what you think the answer is to this:
IF NO opponent first secures possession (which is what happened here), then does the offside player still have to retire?
To ask it another way, HOW could the offside player EVER "immediately retire ten metres" if, as you I think argue, the penalty has automatically been given by virtue of being inside the ten? How? Maybe you could give me a simple example, and I ask not to be awkward, or clever, but because that's what the rule says, but the opposite (well, more than the oposite, since the Hudds. player never did catch the ball) happened here.

OK, you insist that you want wordplay and definitions,well that's actually simple too. You can look at a law as what is to be achieved, and a policy as the detail of how it is to be achieved. Nobody is arguing that being policy makes something irrelevant to the laws. I only argue that the policy cannot CONTRADICT the relevant law. To REVERSE or IGNORE any given law, you have to change that law.

Or, to say the same in a lot less words:

I'm done. I should have stuck to my guns. This is exactly the kind of nonsensical pedantry that stopped me from posting here in the first place. This isn't discussion or debate.

I didn't bother reading, fwiw.

I must confess to having a lot of sympathy with this view TBH.

However, I would appeal to vbfg not to "do one." More often than not we disagree but I do find your "alternative" view on things here very enlightening, and , FWIW, interesting. (A bit like pumpetypump if I am allowed to say so.)

However, we shall see.

FA, once again you seem to have won the argument, simply by boring/annoying people into submission. You are good, nop doubt about that. You even win an argument that you are completely wrong about.

- it just needs the realisation that it is necessary, the will to do it and about five minutes of someone's time. Let's not forget that most of these changes come about between seasons anyway.

Why though? You write a rule, someone will find a way round it. Governing bodies issue directives & guidance documents all the time. All teams will have been made aware of any clarifications of any rules - it is up to them to learn them & abide by them.

I'm not going anywhere, no more than I already had at any rate. I'm just done with this topic. But thank you for your words.

Nice straw man, but there wasn't an argument to win. It was supposed to be a rules specific discussion, but you try to turn everything into a personalities thing. Sad, but we're used to it now.

Anyway I don't think there's anything to usefully add, so it can be locked for mine.

No I don't.

Ya bore.

Really?

Well, here are your contributions to the discussion:



They have two things in common: none of them contribute anything whatsoever to the discussion, and all of them are personal jibes at me.

So, yes. You do.