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...

I'll rephrase my post...

He starts reviewing the clip from Burrow passing it to Buderus (who would appear to be onside if you were to start viewing the clip at that point), before going on to review the grounding.

All your blame should be directed at Ganson.

True. He might also have been calling him a granny beating alco, but I doubt it.

Except wasn't that [iexactly[/i the scenario which preceded Tansy's, shall we say, somewhat dubious, try at the previous MM in Cardiff?

If you check again TT I think you'll find it's Ah Van who grounded the ball and even if Bishop had got their first it would have needed neither a gunshot nor heart attack to prevent a touchdown, merely not grounding a bouncing ball under pressure. Of course that's never happened before so it must be certain that he would have scored, I guess, let's have a penalty try eh?

that's going a bit far IMO, you could say that of any penalty try ever given. who's to say that any potential try scorer isn't going to knock on should no offence have taken place?

Another point, why didn't Ah Van kill the ball by putting his foot out of play before picking the ball up? If it wasn't a penalty try we would have had a tap on the 20 and not a goal line drop out. Irrelavant (SP) I know but just a thought.

What planet are you on?

BJB NEARLY (granted not quite, but NEARLY) beat Ah Van to the ball anyway! Even AFTER he'd been pulled down, he still got up and was only a few yards short of beating Ah Van to it. Had he not been pulled down he would've comfortably have beaten him to it.

TT point was perfectly valid. It's perfectly reasonable for the VR to assume that a professional player would have no problem grounding a ball. If you had to take into account that "the ball might not have been grounded had play continued" you never give any PT ever.

It's a good job the roof was closed or you'd be claiming that an Eagle MIGHT HAVE come down and taken the ball before BJB got to it. Thus resulting in a PT not been given.

I think my new great mates RR & pg have answered that one sufficiently.

I thought they scrapped that rule years ago.

They have scrapped that rule.

I just wondered why we looked incessantly at the Chev Walker incident and the Elliot Whitehead knock on in the build up to another disallowed try, yet the Leuluai try was looked at just a couple of times and was rubber stamped almost instantly, could there be a case for a time limit on the video review? My biggest gripe is the total inconsistency with the decision making by the video ref. Sometimes he keeps looking for a reason to disallow until he thinks he's found one, and other times he seems to just glance at the tape so his coffee doesn't go cold.

pretty fair point imo. Stick a reasonable time limit, 1 1/2 - 2 minutes on the decision and if he cant find something conclusive then benefit of doubt to attacking team. It does seem sometimes that the Video ref just keeps looking until he finds a reason to disallow a try and it looks especially bad when decisions for one team are take longer and end up disallowing tries compared to quick decisions for other team allowing their efforts. And that comment isnt specifically aimed at the leeds/bradford game, more a general observation. Think it was paul cullen or tony rea who once said you can find a reason to disallow any try if you look at it long enough and are strict enough about the rules.

some decisions go for you, some go against you, they even up over time, Bradford were admittedly the better side but at the final hooter Leeds were in front end of, debating the rights and wrongs of officials decisions is pointless, Leeds were beaten in the 2005 GF by a side who cheated (using Moz) and last years WCC when Melbourne massively burst the salary cap, then we had the Tansey try at MM which was an injustice to Bradford but,
some decisions go for you, some go against you.

Moz was a LOAN player from NRL so was not cheating, We followed the loan rules -_-. Melbourne hadn't been found out. Though after the WCC should have been void. Tansey was way offside. This game was a farce at the end, mixture of bad calls (never mind 50/50) and crap defence. Also I think 5 penalty tries in the whole of SL, 2 were for Leeds against Bradford. Bulls have also had most Video Refs decisionms denied with over 60% being Silverwood/Ganson/Klien.... Coincidence? I think not. Officials have never liked us since Northern walked off the pitch against Hull KR.

we breached the cap in 2005 when we won SL.

Sssssssssssshhhhhhh. Don't tell everyone!