In the first half last night Ratchford had a try disallowed for Atkins being offside. Why? Yes Atkins was in front of the kicker but had no influence on the play, didn't obstruct anybody, didn't go anywehere near the ball and Ratchford gathered his own kick and scored! I am well aware that a player in front of the kicker has to give a defending player ten metres if the defender fields the ball but I was always of the opinion that if the kicker gathered his own kick he played all his team mates onside?? Nobody made a fuss and all the pundits agreed he was offside.....what am I missing??

Letter of the law...he was offside BUT it needs to be changed like the football offside rule was changed, if you don't interfere with play you shouldn't be deemed offside.
I thought they might have dealt with it during the off season but no


Also the foot in touch and tapping it out rule needs to change.

he was offside at the kick, simple as, and unfortunately it was so close to the line and the action there was no wiggle room.

i'm more ed off at the sims no try and how he didn't even bother to check on the screen for that.


Generally i thought bentham was crap and did his best to keep them in it, he penalised us for some really really soft holding down penalties, but let them slow things down as usual.

The cox flop (s) was a joke, especially since wigan did exactly the same and worse after that during the second half.

Sarginson crying at him begging for penalties and bizarrely twice it worked, one of which we were up and stood at marker before he blew the whistle.

And then calling Julien in touch after being dragged by two players, and then after being tackled he was rolled headfirst onto the line after the wigan players moved out the way plus a few seconds delay to give them extra time to fart about, i'm pretty sure there's a ruling that says you can't be in touch after a tackle has been completed like that.

Oh and letting clubb just run about being clubb, why was the tackle on lineham not a penalty, remember the saints game atkins and wilkin? "contact with the head, so its got to be a penalty"

just by being there, he's interfering with play, if sarginson picks that ball up cleanly, one of his escape routes is already cut off by atkins being there, his positioning affects play and decision making.

Oh, meant to say as well, bateman's try, why not send that upstairs to check for obstruction, he ran behind a stationary player and whilst behind him kicked the ball when no one could get near to tackle him.

i think i moan more about refs when we win.

I though penny could have been offside for the try just before half time but fair play he was inside and just very quick, what a take and score as well. He had no right to score that. I was very surprised that wasn't referred to video ref but it was a good call as it turns out.

When Penny was tackled, ball on the floor....then dragged into the ingoal...drop out.

Russell ball strip, gave a knock on.

Bentham was dogpoo last night.

So if when a player kicks through and gathers the ball himself if any of his own players were in front of him when he kicked it it's a penalty to the opposition??
Batemans try for Wigan was allowed when a Wigan player was clearly in front of him when he kicked through?

That Sims no try for the "knock on" really irked me. The only place for the ball to go for a knock on wss over the dead ball line, yet it ended up in the field of play...

I know it is bemoaned a lot that refs don't have the stomach to make a decision and stick to it without relying on that video ref, but Bentham was just plain arrogant last night.

[*

Rule only applies if the play is within the opposition's 10m.

I didn't know that. So the question still remains then about the Bateman try?

When he kicked through Atkins was offside the ball then touched a wigan player and Atkin was within 10m so he is offside. The Bateman one hit the post so the offside doesn't count? I think that's the explanation.

Doesn´t the ball have to be physically carried past an offside player to put him onside .

Very old fashioned law this now for me. Hudds had a try disallowed last night for Wardle being "within 10" but he wasn't interfering with play. If you're interfering, fair enough, but to run past a play and not get involved or to be 9.5m back you shouldn't be penalised.

By letter of the law, yes. But its stupidin my opinion. I hate it when it happens, if he has an affect on play then fair enough but he doesn't even nearly get involved. Same happened last night with Wardle. He was a good 8 metres away from play and doesnt even look to get involved, whats he meant to do, get out his tape measure? Silly for mine, wish it would get looked at.

One of the most stupid rules ever in RL, what's even worse is that it was introduced in the early 00's, then scrapped... only to be brought back. It completely defeats the object of accurate kicks.



They'll be bringing back the rule where you get 6 more tackles from the 20 if you're held up in-goal next

I don't mind the rule in which a high bomb is diffused with one foot out and it being classed as out on the full be it the side line or dead ball line.
I just think it should be taken cleanly rather than touched for that to apply and also if the ball hits the floor they shouldn't be able to step over the line and touch it out.

Ridiculous rule. How can a player be ruled offside when he doesn't interfere with play?

his mere presence is interfering with play.

He ran right through the middle of play, clearly he is going to have an impact on Sarginson dealing with the kick

Yed? Anyone?