Agreed. I've just watched it again and Finn is in front of the kicker for all of about half a second, he isn't moving forward at any great pace so as soon as Hall takes a step after kicking it Finn is onside. Hall then goes on to challenge for his own kick, all the while Finn is merely an onlooker. Diabolical call.

Try, bloody try

It was a try.

Bentham saw that Finn was infront of Hall when the kick was made. He then saw that he was within 10m when hall and Shaul challenged for the ball so gave offside. What he failed to do was to track Hall who pretty much as soon as he kicked the ball passed Finn and played him on side.

He made a mistake, simple as that.

It was certainly close, no question. Always difficult to tell from angled TV footage because of the foreshortening. I thought he was just within 10 before Hall ran past him but I haven't looked again since last night.

Either way there was no misinterpretation of the rule.

It's not when the kick went up that matters. It's whether Hall runs past Finn before Finn gets within 10m of Shaul.

You're wrong on where Finn was but you're right on it being a daft rule. It should be amended to be in line with the football offside rule, that if you are not taking any part in the action you do not infringe. If the catcher catches it and runs and you tackle, you infringe. If you are trying to take part in the move or catch, you infringe. If you simply amble forward, you don't.

I don't think it cost the game though. We scored five minutes later. Had the try been given, the game would have played out differently and we have no idea what would have happened. As it turned out, we scored anyway but still lost the game.

One thing I am pleased about is that it keeps Hull in the hunt, as I'd rather they won than Wigan or Wire, although Shaul's efforts to con the ref are starting to wind me up.

He still got past Finn within a few metres though.

I have no problem with on-field refs getting it wrong. There can be no excuse for video refs, and there have been some howlers this year (the try at Cas in the cup and Silverwood, for example). If they can't get it right, why have them?

I just went and reviewed the footage. It's certainly marginal. On balance I reckon Finn is just outside the 10m when Hall runs past him but the other member of my household reckons he's within the 10m.



Reckon this is two daft rules acting together - the 10m rule and the ref's call. If the ref sent that up as a try on the field I bet Bentham would have given it.

On the other hand, Talanoa's sin bin was the harshest I have ever seen, and the scrum from which you scored your first try while he was of was given when there was no knock-on from either side.

Basically the officiating was a shambles last night.

That's why pitch markings come in handy...

OK
Once Hall has moved in front of Finn then Finn is onside
This picture clearly shows that before Finn gets within 10m of Shaul, Hall has put him onside.

These two facts together illustrate that Bentham is a clueless idiot who after years of pinching a wage as a full time referee, still doesn't know the most rudimentary of Rules.

A picture paints a thousand words! As most of us thought at the time it was a try. We were robbed and Bentham is either incompetent or bent or both.

I don't believe that Bentham can judge if Finn is within 10 m. How could he judge that from the angle?

Carter's tweet about getting an apology from the video ref would suggest that, in the cold light of day, he now accepts he got it wrong.

https://twitter.com/wtwchairman/status/ ... 5190607876 He admits he got it wrong and should have been a TRY.. I wonder if he had been drinking??

https://twitter.com/wtwchairman/status/ ... 5190607876 He admits he got it wrong and should have been a TRY.. I wonder if he had been drinking??

Erm no it seems you are wrong?

Have you bothered to read the whole thread?

Not his fault he's bald to be fair. Let's give him a break

Look at the pitch markings and where Finn and Hall are,its quite obvious Finn is nowhere within 10 metres, the video ref. needs to make an appointment with the referees Shirt sponsors, just in case you may need spectacles also, its Specsavers, very appropriate.

Looks like he's a sufferer of meat sweats too.

To all those that said I was wrong the bakery is open for humble pie sales, brain into gear before mouth in motion. Bloody so called experts

Sportsmania?

I had to google that. No, acrossthetasman.

Believe Specsavers are about to pull out, it's getting too embarassing. However, revenue will be maintained, Screwfix stepping in.

Nearly! it's 'Screwwakefield'