THat doesnt sound like a 'simple' rule though does it.
Why?



Again, that doesn’t seem an argument in favour of simplicity. I’m not arguing the decision was wrong, like you I am presuming it right until someone tells me otherwise. Im arguing that whatever the rules is, it clearly isn’t clear, or easy to understand. It clearly allows for confusion and must in some form have large elements of subjectivity in it. That being the case we should look at it again because the outcome wasn’t what it ‘should’ have been. The skill shown to score that try was disallowed because of technical offence that didn’t actually influence the play in any way. That isn’t a good rule. It would have been simple and easy to understand and clear for that try to be given on the basis JJB didn’t influence regardless of any offside/onside debate.

Not that I'm aware of.



Are you suggesting a player should feign injury in order to get a fellow professional sent-off?

It's relevant that he was willing to get on the game. The tackle was a dangerous throw rather than an out and out spear tackle. The spear is usually associated with driving the head of an opponent into the ground and that didn't appear to happen in this case - and Jones-Buchanan playing on supports that view, IMO - hence the earlier comment and contrast that to Cunningham's reaction in '08. You could add Gallagher's reaction too.



It's a tough sport played in the main by tough men - such as Jones-Buchanan. Difficult to have degrees of punishment in live play with so few alternatives to choose from. In the case of a dangerous throw it's either a penalty (just the same as for a technical offside) or a straight red card. The sin-bin I don't think could be used in that particular instance whereas it was very much available to the referee to punish dissent.

I expect the dangerous throw will be reviewed and probably referred on to the disciplinary for a proper investigation and remedy.

It sounds straight forward enough for me to follow.




Is this the winger on the opposite side of the field point? If the rule requires the offside player to remain 10 metres away from the ball/defender closest to the ball in a position to take possession and the attacker isn't - then his relative position to every other defender is a redundant point.




I like the rule as it is. It rewards a disciplined chase but punishes poor execution. Jones-Buchanan (and possibly McGuire) were offside at the kick - they could have stayed outside the 10 metre zone between them and the ball or been played onside by the kicker and then the good kick/chase play of Hall would have been rewarded - but they didn't. So why should they benefit?

Why would you suggest that?

I

It is not relevant as a lack of injury doesn't prove whether the tackle was a spear or dangerous. You could be uninjured in a spear tackle or break a neck from a dangerous tackle. IMO if the technical application of the tackle is dangerous and could cause serious injury whether intentional or not then a red or yellow card should be used. The players and the referees have a duty of care and in a tough contact sport like RL it is essential that players do not cross boundaries.



If the sin bin is used for dissent then it certainly should be used for dangerous play. In this game the dangerous tackle on JJB and the Scuton head clash were both a result of dangerous technique and the attitude of the ref to both caused some afters from the players which had an direct impact on the result.



I would expect the same.

So simple that you admit you don’t actually know if it was correct or not?

But you don’t know that is the rule, and neither do I. Nor do you know WHEN he needs to be in that position.

Why should who benefit? Why should a dummy runner benefit from one of his team mates kicking the ball and one of his onside team-mates regains possession and puts the ball over the try-line?

Think that's a fair way to sum it up.

Most entertaining game I've seen this year. A few referees would have spoiled it, don't think he was brilliant but I think it wouldn't have been the contest it was with a child/Roby/hicks

Anyone watching Ganson at moment? blimey....

I can follow the end decision where the try was disallowed because Jones-Buchanan was offside at the kick and remained within the ten metre zone that he, as an offside chaser, is required to stay outside of.

I don't need to know anymore than that to be able to accept the decision and move on.



Again I don't need to know anymore than I do already. I only need to accept the the video referee knows and that according to referee Bentham the try was ruled out for Jones-Buchanan being offside at the kick and within the ten metre zone at the relevant point. That much I understand - do I need to know anymore than that?



Are you suggesting Jones-Buchanan wouldn't have benefitted had the try been allowed to stand despite him being clearly offside at the kick?

Why reward poor execution of a kick chase with a try? What's wrong with the interpretation of the rule as it stands?

Jones-Buchanan (if he knew he was ahead of the kicker) had two choices at that play last night - he could either stay more than ten metres from the ball/defender who was in a position to collect the ball, in which case the Hall try would have stood or he could ignore the fact he was in front of the kicker and barrell forward regardless - resulting as it did in an infringement.

A St Helens kick chase in the 13th minute of the game this lunchtime at Wigan fell foul to the same basic rule interpretation. I'd rather not reward a poor kick chase than have to subjectively determine what effect, if any, an offside player is having within the ten.

Quite so. I wouldn't blame any Leeds player; Bradford earned their point.

Peacock may have painted a "shaft line" however I think the person he is really mad at is himself. He knows that he cost us the win with his indicipline. We would have had a drop goal and we would have also had a better chance of defending our line with 13 players on the park. Peacock messed up and he knows it.

But everyone makes mistakes.

Would or could you have disallowed that try if it had not been on sky and not had the hindsight of video evidence?
On any other given day and in any game that was not televised that try would have been allowed to stand would it not?
This was not the reason Leeds lost but it merely highlights the reason why every game should have video refs

Agree regarding every game should have a video ref IMO.

1) Yes you could and it's entirely possible that yes you would. Bentham went immediately to the technology and pin-pointed the issue which ultimately led to the try being ruled out. Hopefully the video referee in this instances was merely confirming the decision Bentham was minded to make had the technology not been available to the officials.

2) Who knows? Everyone is free to speculate but it's impossible to know the answer one way or another with any degree of certainty. Again in this instance it appeared to me Bentham was only seeking confirmation of the decision he was minded to make, so I trust he would have had he needed to make the call himself.

3) In an ideal world that's correct. My view has always been that outside of the play-off series where every game is televised and has the benefit of the video technology we shouldn't really have the video referee in the regular rounds or even the Challenge Cup before the semi-finals.

Level the playing field for all who enter.

But the playing field is perfectly level. It's logic-defying to claim that having the video ref at one game and not others disadvantages anyone.

I'm struggling with the logic on the tip tackle.

"You're staying on the field because you let him go", was I believe the reasoning Bentham offered. Once you've got the player up there, then just letting go and trusting to luck that he won't fall on his head is grossly irresponsible and dangerous IMO.

If you lift a player beyond the horizontal and don't then control the way he comes back down to ground, it should be a straight red for me.