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.

100% Agree

if the kick had been into open space and hall had run from a onside position to collect and score would JJB still have been offside?
i know there could be a arguement that the closeness of JJB could have taken the bradford defenders eyes off the ball but its still not clear but the laws say he has to interfere ' You are offside in Rugby League if you are within the gap maintained between the attacking and defensive sides by the referee or if you interfere with play after being in front of a team mate when they have kicked the ball in open play'

If he had gone downtown from an offside position and was still within the ten then yes.

An offside player should not encroach within 10 metres of an opponent who is waiting for the ball and should immediately retire 10 metres from an opponent who secures the ball. However an offside player is placed onside if an opponent touches the ball without retaining it. In the disallowed Hall try it was not clear in real time if the Bradford player had touched the ball. If he didn't touch the ball JJB did not have to retire the 10 metres. But JJB's presence could have influenced the Bradford player to miss taking the ball in the first place so offside was the fair call.