Fair point - you're right. But it is still against the rules so my point about how pedantic the refs should be remains.

What do you mean by "out of play position" ?

He's stood behind and to the side of the PTB, set to take a ball from the acting half.

What would he have done if the kick had come? Assuming he would have been in front of the kick he'd have had to give the receiver 10 metres grace before being able to involve himself in the play. Not sure there was any advantage in doing that but it's an acceptable tactic.

Apart from the dummy half, how far behind the play the ball are the attackers required to stand? The vast majority of the St Helens side probably encroached within that space. Was the tap re-start from the penalty award taken on the right spot anyway? If it was a tap re-start it appeared very close to the sideline. Who was the referee, Russell Smith?

It still doesn't provide an exact likeness to the Webb positioning last night as no St Helens players we're stood in or around the Bradford defensive line at the time of the play the ball.

Misleading title here Burrow never scored a try yesterday.

You wouldn't have seen Webbs last night though without the video replay and the ref asking to look at it.

I think you are wrong here Tvoc. I think it happens many times, ever per game on some occassions. Like the first poster pointed out, Hanley scored tons of tries in this manner, and I remember many oppossition fans moaning about it at the time. But the ruling has never been used since before then, hence thought it was out of the window.

So on the basis that others get away with it (no matter how often), the video ref should just ignore it?

Strange.

I think its more the point that the refs are inconsistent, and that they chose to pick up on this relatively minor offence yet, for example, consistently allow the play the ball to be conducted wrongly.

Have I said that?

What Smith has created now is a need to be consisten with yet another rule that is hard to police. I see no other option now going forward than 2 referees (the Aus way). Policing this offiside at the play the ball for the attacking side will be some problem.

Unless of course they just ignore it for another 27 years, and in which case, you could argue last night was ridiculously unfair, rather than correct.

Here is a question for the referees on this forum.

Hanley was "offside" many times in his career according to yesterdays ruling.

He would play the ball after being tackled and rather than retire would immediately move down field to wards the opponents tryline.

The attack would break the line and he would then be in a position to recieve the ball and score.

AFAIAA he was NEVER penalised for this but according to this recent ruling on the Webb incident Hanley was always OFFSIDE or rather not elegible to recieve the ball.

Feel free to point me to all these examples where it happens and is ignored by the match day officials.

It's funny (nay remarkable) that something that occurs this frequently has (as yet) not manifested itself into any actual specific examples.

Don't just think I'm wrong, actively prove it. It should be simple enough by the sounds of it, it really should. So far I've been given a St Helens try where it didn't happen, a Leeds try by Watkins earlier this season where it didn't happen and the name of a player that retired from the British game 14 years ago. How can I argue against such overwhelming relevant evidence.

If Burrow had submitted to the tackle from the break and Leeds scored off the next play they'd have probably got away with it. He didn't and they didn't. It was the right call and no amount of flannel will change that, IMO of course.

How could he ignore it after replaying the incident 3/4 times? It was a blatant offence.

Jeez.

Why would Hanley be offside doing that?