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?

It might well have been, but the ref or TJ had to have seen something suspicious in their eyes to even refer it to the VR.
And the point still stands, if they are going to be as pedantic as this with the rules, then they have to be with all rules, including proper play the balls, which they currently aren't.

But they are exceedingly keen to rule out tries where player's involvement is deemed to be from an offside position. Even when the offside is minimal let alone where it is clearcut. Last night's decision falls into that category for me.

What people can't appear to get their head around is that tries are rarely affected in this way. They keep claiming it's a common occurrence but bizarrely can't actually remember any instances of it happening.

Somebody should change the title of the thread because Burrow didn't score last night.

I fail to see how you can say this with any confidence. You seem to be been a little arrogant here tvoc, if you dont mind me saying. I accept your view that you cant remember specific incidents of this going unpunished. But at the same time, it has not come up before. Can you name any other time where the video ref was referred for the sam offence before?

We simply have not looked for this offence before, so therefore of course nobody can give specifics on when it did happen. I can bet you we will be now though, which is stupid.

True, but its still a very pedantic penalty in my opinion and one that we were unlucky to have given against us, especially when you pile it ontop of the JJB "knock-on", Abletts sin-binning and Bradfords last try being allowed.


I agree, according to the laws the ref's were correct. Plus people are getting confused with players playing the ball etc rather than attacking players stood offside. Personally, I cant remember a similar incident, although I have seen plenty of players from the attacking side stood in the defensive line at a PTB.

This thread is so funny.

To be honest, these threads remind me very much of the same sort of threads on the Bulls MB going back a bit, once we started to lose games that we believed we had a right to win and as it slowly started to dawn on us that we were not actually as unstoppable as we thought we were. It got worse as our dominance slowly eroded, and those fans who had grown accustomed to winning as if of a right became increasingly rattled. Maybe that's what always happens once a club has passed its peak for that particular era?

You won't get a reaction from me no matter what you accuse me of.



No I can't but isn't that precisely my point here. It doesn't need to be referred because it doesn't happen. You think it does but you can't back that view up with any examples. Not one prior to last nights.



The video referees don't look for players stood in offside positions when tries are scored? I'd say it's probably the number one thing they are called on to do.

You think otherwise, so why not prove it. Could it be because (just like me) you can't recall any such similar offsides occurring by the attacking side.

Last night was a rarity. If it wasn't there'd be plenty of precedents. So where are they?

A video referee has never been asked before to look if a player was offside at a play the ball. Yes they have been asked to look at offside at a kick, but not a move from way down field.

You can clearly hear on the mic from last night when Smith asks Alibert to look at the incident, he says "do you understand what I am aksing Thierry". Alibert said back please repeat to which Smith then gave a clearer instruction.

Both refs were unsure, simply because it is not something looked at previously. You can bet your whole life savings, that had Smith simply asked Alibert if he could just check that the play the ball was played correct, that that try would have been given, with no mention from anybody, including commentators and fans, about Webb been offside.

That is why I say we can not give you examples previously, because it simply is not looked at. I can bet you now that we will have a offside watch thread each week on here from now with many examples.