Perhaps they haven't been asked to look for it before because it hasn't happened before. Except earlier in the thread there was an example given of Wellens having a try ruled out for the same infringement.



Then they would all have been 100% wrong in their decision and done the gave irreparable damage had Leeds won yet another game V Bradford on such an incorrect ruling.



The Paul Wellens example from earlier in the thread if accurate would suggest otherwise. Perhaps, just perhaps mind, that it hasn't been looked at much because it doesn't occur much where it results in a try being referred to the video referee.

Bingo.

To the letter of the law no. I accept fully your viewpoint on that.

But I strongly believe (without been able to give you specific examples) that this happens a lot, and to remain consistent it should have been allowed.

I still believe what I put above. Had it not been asked to look at, and just look at the play the ball, that the try would have been given, and NOBODY would have been mentioning it as given incorrectly, you included.

Do you realise how daft that reads?

I'd be speaking out about it if it was missed by the officials (and I'd picked it up) just as I did after the Millenium Magic fiasco and on countless other rulings.

The integrity of the game is bigger than any individual club in my view.

You're right!

Just so we are all in agreement here.

If one team kicks the ball upfield to the other, and the fullback collects the ball behind most of his team mates. He is tackled by the kicking team. The winger comes behind for the play the ball (only player back behind the ball), he makes a break, and passes to one of his forwards coming back.

We ALL accept that immediately that this happens, that it is a penalty to the defence?

Seriously if people really do not think that this will happen at all games, then they wont be looking. Lets look for the offence on Monday.

No. The referee makes a judgement that the players are attempting to get back onside and not deliberately hanging around in the oppositions defensive line.

Webb set off in support before Burrow even got past him.

How the hell can it be any different. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

Either you are offiside or you are not. It was clearly stated that Webb had to go back level with the play the ball and then run forward to be onside.

I accept that a penalty may not be given. But that would be because the ref is wrong, as explained by those agreeing with the decision last night.

Just because you've made stupid statements dont tar us all with the same brush.



It's down to interpretation by the referee.



The ref was not wrong.

Don't forget your notebook and pen will you.

Personally I'd rather it was left to a Sky game so the action can be reviewed and any such instances analized more objectively.

Rather than been too keen for arguments Danny Keyboard warrior. Think about your posts first.

Smith clearly states yesterday evening, that had Webb gone back to the play the ball before making his run, then he would have been fine. But as he didn't then he was offside.

There is nothing about interpretation in the rule book. You sound like Stevo and his momentum rule there. You are offside or not.

You repeat again the ref was not wrong last night. Again agreeing with you on it. Therfore if the ref does not pull penalty for the example I gave above, then he would be wrong on that occassion.

If Webb had attempted to get back rather than hanging around in the Bradford defensive line not even looking like he was trying to get back I doubt the officials would even have looked at it.

Can you give examples rather than hypothetical ones?