So I seehttp://www.millyandnans.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/knitted-iphone.jpg" >

Did you get it wet?

Jesus, the only reason Cummins has come out in support of Bentham is because of the three idiots at sky bleating on about it. Maybe if they knew the rules there wouldn't have been such an outcry.

Oh and while we're on, if bentham is such a Leeds lover how come he gave Eastmonds try when he knocked on first?

has a warrior its great u loss like that,cause all the cheating in the past an u got away with it ,now u no wat its like same old saint always cheating haaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaa about time,try the swings not the roundabouts,god is good.

Yes, but that rule is not about attacking kicks in play is it, that is about off-side for the defending side gathering an attacking kick!

You are right that there is no definitive rule that covers an attacking player being on-side for a kick in open play however, most other references in the rule book in relation to kicks and players being on-side do state that players have to be behind the ball NOT behind the player!

The most notable of these is Section 13, Rule 3 which covers penalty kicks and clearly states that the players are on side if they are behind the ball. It would be very inconsistent of the rules to therefore have any different rule for a kick in open play and any other type of kick!

As a student of the rules, I have always understood that off-side/on-side for ALL kicks in based on the player being behind the ball and for all other off-side/on-side requirements that a player have (well now anyway) both feet behind or level with the reference be it player/line/ref/linesman mark.

I'm not sure its possible to ban someone when you cannot make out a word they're mumbling.

If you ignore it it might go away, like his dad thought about the bout of crabs he caught from his sister when it was being conceived.