Firstly I am posting this because I am genuinely confused.
All of the critics should back away now unless you have the correct answer to my question. I believe the best team won and the decision would not have altered that either way. - Clear? good

He has a point

Bentham went with the rules

I was sceptical last night, Ive seen the replay a few times and its very close call which could have gone either

The RFL and International rules for offside is that the chasing player has to be behind the kicker and not the ball. Unless they have changed the rules and not told anybody.

Now, my thoughts on this is well known, I may well be biased as a saints fan, but from each Angle shown on the big screen Lee Smith was offside.

I said to everyone around me that, he can't give this and as each replay angle was shown it backed me up. When Bentham gave it i couldnt believe it.

Its a shame that in my opinion, a game that was so evenly poised was decided by a poor refereeing decision, but it was not to be for us.

in laymens term it was off side..smith was in front of the kicker.by an inch...tbh im glad you lot were robbed

I thought the same as you, that the player had to be behind the kicker. But everyone (as in watching it back on sky and seeing the BBC highlights) has only mentioned that both feet of the chasing player have to be behind the ball, and not the man kicking it. BBC used a good graphic on the super league show today (like the line used in football matches to show onside/offside - why can't this be used in sky's RL coverage?) that proved Lee Smith's foot on the floor was level with McGuire's standing leg.

Either everyone's just assumed offside was called for being in front of the man and not the ball, or this is another of those rules that are different in super league compared to international rules. (anyone remember the kick from the 20 meter restart that was given as a scrum to the defence and then changed the very next year to bring super league in line with international rules?)

From my point of view and after watching the TV Lee Smiths planted foot (he only had one on the ground and that is where the ref will look at it from - not his head or his hands or any other part of his body but the furthest most foot from his own try line that is in contact with the floor - that I am certain on) was ahead of Maquires planted foot but behind the ball - so it was actually between the 2.

If the rules state that offside is judged from the position of the ball then there are no qualms about it Smith was onside. If the rule states that the 2 players planted feet are where the relative positions are taken from then he was infront and offside.

My problem is that I cannot find the rule that tells you where it should be judged from - I know where Bentham took it from and that was the ball - if thats the rule (and I would hope that he does know it to be so) then I just want to know and where he got it from as I cannot find it anywhere in the rulebook - not saying he is right or wrong as that is completely academic - I want to know so that in future I will know the rule or the interpretation of it and why offside is judged from a different point (the ball) to the 40/20 which is the planted foot