I'm guessing that having a ref just watching the play the ball, and a ref just watching the line would help a bit?

I know, and also in this case it is directly AGAINST the rules, not a matter of interpretation, if you are offside that is it, so I don't understand how they can do it. Except they are the NRL and feel able to do what they want with their version of the rules.

Despite having two Refs on the field in the NRL there are still a few nebulous decisions seen every week. They are strong on poor hits on the last kick and mistimed tackles when a player is the air, but strangely when a player is hit in the head when in a horizontal position due to the nature of the tackle its ignored, as Benji Marshall found out recently,

I agree it is madness having different rules for different hemispheres & for internationals. I do prefer the Aussies commentators' generally more mature response to high shots. They recognise the offence but don't shriek to hysterical levels like our muppets which is then transfered to the terraces or message boards.

I don't really have a problem with the 'non-active' for the offside at kicks decisions, after all we do the same at the PTB where offside defenders are rarely penalised if they keep out of the game, and there are five officials at every game nowadays (or three + video) surely that should be enough. It's similar to the rule in soccer and they manage to police it, and it does seem a bit 'off' to knock off a score for an offence which had no bearing on the try, so maybe we could just ask the refs what they think?

What I would ask is that it's either deemed a 'trial' with a specific start and end date, or written into the rules. I'm sick of 'interpretations'.