A quick look at the Offside rule shows it just says this:


According to the word Sky got from the VR, he based the decision on both feet being behind the ball when it was kicked. Although there is no mention of the ball in the rule.

There is no doubt that the player's torso was well ahead of the kicker's (but he was leaning forward and the kicker was leaning back. But torsos don't apparently matter; eg when defending on your own line, both feet must be on or behind the line. There's nothing to stop your torso leaning over it. Is there?

There is much more doubt as to exactly how far the kicking foot was ahead of the nearest white line. I don't think the chaser's feet were ahead of the ball.

Personally I reckon the rule means (or should mean) that you mentally mark the spot where the kicking foot is in relation to the pitch, and if the other player's feet are both not ahead of that point, then he's not offside. Looking at it like that, I don't think anyone can say it was offside.

I think most people people are informed enough on here to know that the offside ruling has nothing to do with the players torso.
I made my decision comparing the back foot of the kicker when he makes contact with the ball to the position of the chaser's feet. My view was that Smith did not have both feet in line or behind the back foot of McGuire.

Felt sorry for Saints, but that's just the way it goes.

He doesn't have too.

There is a certain irony to Saints getting shafted by a VR in a Grand Final.

It's not nice is it....

Informative response, what's your interpretation of the rules?

If he had been in the defensive line with only his back foot onside then under new rules he would be deemed offside. Surely they should also then apply this rule to a player chasing a kick? If you're saying the player has to be behind the actual ball then is it both feet or just the back?

It's one of the most stupid RFL rules in the book you only have to be behind the ball both feet. So if the kicker's leg is out stretched the chaser could be well in front of the kicker's body.

The (wrong) video decision is not what lost us the match. Our mistakes - made at vital moments - are what lost us the match. Had Sinfield converted their first two tries, we would have still lost even without that video call. So while it was a wrong decision and I think reflects just how poor the refereeing has been all season for all teams, we can't use that as an excuse and tbh I don't think many Saints fans are doing so. The blame rests entirely with four of our players who had at least one brainfart each at vital points during the match.

You seem far too reasonable and sensible to be a Saints fan!

Those and errrm.. Leon Pryce!. How soon after the start did he go off?

Beats me as to what's happened to the enthusiasm that Saint's always used to have. It always seemed irrepressible to the point of frustration, for opposing fans.

The players they have certainly have the right skill sets. [iWhy [/idon't they have that "Saint's Team Spirit" / winning mentality, no matter who they're playing/how long there is left?

Whilst I know the Whino's defence restricted their play that wasn't the Saints of earlier this year/the past. In fairness it was the Saint'steam I've watched on SKY over the last few months.

Their get up and go seems to have got up and gone

I still can't get over how bad we were screwed by the officials in the 99 & 02 finals.

Withers never touched the ball & Peacock didn't knock on.