No complaints from me. I think you're on your own on this one FA.

You know what? We are gonna get pages and pages of folks pointing out obvious stuff to FA, who will play dumb, and we will all go round in circles. Onlookers will look in and think this is somewhat pointless. They would be right.

FA knows exactly what he is doing here and, sadly, he is winning. He's BORED FFS!!! Start an anti-McNamara thread or something - he likes them.

What about a Chris Joynt Voluntary Tackle thread?

I'm not sure if even FA has the stamina to rival that. However the potential for thread drift is always there...

It was not a voluntary tackle and you know it. The ref did not give it. He slipped whilst preparing for the tackle from the Bradfoird player.

When Pumpetypump deleted that thread the club's fortunes nose dived.

Correct, it's all his fault. Also, it was never a voluntary tackle, any more than Jvt was about Jvt

If you are reading this, but you're not actually interested in a discussion of what the law in question says or means, then you're in the wrong place.

The law states that an offside player (which, to labour the point, Langley was) "
and shall immediately retire ten
metres from any opponent who first secures possession
of the ball."

How could that work? Can anyone disagree that on those plain words, if Murphy had caught the ball, and Langley had immediately retired ten, then under the plain words, he would have complied?

And as in the event NO opponent secured possession of the ball, I reckon that means as long as he doesn't interfere with play, Langely's ok, if dumb.

So Langley was only offside if Murphy had caught it?

Thanks.


Indeed I have.


What an idiotic suggestion. On what basis could they order a replay, and why on earth would you think that I want one?


Are you just being silly now?


Is [iTHAT[/i what I'm doing? I am analysing a quoted offside law, but to you, I'm not; to you, I think that the posters on RLFans have the power to reverse the decision, and so to you, I'm trying to get them to reverse it? Have I got your understanding right? If so, it's nuts.

Not exactly. Langley was in an offside position as the kick was taken as he was in front of the kicker. The laws only state that if offside, he shouldn't seek to gain an advantage, or influence the play.

Being offside is not an instant penalty. Some on here would do well to at least TRY to understand that. It ain't hard.

The question is when - according to that irritating (to some) thing, the letter of the law as written for us all to read, he should be penalised.

If the ball is heading towards a defender, who is set to catch it, and Langley gets within 10 then the law (not me) says as soon as the defender catches it, Langley must retreat the 10. However much some people don't like it, ans say they understand how the rules are applied etc etc., if this is not the rule then why is it IN the rule?

In Langley's case no opponent ever caught, or even touched, the ball, so Langley could remain offside as long as he neither sought to influence the play or to gain an advantage. He did neither, since a second after catching the ball, Kear touched it down.

Is it just me who thinks that there is only one person in the world who actually gives a feck here?

I'm not saying I did or didn't delete that historical thread. But what I can say with 100% certainty, is that I do not recall deleting it.

But consider this - wasn't VBFG a moderator back then? It seems plausible to me that he deleted the thread and is now doing a David Irving with the history books.

Someone just queried kear try decision on refs twitter thing. Here's official interpretation of rule.


@RFLReferees: RT @lukey_mawson Why was Kear's try ruled out against Huddersfield? Langley wasn't interfering why does it matter?


@RFLReferees: .@lukey_mawson (1/2) Langley offside & within 10m of catcher waiting for the ball.Policy dictates that as he’s within 10m he’s interfering.

@RFLReferees: .@lukey_mawson (2/2) Langley must recognise he’s offside or respond to ref’s prompt & retreat or the kicker should place him. JC

That explains it, then. As well as the Laws, there's a "Policy" which dictates that he was interfering. Shame the Policies aren't available to read.