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.

I understand that it's the rule but its still stupid. If the player has no influence on the play then I don't see why it's a problem. I'm sure that in the JJB incident, he got involved in the play, so thus offside. Langley did nothing, so how would it be different if he was retreating from the try line still for example, he can be there as long as he is not involved in play.

As I understand it he was in front of the kicker & ran forward to get within 10m of the defender. If he had stayed >10m away it obviously wouldn't have been a penalty &, presumably, if he had been within 10m of the defender when the ball was kicked he wouldn't necessarily have been offside (& penalised) as long as he didn't attempt to interfere - usually stand with your arms in the air.

Think the officials were oversensitive, because of the Ganson affair and were looking for anything that could be misconstrued by the public & their paymasters. It apparently happened with two other teams tries as well. The problem with James Childs is that having done it once, he didn't apply the same principles to Huddersfield and never went to the screen on at least three occasions. The Bulls contingent at the game would at least have felt that the official was being even handed. Lets hope this motivates the officials to get it right and perhaps the linesmen need more involvement in the game.

after the 'clarification' to feeding the scrum which allowed the ball to hit the loose forward, before the actual rule book changed from demanding the ball went down the middle of the tunnel.

There are many incidents within a game where offside is ignored, most PTBs for a start, though top be fair to the referees how you can judge where a player is when the ball is, "played by the foot", when it rarely is, must be a bit unfathomable to say the least. That said, markers not square is rarely, if ever, punished when they don't actually get involved, which appears to contradict the somewhat perfunctory RFL explanation, which seems to suggest that they should be "deemed" to be involved just by being in an off-side position.

Presumably either someone had a word in his ear about an offside or he had a doubt following the kick, so he referred it to the VR. On the others there was not that doubt so he didn't go.

Good point - the ref in the hi-viz shirt usually takes the flak - but often the other 26 "part time" ref wannabes on the pitch are behind some of the more bizarre calls