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.

It seems to be on the same basis as parking your car; if the police say, "it's causing an obstruction", then it's causing an obstruction, and this applies whether anyone was actually obstructed or not.

I've complained for years about the laws of the game [as written] not reflecting what actually happens on the pitch. Like the, ooooh it must have been thirty years [well, it seemed like thirty years] 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

FWIW Murphy did catch the ball first, it was stolen off him one on one though, ergo Langley was offside and should have immediately retreated which he didn't


Also, by encroaching within 10m he automatically was "influencing play". Again, penalty.

100% correct call both in the letter and spirit of the law.

Disagree, he never, at any point, had control of the ball, but it's irrelevant now - who have you got next week?

Pure pedantry and semantics eh

Anyway, to answer your question - saints at home

Agree that it was the legally correct call, but in reality who would have had any complaint had it been given? I bet the vast majority of Hudds fans would have had no issue.

But I have to disagree that Langley was influencing play, unless his hair got in Murphy's eyes....

In all fairness, when was the last time Jamie Langley [iever[/i influenced play?

Ha ha, if you like!

Though, to be honest, more like it's over and did it actually have any effect on the result? I bet it helped a few pints go down in the pub whilst the match was being de-briefed.

Murphy never caught the ball, even his mother would concede that one.


Except even the RFL have admitted(well, simply stated without explanation) that the penalty was given because of the current "POLICY". I.e. not under the laws.

As for the "spirit", well, this was perhaps a text-book case of an incident where Langley being ahead of the kicker did not, in the event, make even the slightest of difference to what happened. It was a great move, the kick went up, Kear caught it fair and square and immediately touched down. I would be interested to know how you can argue that disallowing such a fine exhibition of skill is within "the spirit" of the game.