Nope Mr Alibert was correct.

I disagree. I think it's perfectly clear.

I don't recall the incident with Buderus (and have no intention of going back and watching it). But if it's the same as the Brent Webb one from Odsal, then he was "out of play" and therefore not eligible to be involved until the next PTB (which is when the advantage has gone). It's right there in Black and White.

I was just struggling to see where he was officially classed as "out of play" and where it says he cannot join in until the next ptb.

I admit I have not read the entire rule book but could not find these points.

I agree it doesn't actually say that. It explains when a defender comes back into play, but not the attacking player (the bit you quoted is referring to the defender).

For that, I can only judge on what happened with the Webb incident, where they clearly stated on commentary that he's not eligible to be involved again until the next PTB (I only remember this clearly because when I was at the game without the benefit of commentary, I was completely bemused as to why the try was disallowed).

The rules don't seem to clarify that properly though, you're right.

Given he scored from his initial out of play position would that not suggest the advantage had not been lost when he got the ball?

He didn't score

If he was offside then the try was fine

[i(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.[/i

If he was out of play then would the rule below bring him back into play? he was 5m out of play at the ptb
but received the ball 15-20 upfield from the ptd

[iA player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.[/i

This, coming from a Leeds troll, is rich trolling indeed, farcically ignoring that we all know the VR told Ganson to award a non-existent knock-on, which Ganson had ruled "play on", at MM last year.

Again, that last bit you quote, I believe is referring to a player on the non-possession team, not an attacking player. I am 99.9% sure he is not deemed "in play" again until the next PTB, and I'm sure I read that somewhere at the time of the last one, but can't for the life of me find it again now.

He definitely is not offside. That bit is clear. He is "Out of play". Even if that line did refer to attackers (which I don't believe it does), it's way too ambiguous as to when the advantage gained has been lost. Some would argue the advantage has gone when he's behind the man again. Some would argue he's gained an advantage for the whole term of possession. It's absolutely daft wording.

Teach me to jump into posts at work!

Wouldn't a non-possession player be offside and not out of play? what's the difference

By non-possession, I mean the team defending. The rule I quoted from section 11 clearly says that a player from the team in possession of the ball, who is not behind the PTB (except the man playing it and the acting half) is "out of play", not "offside". That is one of the only bits that is very clear about this. And if Buderus was in front of them, even by 1 yard, then he was "out of play".

I suppose there is the outrageous possibility that both the ref & VR saw the incident & judged it not an offence?