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.

That's an extremely strange understanding of what a policy is.

Wasn't the word 'policy', used in the same kind of context where, these days, they usually say 'interpretation'? In which case, I believe FA has got it spot on. If it doesn't mean, " forget what it says in the laws of the game, this is what we want", what does it mean?

What is? I don't remember attempting a definition, nor did I even bring the word into the conversation - the RFL used the word in their explanation, but didn't expand on it.


I'm flattered to have maintained your interest, but I'm intrigued how your complaint of "sophistry" can be reconciled with your cryptic remark.

OK just to throw another spanner into the works, we have to agree JL was offside, by definition that as a snap judgement the VR chap automatically knew the distance between JL and EK was under 10 yds.(not metres) when he caught the ball and scored the try!

So if the letter of the law is being applied here why can't the referee go to the VR for a forward pass when a player has scored from that suspected forward pass, which is offside as the rule states unequivically? ?
i.e.

A defending player is offside if he/she is less than 10m away from the play-the-ball (or, if the play-the-ball is inside his 10m line, closer to it than the try-line is) when the ball is played. He is also offside if, during open play, he is closer to the opposition's try-line than the ball. At a scrum a defending player is also offside if he is less than 5m away from the base of the scrum.

An attacking player is offside if he is in front of the ball: if he is in front of a ball which is then kicked, he can be put onside if the kicker subsequently moves ahead of him before the ball is caught. If not, he must stand 10m away from the player who catches the ball (as if he were the acting half-back at a play-the-ball) or be penalised.

And when they say it's all about camera angles, hogwash...a player who passes the ball in a forward motion has instigated a forward pass irrespective of the direction of the ball. So watch the player and if it's missed, then the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team. If the referee has spotted a blatant forward pass in the defenders 10 mtr. section then he awards a penalty for offside.

That should stop a lot of the percentage forward passing play by any attacking side!!!


INOUT

The ref & VR got it spot on, as they did for virtually every call. Bulls missed 52 tackles IIRC. Perhaps that should be the focus of discussion. If a ref made as many blatant errors as Foster in that game then there would be a clamour for him never to ref again.
If a receiving player is in front of the passing player when it is passed he is offside, that is a very rare offence.