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.

Indeed, but laws are inherently subject to interpretation. Whilst FA's waiting for the Clapham omnibus the rest of us can get on with knowing that.

An old, not used for many a moon interpretation was that if you were offside and strayed inside the ten but weren't physically involved in play then it didn't matter. The current one is that by being inside the ten you inherently influence the decision making of those physically involved in play and thus influence play itself.

To say one or the other of these is mere policy and must therefore be not under the laws is grasping for not very much. That it is policy doesn't stop it from falling under the laws. That's the most obvious point in the whole thread, surely?

Probably deliberately, you skate over the key point that if a law states something AMBIGUOUS, then it is open to interpretation, but if the statement is unambiguous, then no interpretation is required nor indeed possible.


Then why does the relevant law (and I should perhaps stress that this is the 2013 version of the laws, so has been revised, and any historical anomalies or previous "interpretations" we can take to have been updated too)and shall immediately retire ten
metres from any opponent who first secures possession
of the ball.'"

I'm done. I should have stuck to my guns. This is exactly the kind of nonsensical pedantry that stopped me from posting here in the first place. This isn't discussion or debate.

I didn't bother reading, fwiw.

I must confess to having a lot of sympathy with this view TBH.

However, I would appeal to vbfg not to "do one." More often than not we disagree but I do find your "alternative" view on things here very enlightening, and , FWIW, interesting. (A bit like pumpetypump if I am allowed to say so.)

However, we shall see.

FA, once again you seem to have won the argument, simply by boring/annoying people into submission. You are good, nop doubt about that. You even win an argument that you are completely wrong about.

If it is the way games have to be played then it should fall within the laws as written, surely? If the rule/interpretation/policy changes, the rulebook should reflect that change, either in the rule itself or in a note to the rule. I don't even think it's difficult [an edit to an on-line file] - it just needs the realisation that it is necessary, the will to do it and about five minutes of someone's time. Let's not forget that most of these changes come about between seasons anyway.

I'm not going anywhere, no more than I already had at any rate. I'm just done with this topic. But thank you for your words.

Nice straw man, but there wasn't an argument to win. It was supposed to be a rules specific discussion, but you try to turn everything into a personalities thing. Sad, but we're used to it now.

Anyway I don't think there's anything to usefully add, so it can be locked for mine.

No I don't.

Ya bore.