It is no different than when a try is given after it goes to the VR and there has been a clear forward pass in the build up. If the ref hasn't blown up for a forward then the VR can't rule on it. If it had been a try for you then you wouldn't be having this thread saying it wasn't a try. Get over it.

Must have been a call from Cummings then.

I actually think we are 'over it' - no one has said 'we would have won if' etc. Its just a debate cos Ganson was so close to pressing the no try button. No arguments here but this forum is to debate the working of our beautiful game?

You are right with the whole forward pass argument - though it is harder to see with the momentum rule, even in slow mo. The off side was way more clear cut. As for forward passes, well let's not go there.

How far would you like to video ref to be able to go back? Because go back far enough and he would have seen the three knock ons from the kick off in the build up to one of the Warrington tries.

Personally, I've never been a fan of the video ref. I think it creates a bias for the teams that are favoured by sky, it adds 15 minutes of standing about like a lemon for the spectators to every game and as threads like this highlight, they don't always get it right with a video replay. I'd much rather the on pitch officials just make a decision there and then.

I think the argument here is that Alibert asked for the off side? So I guess within a play of the ball would be nice.

I am inclined to agree (as does Tony Smith) - on pitch officials there and then. But the VR has been fairly successful on the whole.

mrs goggins.

we are not debating weather the video ref made a bad decision. that we can clarify was a good decision from steve ganson.

what we are debating is wether the video ref should be able too look at the play from when they play the ball or when they stand up too play the ball. or wether it's when the ball clears the ruck.

steve ganson knew saints were off side. ths why he nearly gave the no try. but something changed his mind. whatever it was. it is unfotunate on us. but he had too do the wrong thing.

I don't think Wilkin was offside either. If you freeze it at the point where the ball is played Wilkin is the furthest Saints player back and is easily 10m away from it, his foot level with Alibert.

If Alibert thought it was offside he should have called it instead of referring it upstairs. He should have known they couldn't rule on it, although it was clear they almost did untill Phil Clarke pointed out the error of their ways.

I have a valid point/question for you (not trolling)

If you look at the markings in the pitch he IS 10m from the play the ball at least,even if he was slightly in front of the ref,(which I am still not sure). So is he doing anything wrong.
This would cause countless problems in the future. Is the VR supposed to stick to the rules or look at the ref who might be 11 or 12m back and if the player is a foot in front of him, is he offside?
(I guess the rules say he must retreat 10m, not 11 or 12, which the ref might estimate to be10)
What are your thoughts?

It is a tough one. IMO the 10 is the refs 10. End of. There should not be this 'well some refs stand 11 to allow a step forward' rubbish. Far too confusing and open to interpretation. You stand with both feet behind the refs 10, simple.

I'm off to watch said incident on my Sky+. Just out of curiosity I might add, seeing as so many are convinced there is no off side anyway.

I'm 100% with you on that one.

Surely the bigger question is: why did Alibert ask for the offside? He has himself and two other officials to pick these things up. Why refer it?

I think that probably covers it.

... oh hang on ... that could also be a factor.