I think the ruling for offside in relation to the Higham try is the correct one. It might seem unfair when the player hasn't been involved with the play but I'm pretty sure the reason he can't be within the 10 is because just being in the attacking line provides an advantage.
If there a player who is offside stood in the attacking line the defence has to keep him covered because they won't know he's offside and that can give the attacking team an unfair advantage.

If you imagined it as a 3 on 2 overlap like so:

O-#-O
O-O

With the middle player (#) being offside the attack is gaining an advantage in that situation. I'm pretty sure that's why offside players have to remain outside the 10 metres. They aren't allowed to appear like a possible pass option.

i can see where you're coming from... but surely when the player accused of being offside has absolutely no bearing in the play, then he should be deemed inactive...... football changed their offside rule for this very reason.

seemed like a silly reason to chalk a try off tonight, even if it is the actual ruling.

It was a steaming turd of a decision in the sense that Higham in no way interfered with play and it would never ever have been disallowed in a Sunday afternoon game. Unfortunately it was probably correct.

Can't see it myself
You'd get players 10/20/30 yards offside from a long kick and if the ball hit the ground and the attacking player is 10 yards from the ball they're onside?
I agree that maybe there should be some common sense approach however this isn't it.
However when considering the common sense approach you have to remember that it's the "offside" players choice to be stood in front, he doesn't have to get himself involved and despite numerous warnings on the run that's what Higham did.

Perhaps someone can confirm the actual law involved:
At what instant is a player in front of an attacking kick to be actually given off-side ?
Before watching last night's game, I thought that the instant they would be penalised for off-side is when they were within 10 metres at the point where a defending player touched the ball. As no defending player touched the ball, then I think I must be wrong.
Could it be that they must not be within 10 when a defending player 'challenges for the ball' ? or within 10 when any player from either team touches the ball ? When there is a player in front of the kicker in long kick then kick chase situations you sometimes hear the ref shout 'give him ten' to a player who is clearly within the 10 but is not penalised if they let the player run 10 with ball, this seems to contradict last night's ruling. Ant explanation welcomesd. Ta.

I haven't seen the BJB obstruction one again yet, but I think the the grounding was well short. Be interesting to see it again.

I imagine Silverwood would have played advantage and told Higham to 'give him 10', assuming Higham does this the ref would have played on, however when Warrington take possession of the ball, Higham is inside the 10m from an offisde position, advantage can't be played so the only ruling has to be a penalty.

He grounded it on the line & it rolled back.

He was offside. Feels a bit harsh because it didn't impact he play but offside is offside. Can't grumble.

Did the offside rule always work like this? I'm sure when I used to play it didn't matter if you was offside from a kick unless you attempted a tackle without giving the opposition player 10 yards.

no, just being within the ten is enough,

I know that the issue was if Higham was within the 10 from when a player touched the ball - which he was - but was he more than 10 from where the ball bounced?

I appreciate that according to the rules of the game we was offside - and was largely down to him with Silverwood vehemently pointing to him being in front of the kick - but it does seem very odd to me that this was only because Leeds failed to field the ball. They therefore effectively being 'rewarded' for not diffusing the kick. Surely this can't be right...

That said, full credit to Leeds - and it was lack of respect for the ball that ultimately cost us the game. However, as Leeds themselves proved last season; it's not how you start, but how you finish. Not that we've started poorly whatsoever. Indeed, we have more points now than we did 5 games into last season. It's also totally unrealistic to expect any team to go a whole season withour defeat (not that I'm saying anyone has alluded to this), and losing to Leeds is no disgrace.

I love rugby league, and I love Warrington. So I say roll on next week...

... and C'MON YOU WIRES!!