Just looked at the video to check this and no way was Finn within 10 m of defender when the kick went up. If Bentham deems he was within 10 when kick came down Id like to know how he measured that cause it looked marginal at best and was not reported by either ref or linesmen

Finn was within 10 metres, when! What footage are you watching?

When the kick goes up Finn is a couple of metres in front of the line and Shaul is in between two lines so around 13 metres...Hall takes about two strides to go past Finn who is never within 10 metres (while in front of Hall)..not seen Hull one from earlier in season so can't comment...

Thats the contentious bit thats causing the debate. Was Finn always within 10 after Hall had passed or was he outside then encroached afterwards? I originally thought he was always within the 10 which makes it no try, now having just looked again i'm not so sure! He might just have been those 10 metres away as he passed you know!

Agreed. I've just watched it again and Finn is in front of the kicker for all of about half a second, he isn't moving forward at any great pace so as soon as Hall takes a step after kicking it Finn is onside. Hall then goes on to challenge for his own kick, all the while Finn is merely an onlooker. Diabolical call.

Try, bloody try

It was a try.

Bentham saw that Finn was infront of Hall when the kick was made. He then saw that he was within 10m when hall and Shaul challenged for the ball so gave offside. What he failed to do was to track Hall who pretty much as soon as he kicked the ball passed Finn and played him on side.

He made a mistake, simple as that.

It was certainly close, no question. Always difficult to tell from angled TV footage because of the foreshortening. I thought he was just within 10 before Hall ran past him but I haven't looked again since last night.

Either way there was no misinterpretation of the rule.

It's not when the kick went up that matters. It's whether Hall runs past Finn before Finn gets within 10m of Shaul.

You're wrong on where Finn was but you're right on it being a daft rule. It should be amended to be in line with the football offside rule, that if you are not taking any part in the action you do not infringe. If the catcher catches it and runs and you tackle, you infringe. If you are trying to take part in the move or catch, you infringe. If you simply amble forward, you don't.

I don't think it cost the game though. We scored five minutes later. Had the try been given, the game would have played out differently and we have no idea what would have happened. As it turned out, we scored anyway but still lost the game.

One thing I am pleased about is that it keeps Hull in the hunt, as I'd rather they won than Wigan or Wire, although Shaul's efforts to con the ref are starting to wind me up.

He still got past Finn within a few metres though.

I have no problem with on-field refs getting it wrong. There can be no excuse for video refs, and there have been some howlers this year (the try at Cas in the cup and Silverwood, for example). If they can't get it right, why have them?

I just went and reviewed the footage. It's certainly marginal. On balance I reckon Finn is just outside the 10m when Hall runs past him but the other member of my household reckons he's within the 10m.



Reckon this is two daft rules acting together - the 10m rule and the ref's call. If the ref sent that up as a try on the field I bet Bentham would have given it.

On the other hand, Talanoa's sin bin was the harshest I have ever seen, and the scrum from which you scored your first try while he was of was given when there was no knock-on from either side.

Basically the officiating was a shambles last night.