: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:20 pm  

Wheels wrote:

So on the basis that others get away with it (no matter how often), the video ref should just ignore it?

Strange.

Have I said that?

What Smith has created now is a need to be consisten with yet another rule that is hard to police. I see no other option now going forward than 2 referees (the Aus way). Policing this offiside at the play the ball for the attacking side will be some problem.

Unless of course they just ignore it for another 27 years, and in which case, you could argue last night was ridiculously unfair, rather than correct.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:23 pm  

Here is a question for the referees on this forum.

Hanley was "offside" many times in his career according to yesterdays ruling.

He would play the ball after being tackled and rather than retire would immediately move down field to wards the opponents tryline.

The attack would break the line and he would then be in a position to recieve the ball and score.

AFAIAA he was NEVER penalised for this but according to this recent ruling on the Webb incident Hanley was always OFFSIDE or rather not elegible to recieve the ball.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:29 pm  

DISA wrote:

I think you are wrong here Tvoc. I think it happens many times, ever per game on some occassions.

Feel free to point me to all these examples where it happens and is ignored by the match day officials.

It's funny (nay remarkable) that something that occurs this frequently has (as yet) not manifested itself into any actual specific examples.

Don't just think I'm wrong, actively prove it. It should be simple enough by the sounds of it, it really should. So far I've been given a St Helens try where it didn't happen, a Leeds try by Watkins earlier this season where it didn't happen and the name of a player that retired from the British game 14 years ago. How can I argue against such overwhelming relevant evidence.

If Burrow had submitted to the tackle from the break and Leeds scored off the next play they'd have probably got away with it. He didn't and they didn't. It was the right call and no amount of flannel will change that, IMO of course.

[Wheels]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:31 pm  

BigRob wrote:

I think its more the point that the refs are inconsistent, and that they chose to pick up on this relatively minor offence yet, for example, consistently allow the play the ball to be conducted wrongly.

How could he ignore it after replaying the incident 3/4 times? It was a blatant offence.

Jeez.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:32 pm  

DoubleAone wrote:

He would play the ball after being tackled and rather than retire would immediately move down field to wards the opponents tryline.

Why would Hanley be offside doing that?

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:34 pm  

Wheels wrote:

How could he ignore it after replaying the incident 3/4 times? It was a blatant offence.

Jeez.

It might well have been, but the ref or TJ had to have seen something suspicious in their eyes to even refer it to the VR.
And the point still stands, if they are going to be as pedantic as this with the rules, then they have to be with all rules, including proper play the balls, which they currently aren't.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:44 pm  

BigRob wrote:

It might well have been, but the ref or TJ had to have seen something suspicious in their eyes to even refer it to the VR.
And the point still stands, if they are going to be as pedantic as this with the rules, then they have to be with all rules, including proper play the balls, which they currently aren't.

But they are exceedingly keen to rule out tries where player's involvement is deemed to be from an offside position. Even when the offside is minimal let alone where it is clearcut. Last night's decision falls into that category for me.

What people can't appear to get their head around is that tries are rarely affected in this way. They keep claiming it's a common occurrence but bizarrely can't actually remember any instances of it happening.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:47 pm  

Somebody should change the title of the thread because Burrow didn't score last night.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:50 pm  

tvoc wrote:

What people can't appear to get their head around is that tries are rarely affected in this way. They keep claiming it's a common occurrence but bizarrely can't actually remember any instances of it happening.

I fail to see how you can say this with any confidence. You seem to be been a little arrogant here tvoc, if you dont mind me saying. I accept your view that you cant remember specific incidents of this going unpunished. But at the same time, it has not come up before. Can you name any other time where the video ref was referred for the sam offence before?

We simply have not looked for this offence before, so therefore of course nobody can give specifics on when it did happen. I can bet you we will be now though, which is stupid.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:51 pm  

tvoc wrote:

But they are exceedingly keen to rule out tries where player's involvement is deemed to be from an offside position. Even when the offside is minimal let alone where it is clearcut. Last night's decision falls into that category for me.

True, but its still a very pedantic penalty in my opinion and one that we were unlucky to have given against us, especially when you pile it ontop of the JJB "knock-on", Abletts sin-binning and Bradfords last try being allowed.

tvoc wrote:

What people can't appear to get their head around is that tries are rarely affected in this way. They keep claiming it's a common occurrence but bizarrely can't actually remember any instances of it happening.

I agree, according to the laws the ref's were correct. Plus people are getting confused with players playing the ball etc rather than attacking players stood offside. Personally, I cant remember a similar incident, although I have seen plenty of players from the attacking side stood in the defensive line at a PTB.