: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:43 am  

SBR wrote:

Why should we ever change the rules? To make the sport better. There is a view that scooting from dummy half is boring and one dimensional. Allowing a more controlled play the ball makes this tactic less effective and so encourages other tactics.

good defence would do the same!

it seems another example of the rfl stopping the natural evolution of the game to level sl to mediocrity

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:47 am  

How can you say JJB's was a pass, clear knock on.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:48 am  

Awwww didums , have the mighty LEEDS RHINO's lost again

Must be the refs fault

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:50 am  

WANDERER wrote:

See SBR's post above.

which is different to both your explanations

this is where your definition doesnt match the rules "A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost."

no mention of a time frame there and a rule open to huge interpretation

[Wanderer]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:52 am  

Starbug wrote:

Awwww didums , have the mighty LEEDS RHINO's lost again

Must be the refs fault

Video refs maybe.

I have no allegiance to either side (as I stated earlier) but it was a bad call to allow Bradfords match-winning try. There is clear evidence of foul play in the build-up which the VR was asked to look at.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:53 am  

WANDERER wrote:

Watched the game last night;

The Leeds no try involving Webb - correct decision. Webb clearly makes no attempt to retire behind the play-the-ball and becomes involved in that play.

The JJB knock on - correct decision. JJB knocks the ball forward (and does not re-gather). It is a knock on if it hits the floor or hits an opposing player and cannot be promoted by the opposition or if it hits a team mate or is caught by a team mate.

Bradfords winning try - incorrect decision. There is evidence of foul play in the build up. Penalty to Leeds.

Agree on all three counts - I even thought there was suspicion of a knock on from Menzies when he attempted to pat the ball back for Bradford's winining try.

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:55 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

which is different to both your explanations

this is where your definition doesnt match the rules "A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost."no mention of a time frame there and a rule open to huge interpretation

"Having retired the distance prescribed in the preceding paragraph no player of the team not in possession may advance until the ball has cleared the ruck. A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.

Thats for the side not in posession of the football - the defence.

[tb]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:56 am  

So, in essence you'd criticise Thaler because he didn't ignore the rules of the game and make it up as he went along - you'dprefer it if he did ... weird.

[tb]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:56 am  

So, in essence you'd criticise Thaler because he didn't ignore the rules of the game and make it up as he went along - you'dprefer it if he did ... weird.

[Wanderer]

: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:01 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

which is different to both your explanations

this is where your definition doesnt match the rules "A player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost."

no mention of a time frame there and a rule open to huge interpretation

I have spoken in 'lay mans' terms - it looks to me like SBR has quoted the rule. I will accept that if the rule has been quoted word-for-word then it includes no timescale but in the incident witnessed last night surely Webb has 'gained an advantage' from being in an offside position initially as he could not have exchanged passes with Burrow if he had retired behind the original p-t-b?