Well it's a good job they don't all take it particually seriously then isn't it. If they were rewinding every try to the previous play the ball I'm pretty sure you can find at least one reason to disallow every single try. Not least the fact it probably wasn't played correctly.

They won't go back and watch the whole thing "just for the sake of it". But if they think they've seen something, or while watching a replay of something requested, they notice something else, then they are free to rule on it.

Must've missed it then. What can I say. Obviously our brown envelope reached him just in time.

Placed onside 3. An off side player is placed onside if:



(a) an opponent moves ten metres or more with the ball.

(b) an opponent touches the ball without retaining it.

(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.

(d) one of his own team kicks or knocks the ball forward and takes up a position in front of him in the field of play.

(e) he retires behind the point where the ball was last touched by one of his own team





[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/a_guide_to_the_game/official_laws/14_offside[/url

Not 100% sure, but I don't think it counts as an offside. If he's in front of the ball when played, isn't it something else? "Inactive" or some other stupid term?



Purely going on when Brent Webb was penalised for it at Odsal and had a try chalked off. He went behind the man in possession, but was still penalised.



I'm sure it's a different rule to offside and is essentially that you're not allowed to get involved until the ball is played again.



Ritz will be able to clarify this one for us I think.

Not sure about "Inactive" but if he was Offside then by the laws of the game he was definitely onside by the time he touched the ball.

Yeah but as I say, go back to the try that got chalked off at Odsal a year or two ago, when Webb was penalised for the same thing after he got involved. By that rule you've quoted, he would have been deemed onside again and therefore the try would have been given. So there must be something more to it than simply classed as offside.

Maybe the ref got the Webb decision wrong?

Got it.



From Section 11:







So attacking player in front of the PTB is classed as "out of play".



Then from same section you linked to:









They are classed as "out of play" and not "offside" and not played back in by the lines you've quoted. They are "out of play" until the next PTB.

Nope Mr Alibert was correct.

It's not very clear where he would be classed as "out of play" but if the same rules apply to the attacking team then this would bring him back into play





[i(h) 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[/i





It's not very clear either way imo

I disagree. I think it's perfectly clear.



I don't recall the incident with Buderus (and have no intention of going back and watching it). But if it's the same as the Brent Webb one from Odsal, then he was "out of play" and therefore not eligible to be involved until the next PTB (which is when the advantage has gone). It's right there in Black and White.