Hey it's not my opinion its in the rules of the game in black and white.

[uIf the ball is played quickly, all players will not necessarily have time to retire the prescribed distance. They should be penalised only if they intentionally interfere with play – either actively or passively.[/u

Danny McGuire the dreaded enforcer





How bitter are you - it wasn't even your team that lost!

I have watched it and when Ben Davis plays the ball, Peacock is offside and he is not square (Had plenty of time to get back). On the next PTB, Buderaus is not square and runs round the rook to try to put Chase off. BOTH PENALTIES!!!!

As were all nit picking here, when we went for the drop goal right at the end of the game the one where danny orr charged it down, well he was well offside,penalty to leeds under the sticks, game over

besides this how many times this season would our 2 tries that were disallowed for forward passes, would they have been awarded?

Cas had 2 chances throughout the game one of which chase scored,jones was held up close on your other only chance

Bit silly inviting me to watch the video. Where do you think I got the still from? And there is nothing misleading about it, as can be seen clearly from anyone who wishes to watch the video, neither of the markers were square. Any frame would have shown that.


I'm not sure what you mean here. If the markers aren't square and interfere with play it is a straight-forward penalty. In this instance, both McGuire and Peacock were at fault and both charged at Rangi Chase. Penalty.


Read them yourself, he intentionally interfered with play from an offside position, therefore it's a penalty.

Every time on Sky.

So if I run at an offside player it's no penalty. If he tackles me it's a penalty. What part of that rule are you misunderstanding?

Watch the video - no one ran at or was tackled by the players you're saying weren't square - the ball was passed cleanly away from dummy half. Peacock later joins a tackle (as third man in) but as the rules state "A player who is out of play [umay again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost[/u".

If your this upset about a Leeds-Cas game, how bad are you if a decision goes against wigan?

Gutted we lost but some of the posts really are not pointing at why we actually lost this match. In the second half we gave away far too many penalties which took leeds from there own 30 to our 30. This eventually changed the score from 8-2 to 8-8. We have been the same all season giving away penalties from which teams score. Come on Terry surely you must know this and need to drill into certain players jones,ferres,mc oldrick etc that this is going to cost us if not careful a top 8 finish.
Come on the tigers will be their fri to see them give away too many penalties again against Leeds and to be honest I cant see us winning that game either revenge or not. Hope the tigers prove me wrong though.

Is anyone who disagrees with you "upset"?



The Peacock offside would be given in plenty of games. It stands to reason that if there was no advantage to be gained from joining the tackle then he wouldn't have done so. There was only one man in the tackle after all, and it is a pretty bold assumption to say that Cas lost no advantage from a second tackler wrapping up the ball. But even if you ignore that one, the Chase drop-goal attempt was clearly interfered with by 2 players in off-side positions.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZHSjziIzAYI wonder how Phil Bentham felt about awarding that penalty[/url.

Ferres would have had a walk in try if he had kicked a loose ball straight and not into touch.
And seen as Webb throws about half a dozen forward passes a game i expect you would score atleast from 2 of them.

Danny Mcguire, obsessed over so much by Wigan fans, he has had to start wearing Danny Buderus' shirt apparently!

If you look at the ball Peacock is onside, Buderus is the one not square on the right. I think that Peacock has much more interference in the play. It's all relative.

Technically the two two players under the posts are offside, their feet are never behind the goal line!

Arnt both feet suppose to have been on the line now a days.

Ther are onside as the ref is stood about 2 yards away from the line, both fett of the player are behind the ref.....

Anyway...the drop goal was harder to miss so its our own fault.

The PTB is 11-12m away from Leeds' tryline. Why would Leeds need to be stood on their own line? You only have to retire 10m from the PTB.

Like has been said on other threads, How nice is it that people are actually arguing about Rugby

Did you read my post?

I wasn't referring to the defensive line.

Sorry mate, I quoted the wrong post.

I meant to quote this:



My point still stands.

Bang on mate - that's what we should be concerned with rather than nitpicking about whether the markers were perfectly square.

I feel the root cause of the problem is our inaccurate passing which is shown up time and again in games and something that Phil Clarke (unusually for him

) correctly pointed out a few weeks ago as one of the things that separates the top teams from the also rans.

Had Rangi been confident in our passing ability he could have stood a lot further to the right (or left as you look at the picture) of the ruck putting him much further away from the markers. Thus he would have been allowed a half second extra to settle himself and get a better kick away.

has anyone got the screenshot of Danny Orr stood offside when sir kev attempted his drop goal?

thought not

He could have, yes, but in all honesty the onus is not on the attacking team to stand deeper, it is on the defending team to stay on-side.

SL PTBs are generally indisciplined from both sides. Half the time the tackled player doesn't even stand up and face the opposition squarely.

If the markers aren't square, the smart thing to do is deliberately run at them. That way you force them to be involved and force the ref to give a penalty. If you just pass the ball away you can't show that they've interfered.