But benifit of the doubt wasn't ruled.

I've not seen the the replay of the game yet but it looked offside on the big screen but it's hard to tell for sure on big screen.

At the end of the day it was giving and Leeds won so it's end of story for me.

I thought it looked off side too in the ground,

People I've spoke to about it (not saints fans) said it was offside. In fact I've not heard anyone say it's onside.

No point in banging on about it like bulls did with the joynt tackle.

It's gone now

I have heard the only person that matters...... and he said ON side T_R_Y

HTH

Always 1 =red(STOP THR FOUL LANGUAGE, THIS IS A FAMILY WEBSITE) idiot that trys to be funny.

Like I've said it's been and gone so who cares.

Strange that cos I thought your assertion was as funny as =red(STOP THR FOUL LANGUAGE, THIS IS A FAMILY WEBSITE)

He has a point

Bentham went with the rules

I was sceptical last night, Ive seen the replay a few times and its very close call which could have gone either

The RFL and International rules for offside is that the chasing player has to be behind the kicker and not the ball. Unless they have changed the rules and not told anybody.

Now, my thoughts on this is well known, I may well be biased as a saints fan, but from each Angle shown on the big screen Lee Smith was offside.

I said to everyone around me that, he can't give this and as each replay angle was shown it backed me up. When Bentham gave it i couldnt believe it.

Its a shame that in my opinion, a game that was so evenly poised was decided by a poor refereeing decision, but it was not to be for us.

in laymens term it was off side..smith was in front of the kicker.by an inch...tbh im glad you lot were robbed

I thought the same as you, that the player had to be behind the kicker. But everyone (as in watching it back on sky and seeing the BBC highlights) has only mentioned that both feet of the chasing player have to be behind the ball, and not the man kicking it. BBC used a good graphic on the super league show today (like the line used in football matches to show onside/offside - why can't this be used in sky's RL coverage?) that proved Lee Smith's foot on the floor was level with McGuire's standing leg.

Either everyone's just assumed offside was called for being in front of the man and not the ball, or this is another of those rules that are different in super league compared to international rules. (anyone remember the kick from the 20 meter restart that was given as a scrum to the defence and then changed the very next year to bring super league in line with international rules?)

From my point of view and after watching the TV Lee Smiths planted foot (he only had one on the ground and that is where the ref will look at it from - not his head or his hands or any other part of his body but the furthest most foot from his own try line that is in contact with the floor - that I am certain on) was ahead of Maquires planted foot but behind the ball - so it was actually between the 2.

If the rules state that offside is judged from the position of the ball then there are no qualms about it Smith was onside. If the rule states that the 2 players planted feet are where the relative positions are taken from then he was infront and offside.

My problem is that I cannot find the rule that tells you where it should be judged from - I know where Bentham took it from and that was the ball - if thats the rule (and I would hope that he does know it to be so) then I just want to know and where he got it from as I cannot find it anywhere in the rulebook - not saying he is right or wrong as that is completely academic - I want to know so that in future I will know the rule or the interpretation of it and why offside is judged from a different point (the ball) to the 40/20 which is the planted foot

Maybe because a 40/20 kick only has reference to a single player ie the kicker so there has to be a point of reference and the only one available is the field markings

The OFFSIDE interpretation obviously involves two players so therefore the reference is the relative positions between the receiver and the ball.

HTH

I can see your point but you would imagine that the same reference point would be used for both rulings - one against the line markings - the other against a fixed point on the runner.
I dont know the answer but I would love somebody to explain it - there must be refs out there who can guide me in this.

Coming from a Wigan fan Lee Smith seemed to be offside IMO.

He was that far offside one foot was in yorkshire.

He was that offside he was sat in the stretford end reading the programme and eating a packet of over priced crisps when McGuire kicked it through so he folded his crisp bag into a triangle, legged it down the steps, asked for permission from the jobsworth steward who after minutes of umming and arring let him over the barrier and then Lee Smith plonked the ball over the line.

Game, set and match Leeds!

There's another version i could put but its unsuitable for a family RL board.

Ah well. Yorkshire os.

Well lets stop this particular train of thought right there then eh. Please keep this relevant to St Etrigan's original question lest it goes the way of MJ.

Fair do's pal.

It was offside, simple as that. The players knew as they lined up for the inevitable penalty, the fans knew as only cheers came from the saints end when it showed the incident on screen.

All the commentators, both on sky and the bbc, said it was offside. Even teletext said it was offside.

If the correct decision is made then saints have a penalty with 7 minutes left with a reasonable chance of winning the game. The only person that thinks it was onside is Phil Bentham, who I do not believe is that incompetent.

History was not made, it was manufactured. And that's why RL will always be classed as a mickey mouse sport in this country no better than wrestling in terms of integrity.

Spoken like a true 3 times loser

Have some dignity like your players. Take it on the chin and come back stronger next season

offside simple as shocking decision

Come back when you qualify

Nothing wrong with it and Jon Wilkin agree's. Get over it.