No problems, you are welcome.

For your reference as well, being behind the ball at a kick also appears in Section 6, Rule 9 and states -

Players’ positions 9.

When a kick at goal is being taken following a try, the
opposing players shall stand outside the field of play.
Players of the kicker’s team must be behind the ball.
When a kick at goal is being taken from a penalty
kick, the opponents shall retire to their goal line or
not less than 10 metres from the mark. (See Section
13).

...and here in Section 8, Rule 2 -

The ball may be kicked in any manner and in any
direction and is immediately in play. Opposing players
shall retire ten metres from the 20m line and shall not
advance until the ball has been kicked. Defending
players shall not advance in front of the ball before it is
kicked. Any deliberate offence by either team shall incur
a penalty to be awarded at the centre of the 20m line.

But the Original Section 13, Rule 3 is the one that most closely applies.

Oh, and on Cummins I really do think he should make an effort to search out the more rational e-mails and answer them but I understand he very rarely does!

This is the best visual I've seen as posted by King Whino. The red Line is in proper perspective and this is the frame Bentham used to make his decision.

Smith was onside, according to the rules.

Whether he was onside or not, you cannot simply just draw a line parallel with the white line as the perspective changes.

If you continued that parallel line towards the try line, then you would see how incorrect it is.

That proves how little you know about perspective then! I am really tempted to drop that frame into Autocad and draw a perspective grid on the whole picture.

Can you tell my where you think the rail camera is in relation to the lines on the pitch? I think I can get it to within a metre or so?

Surprisingly its Hughes that it photo shopped to push Smith offside, check iplayer or the SL site.
IMO it’s that close its impossible to say whether he was onside or offside, Pryce is in the way on all camera angles to see clearly, it does look like smiths planted foot could be behind the ball (although I don’t know if that is the correct rule).

The only problem I have is the people who are calling it a ridiculous decision and game changing, it wasn’t ridiculous, it was a very tight call that went the attacking team’s way and unless Saints had a game plan of keeping Leeds within 1 score until the 73rd minute then unleashing all hell it’s still 12-10 to Leeds.

The decision for me was far less contentious than the Long tackle in the semi against Wigan.

Does not look too far out to me at all!



I have found the vanishing point using the 10m and Try lines and then drawn a vertical line, which of course indicates the location of the camera relative to the pitch, so roughly between the 3m and 4m line for me. The other line is as best as I can do on the front of Smith's foot to the vanishing point.

So the rail camera is around 5m+ in front of the play and looking back at an angle at the point Bentham used as his reference for the decision!

Looks really tight to me, and difficult to see the ball because of Pryce!

In that still Pryce is blocking the ball, but on TV the position of the ball was always clear.



But the distance between the line on the screen and the *true* line will be so small as to make no difference. And any difference would be in Smith's favour anyway.

Excellent work

and the ball was hidden behind Pryce`s right leg (nearest the try line) as was seen on the Sky camera from the reverse angle.

so it is a very fine call indeed and with benefit to the attacking side was the right decision. Some you win some you lose. Just ask Wigan in the Semi-Final

It's irrelevant but Stevo has confirmed that the Sky Sports technicians have confirmed Smith was OFFSIDE. I'll go with that rather than some dodgy lines drawn on with ms paint.

Sky technicians? you mean the floating 6 foot wide spinning rubber rings?

It's funny how Stevo gets nothing but stick for his opinion untill it suits somebody.

No, not part of the presentation. They have scientifically proven that Smith was techncially offside.

But we'll not make an issue of it, whats done is done.

AutoCad actually and I can assure they are straight and the vertical line is true vertical and starts at the vanishing point of the two lines drawn over the 10m and try line. The line I drew, as best and as honestly as I thought, on Smith's foot also meets the exact same vanishing point.

I did take that original photo from someone else, but I do understand that is the where Bentham froze the picture to use as his reference to make his decision.

I am also lead to believe (although I have not seen it) that the BBC technicians thought the exact opposite of the Sky technicians!!!
Go figure eh!!!

Maybe they should meet in the car park and have it out!

Scientifically proven? That's a hell of a claim. Or could it be that they're trying to wring the last drop of controversy out of the incident? I know which my money'd be on

It is also quite a strange word to use in the circumstances... scientifically proven! It would have been better had the word geometrically proven or even mathematically proven, but scientificaly proven!!!

Have Sky invented a new science and produced an on-side/off-side litmus paper!



It has everything to do with Sky wanting to keep the buzz going and the BBC also wanting to keep the buzz going by taking the opposite 'scientific' view.

It was a very close call that could have gone either way, Bentham and Ganson and the RFL did not have it in for you and Bentham opinion on a very tight call was different to yours... accept it and move on!

Laptops at dawn.

Thats fine by me.

You may laugh. Give it a couple of years and it'll be as widely accepted as Einstein's laws of relativity, Planck's constant and Stevo's momentum rule...

Thats offside in any language you put it. Best team still won.

Do a perspective correction in photoshop. It is offside but by far less than I imagined e.g. cm. I do think this is one area Rugby Union has a better and much clearer ruling but then I suppose kicking all the time they have to.

Are you talking to yourself there?

Not the "official" language ie the current rule book...not one that Saints fans have invented to suit their arguement.

Has I keep pointing out on The Entertainers forum the winning margin was 8 points...

Causality prevents that '8 point margin' being a reasonable argument.

Do you really think that Burrow would have still dropped a goal? No, of course not.

If the try is disallowed a different set of events would take place - which, to be fair, would probably be us failing to find touch with the penalty and Leeds scoring a try on their next set.

Even so your argument is redundant.

That sounds about right!

I agree though that had that final try not been allowed things may well have been different. Our heads would not have gone down. We still had a fighting chance and because our heads would not have gone down we may well have found what it takes to score again.

Better still, of course, would have been had Meli not had his first brainfart. That is what really began the rot.

I do hope Meli totally screws up his visa next time around. I don't want to see him in a red vee again.

Obviously....

here here just before half time went into the sheds with their heads up, we went in on a downer, and then the start we had, said it all