You do have to be 10m from the play the ball or 5m from the base of a scrum to be onside.

What I'm saying is if the ball is played and moved to the right of the field yet the centre at the opposite side of the field is offside do you penalise him as he is technically in breach of the rule?

You have to allow a common sense approach to refereeing and ask yourself the question is that player effecting play?

The Jordan Turner example mentioned above could be argued that yes he was effecting play. Did Scott Grix see Turner moving up quickly and thought the better option would be to go on the opposite side? Is Turner directing where the attack goes by being in an offside position. At a scrum I would argue this to be the case.

Was just about to make the same comment about turner.

So, do you, or do you not, penalise persistent offside at the PTB if the player(s) are not* affecting play? And if you do, how many times would it need to occur before you blow up?

*Of course it can be argued that players not making the 10 are affecting play, as they are not making an effort to retreat the full distance and therefore tire less quickly as the game progresses.

Also, on the couple of occasions the Giants took a quick tap on the 20 there were very few Hull players onside, yet on neither occasion were they penalised.

Is it any wonder fans get frustrated at refereeing inconsistencies?

If persistant then yes, of course you do. Referees and TJ's speak to players during the game and usually this helps the referee police the 10m. For instance if Eorl Crabtree was offside the referee will say something along the lines of "Eorl you're offside". If Eorl becomes involved (i.e makes the tackle) he will be penalised. If he stays out of the tackle and retires to the 10m and then makes the tackle then its play on as he is classed as being onside when he makes the original 10m mark. If he stays out of the tackle but the referee has noted him as being offside most referees will talk to the play whilst on the run. So dialect may be "Eorl give me another yard on your 10m". This gives the player indication that he is being noted as not making the 10m. If he become persistant I would expect any referee to penalise him accordingly.

In terms of your comment regarding players affecting play and tiring I think theres more of an argument about players changing direction to avoid offside players than tiring. Players wont generally fatigue any quicker going 9m or 10m to be fair. Robbo may see a player in an offside position and decide to take play to avoid that player. There is an argument that this affects play rather than the offside player becoming involved (i.e. making a tackle)

Your point on the 20m restarts is interesting. Players often take a quick tap and run at a player who is offside. That player then makes the tackle once they hit the 30m line. A referee shouldn’t really penalise a defending player if the attacking player has deliberatly run into him. That’s why you don’t see markers being penalised when the dummy half deliberatly runs at them. If the attacking player deliberatley runs at the offside player, who then turns round and tackles the attacker, then yes a penalty should be given.

Interesting debate. It's a fine balance between applying the laws of the game fairly and allowing a game to flow.

The problem appears to be allowing referees that discretion of when to penalise and it being applied consistently during games and throughout the season. I don't think it has helped at the start of each season when there used to be a crackdown on certain infringements and then this was forgotten about after a few weeks. Thankfully, this seems to have stopped now. However, situations where referees have their own ideas about what they are going to be unduly harsh or lenient about should not arise - Ganson's performance in our play-off game vs Warrington being a particularly extreme case.

If they're not affecting play, why are they on the pitch?