Firstly I am posting this because I am genuinely confused.

All of the critics should back away now unless you have the correct answer to my question. I believe the best team won and the decision would not have altered that either way. - Clear? good





I want to understand why the line at which the reference point for the kick through by Maquire was the ball and not the kickers non-kicking foot. I was of the understandng that the non-kicking foot was the reference point if the ball is in hand.

When a possible 40/20 kick is judged it is definately the non kicking foot that has to be behind the 40m line while the ball can be over it - we have seen that any number of times. But I have never seen a call like yesterdays where the player (Smith) had his planted foot inbetween the kickers non-kicking foot and the ball.

I am quit happy if somebody can explain to me where this interpretation is stated in the rules of the game but I cannot see it.

The only slight reference I can find with the laws is this



[iPoint of infringement

7. For the purpose of this Law the point of infringement in the case of a

kick into touch on the full shall be the point from which the ball was

kicked.[/i



Obviously not about the same law - but if they mean that the point at which the body makes contact with the foot - then why the discrepancy between this and a 40/20 kick?



Does anybody know the answer and can point me to where I can find this in the Rugby Laws book?

The offical rule for on side off side from a kick is the players feet have to be behind the ball. Not the kickers foot but the ball. That is what Bentham ruled on. it was very close but you can see why it was give espceially when the rules state benifit of the doubt should always go with the attacking team in try scoring review.

load of crap

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.