Firstly - well done leeds, ground out a result again



Now then, i'm thinking that this rule needs a closer look at. Mainly because for me, higham was onside from where the ball bounced. It was only because it bounced backwards the he came within the 10m.



Takes any intent out if the ball happens to bounce towards you surely?

But if it had bounced the other way it wouldn't be an issue as there would have been no try.



Like saying a ball is passed backwards but then hits the ground and bounces forward.. still a forward pass.

Correct decision but it is a daft rule. If a player offside finds himself within 10 metres but has no bearing in the following play then don't worry about it imo but as it stands it was a no try.

The law is an ass.

Offside is offside, no moans from me.



Stay behind the play, and you're onside...simple really, innit!

Correct decision and no arguments from me.

Try all Day long with no Sky Cameras about!!

basic rugby league for me...

Maybe but so would BJB try for Leeds and the one ruled out for obstruction.

Let's not turn in to Bradford fans here and try to say we were cheated out of a win because that dastardly video ref applied the rules correctly. That disallowed Leeds try out wide probably would've been given without the video.



Incidentally, did anybody else nearly lob a heavy object at their expensive TV when the ball clearly hit the touch line when planted down only for Stevo to say "I'd give that!"?

very strange rule when you consider higham had no effect on the play in anyway whatsoever.

Mixed feelings from me. At first I was thinking that the rule is stupid, if the ball hits the ground then it should be play on, or as long as Higham was ten yards when it hit the ground then it should be ok.



But, rules are rules, and therefore the correct decision and no complaints from me. Higham was at fault and should have had enough control.