The price you pay for not going to the game and having to listen to Stevo.



One of the things I like about rugby is the rules. On the whole they make sense to me. There will always be the judgement calls that even in super slow motion people will be unable to agree about. Those are the ones that provide the talking points post game. However, there were a couple of worrying incindents tonight where one of the major RL pundits in the country displayed a lack of understanding of even the most basic rules of the game. At least twice he declared that the video ref was going to give a try when 99.956% of the viewing public could see that there was no way it was going to be given.



Is Stevo the new Ray French?

The obstruction that never happened I am referring to. Would have liked to see the grounding again though!

Both try's turned down in the 2nd half for both the Leeds on and the wire one were the correct decision by the letter of the law. But I personally think the laws need looking at and both should have been given

No try - that's the rule!!



BUT - the very stupid part of it for me - Silverwood - "Micky, you're offside" - Points at him - "Micky, stay back, you're offside" - So, what does Higham do, carry on jogging forward, only slowing down slightly when it bounces.....For me, if he'd stopped, or even turned his back and put his hands on his up and back off the decision might of been different.

Thing is, as I've said elsewhere, to the letter of the laws it was an obstruction, you don't have to make contact with a defender for it to be deemed so. The RFL website has the laws of the game for consultation at any time.



As for whether it should 'morally' have been a penalty, I'd say no - as ever with rule interpretations there's a fine line between pedantry and deciding whether it *really* had an impact on the play. In this case, the video ref went with the pedant option and that's his right as a match official.

Was it Higham's fault for carrying on (hint: yes) or maybe Myler's for standing back for the kick?

that is also my take on both non-trys.

nt

The rule states they had to give no try, I agree with previous comments, i'd like to see a rule where, as soon as the ball makes contact with player/sticks/ground - that should be the point of deciding if the attacking player is within 10.



However, Myler should have got up and played his team on side.

I agree.

I think the ruling for offside in relation to the Higham try is the correct one. It might seem unfair when the player hasn't been involved with the play but I'm pretty sure the reason he can't be within the 10 is because just being in the attacking line provides an advantage.

If there a player who is offside stood in the attacking line the defence has to keep him covered because they won't know he's offside and that can give the attacking team an unfair advantage.



If you imagined it as a 3 on 2 overlap like so:



O-#-O

O-O



With the middle player (#) being offside the attack is gaining an advantage in that situation. I'm pretty sure that's why offside players have to remain outside the 10 metres. They aren't allowed to appear like a possible pass option.

i can see where you're coming from... but surely when the player accused of being offside has absolutely no bearing in the play, then he should be deemed inactive...... football changed their offside rule for this very reason.



seemed like a silly reason to chalk a try off tonight, even if it is the actual ruling.