Given he scored from his initial out of play position would that not suggest the advantage had not been lost when he got the ball?

He didn't score

If he was offside then the try was fine



[i(c) one of his own team in possession of the ball runs in front of him.[/i



If he was out of play then would the rule below bring him back into play? he was 5m out of play at the ptb

but received the ball 15-20 upfield from the ptd



[iA player who is out of play may again take part in the game when the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost.[/i

This, coming from a Leeds troll, is rich trolling indeed, farcically ignoring that we all know the VR told Ganson to award a non-existent knock-on, which Ganson had ruled "play on", at MM last year.

Again, that last bit you quote, I believe is referring to a player on the non-possession team, not an attacking player. I am 99.9% sure he is not deemed "in play" again until the next PTB, and I'm sure I read that somewhere at the time of the last one, but can't for the life of me find it again now.



He definitely is not offside. That bit is clear. He is "Out of play". Even if that line did refer to attackers (which I don't believe it does), it's way too ambiguous as to when the advantage gained has been lost. Some would argue the advantage has gone when he's behind the man again. Some would argue he's gained an advantage for the whole term of possession. It's absolutely daft wording.

Teach me to jump into posts at work!

And as for the VR telling Ganson to give a penalty (that never was) that Ganson had never seen...

Wouldn't a non-possession player be offside and not out of play? what's the difference

By non-possession, I mean the team defending. The rule I quoted from section 11 clearly says that a player from the team in possession of the ball, who is not behind the PTB (except the man playing it and the acting half) is "out of play", not "offside". That is one of the only bits that is very clear about this. And if Buderus was in front of them, even by 1 yard, then he was "out of play".

I suppose there is the outrageous possibility that both the ref & VR saw the incident & judged it not an offence?

The point is, that is what the laws of the game state, so it isn't up for debate. The player is offside, but he is also out of play. (We know he is also offside, as rule 13 explains how he cannot be put onside; which clearly if he wasn't offside, would be illogical)



The difference is that a player offside is either put back onside or he isn't - it's a straight question of fact. Whereas a player who is out of play at a PTB can't take part in the next play unless "the advantage gained by not retiring has been lost", which leaves it up to the interpretation of the ref.



So, is it better to be "out of play" or is it worse? I think one big clue is in the rule which states that a player out of play is NOT put "on side" by any of the normal events in Rule 13. Why is that important? Well, because even if any of the events occur, such as a team-mate with the ball getting ahead of you, so that you WOULD now be immediately onside, under this rule, you're still not. You still, even then, can't take part unless BOTH (a) you are on side, AND (b) you haven't gained any advantage by not retiring. So I reckon the bar is a level higher.



Whilst the rule does not make a crystal clear dividing line, unlike offside, I would suggest that it is easy enough to judge which side of the line any given incident falls. I don't really see there is any problem in interpretation. If you are hanging about, without having made the 10, but then take a pass as the play progresses past you, the fact you have gained an advantage is plain as day. Including (a) you wouldn't have been there in the first place had you retired the ten; (b) you have taken up and utilised a key position illegally (even if unintentionally), to mention but two.



Given what the rules state, I can't see any realistic way that a player who actually takes up the ball from that position could ever be ruled NOT to have gained an advantage.

The ONLY way I can think of for that to be the case, is if he runs backwards further than where the PTB happened, to a point where he would have been ok if he'd been there at the time of the actual PTB.