That would certainly be one way, I'd agree. I reckon the logic of not being able to be put onside even by a team-mate with the ball running past you would be that you would still have the advantage of not having shuttled back 10 and then forwards.

This was such a howling error by the match officials that it took all the aggrieved Bulls fans well over 24 hours to discover it.

In fact it only came to light when it was pointed out in a post by tvoc on the Southstand site.

Perhaps you'd care to ask us for the 2 points back?

Not true Old Feller ................. this site had a thread featuring the very subject and I emailed sky before the end of the match.

A poster by the name of Ritz mentioned an hour or so after the game, check his posts if you don't take my word for it.

This one... I said it to wife immediately it happened during the match, with been a ref myself i always look at why a try shouldnt be awarded against us..but to be fair he was only slightly offside, but offside so cant get involved with that passage of play..doesnt matter how far his player runs in front of him he is offside until the next ptb.

I saw the try last night. you can't actually see Buderus at the PTB but when it pans out he looks margiannly off-side, or out of play. Reading the laws out of play only refers to the defending side, but it is not unreasonable to assume it also refres to attacking. If he is off-side he is easily played on by the acting half running 20m. If he is out of play it should be a penalty as I read it.

But the laws do actually cover off the fact that an attacking player who is out of play cannot be put onside. See the notes to section 14 about offside [url=http://www.therfl.co.uk/~rflmedia/docs/rugby_laws_book_2007_%20(2).pdfhere[/url



Buderus isn't offside, he is out of play and thus the laws of the game preclude him from being involved in that play of the ball.



But I do agree with you about the the replay angles; I didn't think they conclusively show whether or not Buderus was out of play either, but it would seem to be a fair assumption that he was.

i thought he should have had gone to the screen when walker lost the ball over the line. Looked like a steal to me and to not look at it is a joke. Also, was a penalty but not not sure a penalty try. BBJ had to reach the ball 1st and ground it at pace. The bounce could allow the cover to get reach him if it doesnt bounce perfectly in stride and there were too many variables for me to give the try.

BJB could have put the kettle on & made a brew & still beaten Ah Van (IIRC) to the ball over the line. I think the ball even stopped short of the dead ball line. You could claim he might have been shot by a sniper or suffered a heart attack before getting to the ball, but I am almost certain he would.

Totally agree (now - Sunday might have had a different repsonse)



I don't think there was much choice in awarding a PT to be honest. If they hadn't it would have opened the door for professional fouls every time someone put a kick through. Clocking off 20 minutes early cost us the game, not VR decisions

With regards to the VR not calling it...



I watched it again last night, he never rewinds it that far. He starts reviewing the clip from Burrow passing it to Buderus (who's already onside at that point), before going on to review the grounding. So, given that he wasn't asked to go back that far, you can't blame RS for not wiping the try off as he didn't see the offence during his reviewing of the grounding.



All your blame should be directed at Ganson.



HTH.

No. He isn't. Read the rules that have been posted.



HTH.