If the player does not retire he is "automatically" offside. If he interferes with play he is "automatically" offside. What constitutes "retiring" may be subjective, as may "interfering with play".dailywaffle wrote: The laws clearly state that a player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised. It is far too simplistic to say that this is an automatic penalty or scrum (or advantage); .
I stated that the player did not retire.
But unlike the stud in touch all too often, IMHO, blatant breeches of the laws are ignored. I take some comfort from the fact that P. O'Brian agrees with me.
I take no comfort whatsoever from the excuses that such lapses are in the interests of "managing the game", judgements of "materiality" or "contextuality". IMHO the game would be better "managed" if such issues as offside were viewed as simplistic - in front of the ball is in front of the ball, ahead of the rearmost foot is exactly that - no need for philosphical and intellectual exercises. Just like crooked feeds to the scrum.