I made the exact same point at the time. Surely if anyone is to blame for the player not knowing whether he's tackled or not it has to be the ref for not communicating with the players. He should've been shouting play on as Worrincy was getting to his feet. There is no advantage that can be gained by the attacking team so why penalise them.

To be fair to the ref on the video you can here him say play on but still cant see why it should be a pentaly.
Ive just watched the video of the game and it was nice to see Sky making such a big deal about some of the decisions that went against us, especially Brian Carney suggesting the charging player at ones of Patts missed goals should have been sin binned.

Watching the game back, Phil Clarke rightly pointed out that the Barrow team, led by Harrison, ran forward when Pat's was attempting to convert Gov's try. Had he done so it'd have been 20 all, a major decision missed by the ref. It should have been re-taken

agree, if not tackled how can it be a play the ball. to me its same as a pass or kick backwards.

I think the penalty was given for incorrect play the ball. Worrincy was tackled but got up and rolled the ball in-between his legs without using his foot. How many times do people do it in a game and not get penalised? I felt it was a key point in the game.

Defnatley for not been tackled. Ref can be heard to say play on when he gets back up. Still cant fathom why it is a penalty. Accidental offside is a scrum yet something like that is a penalty.

At least Bentham was consistent, how did he allow McDermott to continue when he was clearly tackled more than once in the same movement, he even gave himself looking for a call from the ref but he also looked surprised before continuing