look at the ball when todd flanders ripped it. its like a spinning top. it had to be ripped out

To give you a perfect example..

A player who is tackled but slides and keeps their ball carrying arm off the floor can legally pass to a team-mate (Ben Crooks at Headingley would have been a perfect example had Thaler got it right). The tackle is not complete, he is still moving and the arm has not hit the floor.

Contrast with Willie Manu in the same game. Still moving, held by a defender but lifts the arm and passes. Rightly penalised, he cannot promote the ball once the arm hits the floor with a defender in contact.

Once that has happened, the attacking player cannot reposition the ball. He can still cross the line and ground the ball, but only under his own momentum and without altering the position of the ball relative to him.

its not only.the rfl rules which disagree with that interpretation but the laws of space and time. Your interpretation demands we ignore the link between space (where) and time (when) when judging an event.

It is simply impossible for us to have a situation between the ball carrying arm hitting the floor and his momentum stopping where the player is both tackled and not tackled. He is neither, he is in the process of being tackled and as such, by definition the tackle isn't completed.

There was a try scored by harlequins/broncos where a player whose ball carrying hit the deck and.was sliding towards touch who offloaded the ball, never mind simply grounding it, the try was given with the explanation by stuart humming later, that the tackle isn't complete until the momentum stops

Smokey - if you're going to rely on the laws of the game you could at least bother to do some research.

From the RFL website section on the lawsWhen tackledwhere his slide ends. (See Section 6, 3(c).)

Second movement after tackle: When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try.

If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed.

Relying on Stuart "defend the decision at all costs" Cummings to provide an explanation will provide little in the way of clarity.

Quantum mechanics disagrees. Think of it as a Rugby League form of Erwin Schroedinger's cat thought experiment.

In this case, the player is both tackled and not tackled, and will only resolve himself into a single state when observed by the video referee.

Cummings didn't defend video referee Child after the similar incident at New Craven Park involving Danny McGuire. IIRC it was stated on here (I didn't see it personally as I don't subscribe to any of the trade papers) that Cummings said his official had got the decision wrong when awarding a penalty to Hull KR for a double movement.

Perhaps someone should ask Cummings for an opinion/ruling on Saturday's incident also for future reference. Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen as neither team could probably care less about the decision.