Quote: SmokeyTA "Im not sure that is right,
I have seen many many a try given in a similar situation and the referee has justified it on the basis that whilst the player is in motion, they are free to pretty much do what they want, if the tackle isnt complete, it isnt complete.
What you seem to be saying is that there is a period of time between Hall's ball carrying arm hitting the floor, and his momentum stopping where he is tackled in that he cant make any kind of effort, but he also isnt tackled in that his momentum can allow him to score a try or be pushed in to touch, and if Charnley loses contact with Hall he somehow becomes not tackled again. .'"
That's exactly what I am saying.
If the ball carrying arm hits the ground while the player is being touched by a defender, he cannot then make a second movement to reposition the ball.
The player can continue to slide towards the line due to momentum, but he can't pick the arm up and promote the ball while doing so.
Had Charnley dropped off Hall before the ball carrying arm hits the ground, then the tackle would not have been complete and he would have been free to play on. Had he dropped off after the ball carrying arm hits the ground, the tackle is complete and Hall would have had to play the ball.
In the scenarios you have described, I can only think the referee has adjudged that the player did not make a second movement. Sometimes if a player is rolling or bounces off the floor after being tackled they can get away with making a slight second movement with the arm and get the benefit of the doubt.
I suspect that's what Ian Smith did on Sunday, but IMO he was wrong to do so. It wasn't Carvell's momentum that enabled him to get the ball down. The tackle was complete even though he was still moving, and he made a distinct second movement with the arms to get the ball down.