Quote: El Diablo "Again, lest I be accused of clutching at straws, I'm not a fan of too much micro-analysis in these things. In anything approaching normal speed Hardaker reached, lost the ball in the tackle and Makinson picked it up nad scored. I'm not convinced there would have been any justice in a disallowed try. Which sort of highlights why I'm not a fan of too much use of the video ref.'"
It was Anthony Laffranchi that scored but what would be gained if I pointed that out. Changes nothing so I won't even mention it.
Agreed in normal speed Hardaker got what he deserved and had the video referee not been present I'd have expected the try to be awarded but I'll ask again, if the ball touches the line with Hardaker still in contact and never having lost contact has he grounded the ball in goal? It's no different IMO to the recent Bailey score at Odsal which was given.
The line belongs to the in-goal area and for a try to be scored it only has to touch any part of it, is it any different when a defender is trying to clear his line? I didn't think it was but as I always say in these situations I've never studied the rules in my life, preferring instead to concentrate only on the current refereeing interpretations - that is when they act with consistency.
In the past we've had players such as Webb inadvertently touching the ball down behind the line at the JJB stadium but because he was viewed by the video referee as trying to knock the ball dead it's been ruled as play-on and a Wigan score as they followed up ..... to the point now where had let's say for arguments sake Hardaker fallen over in goal with no St Helens player in the Leeds half of the field, the ball inadvertently ie not intentionally hitting the ground after the player slips on the greasy surface that ball is now being deemed a deliberate grounding in-goal resulting in a drop out re-start. I doubt the rules covering these examples had been re-written in the intervening period - but the referee's interpretation of events has changed.