Indeed. No disrespect to Danny McGuire but there is just no way he was going to stop Hock on the charge anyway. Like firing a pellet gun at a freight train.

Which is of course irrelevant if he was impeded to prevent him attempting the tackle, but I see no obstruction there, Tomkins doesn't have to get out of the road.

I wonder if McGuire will get a ban for manhandling the ref.

I thought the Hall no try was correct. It didn't look a try at full speed first time and I didn't change my mind, although with another ref it might have got a BOD call. But correct call for me. Some similarities with the Carvell try in the other semi, which I was a bit undecided on, but probably wouldn't have given if I'd been the VR. I did also think Hall might have been in touch if the penalty for the double movement wasn't given, but I'd need to watch replays again.

On the O'Loughlin steal, there's no way Tomkins can be offside. Offside only applies in that situation if O'Loughlin has played the ball deliberately, in which case it's already a penalty. I'm still curious as to why a penalty try wasn't give though.

I was under the impression that they had implicitly stated that a penalty try could not be given under such circumstances, i.e. a ball steal when the ball carrier is in the act of grounding the ball?

have they? I missed that. Seems an odd ruling, but it certainly explains the decision.

Luckily TMFMISL was on hand to make sure it wasn't an issue.

Classic Bailey.

Yep, glad someone else remembers that.

From my memory of the time, that never should have been disallowed. Danny was sliding forward and to not score would have been more difficult to be honest. ..

Yep. Though if it had been a 1-on-1 steal then Tomkins would have been offside.
Like GCH says, a few years ago they changed the rule (I think after a Michael Platt ball steal on Diskin at Odsal a few years ago, maybe 2007? was given as a penalty try) so that a ball steal over or near the line was just a penalty rather than a penalty try

Sort of makes sense I suppose. The objection I have is that determining how the ball "comes loose" is the essence of the decision anyway isn't it? It might not be easy to determine intent, but if you give a penalty then surely you have already decided that the ball has been deliberately dislodged rather than coming loose in trying to get under the ball?

Still, if it's consistently applied, then there's no real problem.

The two on one ball steal to prevent a try being scored is permitted in the sense that while it will still be penalised it will not result in a 'penalty try' being awarded.

As others have said the change in interpretation followed a Matt Diskin penalty try V Bradford at Odsal (2nd September 2007), the ball was stolen by Michael Platt with Glenn Morrison also in the tackle. The referee who referred it on was Phil Bentham and the video referee who gave the try was Richard Silverwood.

__________

Re the Hall double movement no try decision.

Again as others have said we could refer this one back to a Danny McGuire 'no try' decision from a game at Craven Park (9th July 2010) where referee Thierry Alibert handed it on to video referee James Child. Again his arm was grounded with a tackler attached but as his forward momentum was not stopped he was able to reach out and place the ball down. Child disallowed the score ruling a double movement but was admonished by the controller of referees for making an incorrect call.

[size(The McGuire no try is viewable by typing 'Hull KR V Leeds 09-07-10 SL 15-21' into that well known video sharing website.)[/size

But that’s not a double movement. A double movement is to move after the tackle is complete, whilst the tackle is the process of being completed the player is free to do whatever he wants, he hasn’t been tackled. If Hall wasn’t tackled he is free to put the ball down. If the tackle is complete he isn’t able to put the ball down and isn’t able to be pulled in to touch.

The tackle isn’t complete when a players ball carrying arm hits the floor, we know this because you have described situations where Charnley can fall off the tackle or Hall could slide. The Tackle is complete when the ball carrying arm hits the deck, and the momentum of the player stops.

The rules state

If a tackled player, because of his momentum slides along the ground, the tackle is deemed to have been effected where his slide ends.

It would be a nonsense to say that a tackle is completed where the momentum ends and not when the elbow hits the floor, but the tackle is complete when the elbow hits the floor and not when momentum ends.

The tackle is complete WHEN the ball carrying arm hits the floor and a defender is in contact with the attacking player. After that, the ball carrier cannot look to promote the ball either by passing it or altering its position.

The tackle is complete WHERE momentum ends.

One is a measure in time, the other in position on the field.

This. They made more yards after being tackled than before. And not always moving forward, also the little sideways step to try and make the markers look not set square. At least Thaler didn't fall for that one.

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.