If I could play devil's advocate.

The wording quoted is specifically about momentum carrying the player over the line after the arm/ball has hit the floor. It's specifically about double movement being the player promoting the ball from behind the line, to over it.

For the Newman try (which I admit I was astounded was given when I just watched it), the ruling is that the player's momentum has indeed carried him over the line. He THEN grounds the ball. The wording of that rule doesn't say he can't do that.
It's very hard to explain, and I fully expect people won't understand what I'm saying. But having now seen the wording of the rule, I can understand why the video referee gave it.
It's all in the way it's worded and I think perhaps commentators in the past, people have a misunderstanding of what the double movement rule actually is (much in the same way people misunderstood momentum for forward passes for years thanks to Stevo).

The McLelland one I think is more questionable than the Newman. I now fully agree the Newman one was a try having read that. I'm not convinced the McLelland one is though, as he's not carried over the line.

The basic fact of it is that it's a very bloody confusing rule and they could really benefit from explaining it properly instead of complicated wording making it easy to misinterpret.

It would seem so - one of those 'interpretations', I guess.

Thing is that the RFL can get away with anything as, IIRC - "If [iin the opinion[/i of the referee" is the first line of every law in the book. If the ref thought that is what happened then that's what happened - whether the video is showing otherwise or not.

My initial reaction (in real time) to both was a double movement....I am yet to be convinced otherwise.
Just glad the result wasn't affected on the back of it.

On the other hand if Leeds had stuck to what looked like their game plan initially (speedy rucks and momentum) it could have been a different result! Thank god they didn't!

...and the off-loads. Not sure if they decided to stop or we got better at stopping them, if it was the latter then I wish we'd got better earlier 'cos I was having kittens every tackle.

Totally agree. Although I think the double movement rule should be scrapped to the extent of if a players body does not move and just promotes the ball from tackling position. Only a personal opinion mind, and not talking about the two incidents in our game.

I can see argument for both sides, if a winger chases from the other side after a break and produces a great last ditch tackle should it be rewarded if the attacker promotes the ball carrying arm? How i see it is more emphasis shoudl be made on stopping the vreak in the first place and the emphasis should definitely be on the defender to stop it. If the attacker crawls forward or anything then agreed. But promoting the ball from a stationary tackle for me should be allowed

Errm, well yeah. We can argue about rule [ichanges[/i forever and a day and I'd guess there are quite a few variations which might work just as well, or even better than the laws as written, but, whilst we have to allow for how referees perceive the on-field position to be, once we've decided on the laws we really ought to stick to them, as written and not allow referees to go into 'mission creep' mode.

Going back as far as the old 'feeding the scrum' rules (and maybe even further, but that's as far back as I go...) the RFL have had a habit of keeping rules in the book and changing 'interpretations'. The law about feeding the ball down the centre of the tunnel was still there when the ball had been fed into the second row for 30 years and we wonder why folk don't understand the game.