I can only post this because we won.

Both Leeds' double-movement tries should most certainlly have been chalked off.

In each case, the ball carrying ar had previously touched the ground. After that, you can ONLY score if you slide over with your momentum.



You CAN NOT promote the ball over the line by reaching out.

I don't blame the ref as he couldn't be sure the ball carrying arm had touched the ground, but Child has absolutely no excuse - especially the second one; he was looking for an angle as he saw from the head on (and said so) that it looked like the BCA had contacted. Then, he got the definitive proof that it did from the side angle - and made something up to give the try anyway!

Maybe some coaching in the laws for Mtr Child is required?

Credit to the Bulls, they just got on with it.

Well said FA. It was a definite double movement. As you say he promoted the ball after his ball carrying arm was grounded. If he had momentum then he would not have had to promote the ball to a better position to reach the try line.

James Child says his legs in momentum allowed him to lift his arm up.

James Child also said that the ball carrying arm touches the ground.

Absolutely bent, and the first try was a forward pass the play before Dwyer made the break from dummy half.

Newman try, when do you call held if a player is moving backwards?

They seem to be using momentum as the reason, though as said, this doesn't under the current laws of the game include stretching the arm out.

It does seem to be one of those, I think the expression is "interpretations", which crop up very regularly, and pretty much always have - a bit like when they first allowed scrum halves to put the ball into the second row when feeding the scrum, whilst leaving the 'old law', about 'centre of the tunnel, still firmly in the book.

to be fair, and I'm far from keen on being fair to Child, but this is far from the first such incident and we have also benefitted on occasion from exactly the same thing so what can you say?

I've found the section which is tin the Notes to "Tackle & Play The Ball" Section. With pictures. it clearly statesSecond 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.'"

I'm confused. In essence, you're not allowed to promote the ball when the BCA (or ball?) has touched the ground, but when the tackle is such that the BCA (or ball?) is not in contact with the ground, the player can promote the ball?

Literally makes no sense. Is this what you are alluding to FA with your question about professional refs finding the rules unclear? Half the time I think laws (in general terms, not just RL) are purposefully written in ambiguous ways such that any scenario can be argued when seen fit to do so.

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.

I thought both the "double movement" tries should have been disallowed. People need to remember the definition of "tackled", which comes into effect before anything else... Quote: double movement "When tackled https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_the_ball

I thought both the "double movement" tries should have been disallowed. People need to remember the definition of "tackled", which comes into effect before anything else... Quote: double movement "When tackled https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_the_ball

Well the decisions allowed Leeds to keep pace with us and ultimately made it a more exciting contest so I’m not losing too much sleep over it.

There was another in the Wigan game today which I have to say I think was more controversial. To me that was a clear case of double movement as he was short of the line, stopped, then deliberately made a move to put the ball over. Presumably referee ruled he bounced over the line rather than deliberately moved but certainly didn't look like that. It would probably be a bigger talking point right now had either Leeds or Wigan got the wins.

Yeah the Sarginson try was a blatant double movement and it felt like Hicks was just too scared to overrule the on-field decision.
I hate that this system is still in place that makes the ref essentially 'guess' before the video ref even takes a look.

As a fax fan watching I was even screaming double moment. My thoughts were had this happened further back in field and the player passed the ball I bet the ref would have penalised both instances and the one today. The momentum rule used to be as long as u didn't make a second movement with your arm. Guess they have relaxed it then?

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