As the next instalment in my occasional explanations of the laws of the game, dating back to the debacle of Wide to West, I would just like to explain why yet again we were on the wrong end of official incompetence.

First, let me quote from the LawsPenalty try
The Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team. A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts irrespective of where the offence occurred. '"

It’s too early to take all the of the above post in. As I understand, it was an 8 pt try not a penalty try. Fouled in the act of scoring as confirmed by his charge of dangerous contact. It seems quite simple to me. Try usual conversion and a penalty in front of the sticks for foul play whilst scoring a try

But by the panels own admission the dangerous contact was after the ball was dead, in which case the rules explicitly say that an an 8 point try cannot be awarded.

There used to be a rule that if fouled in the act of scoring it was an 8 pt try. Are we saying this has changed?

You can tell you're a lawyer

I agree it was not a penalty try but Webster did make contact with the head after the ball was touched down. Webster did tackle him in the air and around the head. Anyway it was a try so the score would have been 16-18 and we would all still be in the position.

The above surely states that there was contact on the head whilst in the air. The fact that he let go immediately is the reason for NFA. It doesn't say that the offence did not happen. Therefore we have an offence in the act of scoring which is a 8 pointer. THe VR clearly said to the ref that it was a 8 pointer. Presumably the BBC did not have a caption to say 8 point try. SAme as they did not have the correct camera angles to check on offsides for the kicks through.

Not being funny, but you didn't understand what I said.

If you are saying that it wasn't given as a penalty try, which I'm happy to take your word as I haven't watched the recording, then explain to me how a momentary contact with the head in the air, which was immediately released, can possibly be a foul on a player "who is touching down for a try".

He isn't. He is IN THE AIR. At the point of that contact, neither you nor anyone can sensibly claim he was a man "who is touching down for a try". At that point, what he was (plainly) doing was jumping up in the air, catching a ball.

"This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try ... "

I suppose Stage 2 of the debacle, in true double-whammy style, was that it should have been a penalty to the bulls in the first place, for a blatant offside. Hey ho.

It would be churlish to point out that minus 8 points off Halifax's score could conceivably have made a difference, so I won't mention it.

rlhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1lq8vN9UJdj5jRKwd_EFX4HjAX45W-8TI/view?usp

I suppose an elbow to the chin of a player lying on his back is o.k. then?

I've seen some straw clutching in my lifetime.....

Er, no. As was clearly stated by the disciplinary.

Why would you think it was OK?

Very nice for you. Now run along and leave the adults to chat, there's a good lad

Looks a yard off to me, I did freeze the Bulls footage as exactly on the kick as possible, but if anyone has anything better then I'd love to see it. I'm not posting that as some kind of incontestable proof. Is there anything better? Apparently the Beeb didn't have any angle at all?