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?

Weirdly the bbc footage does actually show the kick from the other side of the field, it's a brilliant angle to tell if he's onside or not. But this was shown [iafter[/i the try was given and not during the review process.

I noticed that as well. Was shown in the roundup at the end of the game, and you could see Tyrer was well offside.

Still, water under the bridge now....

Is there a definition of "in the act of scoring", i.e. does the player have to be in contact with the ground in order to be "in the act of scoring" or can this be extended to the point at which the player takes possession of the ball? That seems to be the real debate here. The video ref in giving the 8 pointer must be assuming that once Tyrer takes possession of the ball he is immediately in the act of scoring. It was at this point, in possession and in the air that he was fouled. Based on that assumption then the 8 point try is surely the correct decision. It's quite a grey area. I called it an 8 pointer from the terrace though naturally everyone disagreed with me

After the ball was dead that. Obviously not read or know the rules

Might have been a different case had sky had the balls to put our game on. I think it shows their disregard for our level more than anything.

And yes FA makes valid points with rules etc as it’s inconsistent.

Agree with what he said but I think had we on same performance fax could have felt hard done by. Created more than us, more energetic than us, can’t keep blaming Easter and Toronto and Leeds for our lack of energy for me

Contact with the head is still contact with the head. I remember Gareth Raynor being sent off for momentary contact with Sam Tomkins head. Can't remember if it was given as a 8 point try in that case. With my pedants head I couls also argue that he was touching the ball down (even if it was from about 7 foot in the air)

Wasn't the comment by the video ref something along the lines of..."well if you can't show me that angle, I will assume that he was onside then..."

So what's the point of the VR again?

That is correct. VR cannot rule against on field ref without definite proof.

The clear elbow to the face would constitute a penalty either way. I think the initial contact; Webster was contesting the ball and what he did was pure instinct in attempting to tackle Tyrer. I think him then dropping the elbow on Tyrer was out of pure frustration for being out- performed in that instance. To be honest, apart from the try he scored he was pretty ineffective. Potentially he might suffer from a lack of opportunity down that wing without a decent second- rower playing inside him. I expected him to do some real damage in the Championship??? Not sure what channel Minchella plays down. I think if you look at Chester Butler, he was pretty anonymous having Larroyer playing inside of him. Larroyer is no ball handler. A different proposition when he has Grady or Barber playing inside of him.

TBF I didn't have much of an issue with it being an 8 point try. The BBC fecked up by not putting that up on screen, it wasn't a penalty try.

I think whoever was in charge of the BBC scoring had never heard of an 8 point try either. When the 8 pointer was awarded, they put the score as Bulls 6 - 8 Fax, then when they kicked the first conversion Bulls 6 - 10 Fax, then I think even after (though can't remember) the second conversion they may have put it to Bulls 6 - 12 Fax before someone whispered in their ear to tell them the actual try award is still only worth 4 points