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 =#FF0040the 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.

[urlhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1lq8vN9UJdj5jRKwd_EFX4HjAX45W-8TI/view?usp=sharing[/url

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?

Why not pause it when the ball is on his foot? He's already kicked it in that frame and even there it's probably given onside by the video ref.
I think he was onside for the kick personally.