I pointed out one was from a grubber kick and the other two were ball carriers losing contact with the ball. A massive yet simple difference that you can't grasp.

I know you want to say they're the same and say the Leeds one shouldn't be given.....because well it was scored by Leeds.

How's that for comparable?

Oh my aching sides

Replays didn't show separation unlike the Hull one which clearly showed separation on the way down.

You seem to be of the thinking that all fingertip tries are the same. It's the clear separation on the Hull and HKR ones that's the problem.

Meanwhile Widnes are playing some great stuff, really smart attacking footy.

To bring it back to the subject of refereeing, Chris Joynt's voluntary tackle. What should have happened?

Bradford should've let him get up and then battered him.

As for the decision, it was correct, it wasn't a voluntary tackle.

I've never seen one given either so, fair enough. That's settled.

Only if you don't know the laws.


Was the player attempting to field a kick? - Yes
Was he in mid-air? - Yes
Did the opponent attempt to tackle him? - Yes

The only area for any debate would be the weak argument that he wasn't tackling, he was contesting for the ball. You don't contest for the ball with your arms around the sides of the opponent.

The argument that the ball had already gone doesn't hold water, you can't dispute that the player in mid-air was attempting to field a kick. The fact that he did so badly is not relevant. A definite penalty, and the correct call.

Actually, I may be mistaken. I've just read the rules on a voluntary tackle and I had them wrong in my head. I thought it was a voluntary tackle if the ball carrier either fell to the floor and made no attempt to get up and play on, or played the ball without being a tackle being completed.

Which pretty much is the definition of a voluntary tackle as stated in the Glossary of the Rules"Voluntary Tackle is where a player in possession voluntarily stops play when not effectively tackled."[/i

However the relevant section in the Rules, under the section Tackle & Play the Ball states"Voluntary tackle 4. A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if he has time to regain his feet and continue play."[/i
Now admittedly my memory of the event is somewhat hazy, but I'm pretty sure you could describe Joynt's actions as "voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent".

So by the Glossary definition I'd say it's not a voluntary tackle but by the description in the Rules I'd say it was.

What's that I hear you cry? Inconsistency at the RFL? Be gone vile heathen.

I thought that but then you can't tackle a player that doesn't have the ball.
He couldn't pull out of the collision as hr was committedb but he appeared to deliberately wrap him up.
If he'd kept his hands up he would have been OK.

Spot on. Had the Widnes player landed badly and suffered a serious injury would anyone say it's ok because he lost the ball? Regardless of the knock on their's still a duty of care not to put your opponent in a dangerous position and that's exactly why all tackles in the air are fouls, knock on or no knock on.

Indeed. He did. And a right amateurish and embarrassing job he made of it, too. Completely blatant, and he didn't even attempt to deny it afterwards.

Here he goeshttp://i.imgur.com/4LjmoD6.png" >

It signalled the final demise of the voluntary tackle rule, because if that one was not good enough, then none could ever be good enough.

Er, of course you can! Pick any player who does not have the ball. Tackle him.

Job done.