Morgan,Brown & Matterson all said they believe you can tackle the attacking player in the air. Thats 3 SL coaches that believe that interpretation of the rule. As Matterson said what are you meant to do let the Attacking player catch the ball and just put the ball down. If you can tackle the ATTACKING player in the air then it was never a penalty and Hull KR should have won.

I'll admit i aint got a clue whether you can or can't. Anybody actually know this 100%

Look closely at Hodgson putting the ball down. He's in touch but that wouldn't have happened hadn't Fox tackled him BUT didn't he fail to ground the ball correctly. That could have happened with or without fox.

Matterson is a clueless buffoon, Brown was coaching in the NRL where you COULD tackle the attacking player in the air and Morgan well he was trying to find an excuse. In the NRL you could/can tackle the attacker in the air, in SL you've never been able to.

You definitely CAN'T tackle a player in the air. This has been the rule for donkey's yearsMid-air tackle 1. (b) It is illegal to tackle an opposing player attempting to field a kick whilst the player is in mid-air. The catcher must have returned to the ground before being tackled. (See Section 15.).[/size'"

Should we not all be playing by the same rules especially so we know where we all stand for internationals. Either you can or you can't. Can you imagine football having seperate rules for domestic competitions in different countries, FIFA would go ape.

Aussies have a load of different rules most are pretty inane but the 10 subs (same as international) is one of the better ones along with the people who pack a scrum down to stop the clock have to stay formed, and football does have seperate rules, for example the MLS has extra time for league games.

He lands on the ground steadies himself and fails to ground the ball correctly. Who is to say he'd ground it otherwise. Your simply presuming.

National leagues have different points scoring rules and the NRL golden point thats not the same as different technical rules. In football everygame played between that 90 mins are played using the same rules.

Exactly. Penalty tries are given on the presumption the attacker would have scored without illegal interference.

Seeing as that's the case here, it should have been a penalty try.

Let me spell it out. If you remove Fox from the situation, the hugely massively overwhelming probability, pretty much a guarantee, is that Hodgson - with the ball safely in his hands and travelling over the line in a safe direction - will score. Fox tackles him ILLEGALLY and Hodgson ONLY fails to land cleanly or ground the ball due to Fox tackling him IN THE AIR and pushing him into touch. Without Fox, none of that would have happened.

I'd have been interested to see the reaction if Hodgson had taken out Fox in the exact same circumstances.

The last sentence says it all. If it was the other way round every hull KR fan would be saying it should have been a penalty try. I'm not saying the KR fans are making things up, just that they are ( obviously ) biased as any fan would be towards thier own team. I doubt there are many neutrals who would disagree that a penalty try should have been awarded!

Despite 3 Super League coaches stating they thought it was a legal tackle!

Yep, you can't tackle somebody whilst he's still in the air. He did, therefore penalty.

He commited this penalty whilst Hodgson was in the act of scoring. If he hadn't commited that penalty then I would say (with the evidence available) that the overwhelming probablility was that he would have scored. So IMO a penalty offence was commited that directly stopped an almost certain try. So a penalty try should have been awarded.

He went for the ball it's a contact sport what do you want him to do?

You cant tackle a player in the air

so hudds did nothing wrong all game then and was good little soldiers bull s'@t

Wow, what a way to miss the point of the debate.

The three coaches showed perhaps whats wrong with English RL...they dont actually know the rules!