That's exactly what he called held for - feet off the ground is instantly held. Personally I would have said play on but his call was grounded in the rules as he saw it.

Yes, he was truly one sided

I'm fairly sure Lauititi joined the tackle, so Thaler had no option other than to call held. Correct decision.

That's exactly what it was. What is wrong with people and their one eyed jelous bias.

The rules are quite clear and are adopted exactly the same with every ref at every game. The "gang" tackle on Moa as it was put, was Leeds playes pushing Moa back in the tackle in the field of playe, without an Hull team mate involved. Momentum did not stop until the ref shouted held.

The tackle of the Leeds player into touch, was momentum from a Hull "gang" tackle, but has soon as Lauititi lended weight to the tackle then the ref has to call held, which he duely did. The fact that Hull players continued to push back and into touch was their problem.

There is an argument like others have pointed out, where when the refs call is not heard that we go back to where the ref shouted held, rather than a pen. But that would require a change to the rules. As it stands Thaler was spot on in both incidents.

It happened against Hull last week though to be fair. Atkins was pushing Westerman back, another Hull player joined in, tackle should've been called held but he stole the ball and ran off...

serves him right for not jumping on the floor to avoid being tackled like a coward then doesn't it.

lol

Sadly 100% untrue.


This is indeed the correct application of the 'lending weight' rule. I think people are confused because you so rarely see it enforced - one case in point being just last week during Hull vs Wire.

But he didn't give it for lending weight, he gave it for the Leeds player's feet leaving the ground at which point it is automatically a held call. Not convinved that was the case personally.

Brilliant bit of power, skill and quick thinking from Atkins - always knew he was freakishly strong, but Smith has clearly found something in him that Mr Kear never could.

If I recall correctly, that one wasn't called held because the second Hull player was adjudged to have not leant weight in a meaningful way.

It's an interesting dilemma - if it's not consistently dealt with, I predict that the wrestlemania coaching will switch to a Union style tackle technique, that involves holding up the tackled player and forcing him back 10 or 20 metres; some Aussie coaches are like car thieves, changing their aproach to bypass the latest protections that are put in place to thwart them.

Which isn't in the laws at all.

Yet another example of Ganson making it up as he goes along.

Does 'lending weight' really need to be explicitly described in tiny detail though? We're not playing tig, so it seems safe to assume that the act of lending weight would require some weight to be leant. Doesn't it?

think if you watch the leeds gang tackle you will see a second hull player involved! but then again leeds are perfect in everything they do on the pitch!

Apparently not...


The key word here is "immediately". There is no requirement for movement to be halted or some random subjective assessment by the official about how much weight is being lent - the instant a second player from the attacking team joins the tackle he should call "held".

No, the key words are "lend their weight in order to avoid losing ground."

If the rule was intended to allow the tackle to be called held the instant another attacker *touched* the tackled player, it would say that.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.