So you're saying that every time a player loses the ball following a tackle, a scrum must be called instantly? No advantage played under any conditions?

Refs have been getting it wrong for years, then.

Edit: Actually, having read the notes to the rules on losing the ball, it's not abundantly clear what should happen when the ball is released voluntarily rather than accidentally. Also, without reviewing the footage, it's not clear whether the momentum of the tackle was continuous or whether Blaymire was stopped dead and then dragged. If the former, the tackle wasn't complete until he stopped moving; if the latter, it should have been a penalty to Wakefield.

Yes - And I think you'll find that's what has happened for years.

Once the tackle is complete, the ball is dead - recovery by the defence doesn't bring the ball back in play, the ball is still dead and can only be brought back into play by a legal play-the-ball.

Exactly.

And lets not forget that one of those two timekeepers is a Warrington employee.

Ref in getting it right shocker!

I would have thought the relevant passage would be the part about advantage played.

as already pointed out, advantage doesn't come into play. because effectively the ball isn't in play after a tackle, until the play the ball has happened, so therefor it is a scrum.

yes, but which team does his brother support?

Didn't see the game but it seems this is mainly about supporters ignorance? Of course this isn't to detract from referees just getting things wrong - we all know they do that from time to time.

Why don't people ask the question about the laws first, rather than assuming that a ref is bent, or corrupt or incompetent or the like? Do they really think they know the rules and laws better than qualified referees?Better to be informed and maybe learn a little, rather than open ones gob and come across as an incompetent and ignorant moaner. Still, this is Rugby League and our staunch dyed-in-the-wool supporters seem to want to stake a claim on the lions share of Britains sporting ignorance...........

To answer the question posed by someone - the guy who caught the ball in the in-goal area, the ball having been touched in flight but not having touched the ground, I would have thought the correct call was play on and this would be due to the ball being touched in flight. ie he either runs the ball out or gets tackled in the in-goal area, in which case a drop-out would be the result. That is if I have understood the question properly and understood the laws properly too! Is this what happened?

Exactly ,but some people still want to re write the rule book to suit there own point of view.

Fair enough, but it seems like there is a fine line here that must be difficult to police. How many times do you see a player lose the ball as he hits the ground, the defence pick it up and advantage is played? Technically the tackle is complete the instant the ball-carrying arm hits the deck, but I'm pretty sure that a scrum isn't called 100% of the time.

This was the incident in the Wire-KR game. The ball was touched in flight by one Wire player then caught by Briers before it hit the deck. The ruling was that Briers had defused the bomb even though he didn't catch it directly from the kick but after another Wire player had touched it.

I was quite surprised with the decision but I admit to not being clear on whether the ball has to be caught directly to count as being defused.

This is a little off topic but highly relevant in the context of the start of this thread and a very interesting article: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 193855.ece

This is a little off topic but highly relevant in the context of the start of this thread and a very interesting article: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 193855.ece

Who were they?

Thats right, what confused me was that the same thing appeared to happen in the Celtic/Wakefield game shortly after. Celtic put the bomb up, a Wakefield player touched the ball in flight and then Blaymire caught the ball before it bounced - ref's decision was drop out. Same chain of events as above, but different call. I was curious as to know what the correct call was.

Correct decision, but I think what someone was getting at earlier in the thread was that when challenged why the hooter had gone when he'd stopped the clock, Bentham clearly said to Briers (I think) that he hadn't stopped the clock.

It was obvious from the tv coverage that he had and the timekeepers had missed it, so why the need for him to tell a porkie about it?