Brown got there before the Hull KR player. The Hull KR player is not entitled to tackle Brown until he collects the ball. I know why the Hull KR player went for broke, but it was against the rules, unfortunately Silverwood thought differently. Hodgson should have had a penalty try, that was the most blatant professional you are likely to see.

Would be interested to hear from Silverwood why he made the decisions he made.

blah blah blah deal with it its a draw all though we was the better team but a point is better than nothing so stop moaning

Perfectly formed scrum I see? No need to reset that then

I think having golden point ET is a fantastic idea and you should embrace it with open arms.

It's the future of Superleague.


I reckon it will be introduced by 2012 and if it isn't then my name isn't Barrington Balgowlah Barangaroo Berowra Bewdy Bonza McKenzie.

Actually that isn't my name... but you get the picture.

I remember that incident very clearly. I think it was the first season the ruling came in in the UK, though I'm far from sure just when it came in the international rules.

Nope. You're thinking of the so-called eight-point try. i.e a penalty awarded in front of the sticks, to be taken after the conversion attempt.

That may be awarded only when a player is touching down & not afterwards.

Why do you think 'certain' should come into it? The test is: if in the referee's opinion a try would have been scored but for the infringement. Certainly is nice but not necessary.

The probable reason so few penalty tries are awarded in ESL (and NRL) is that the refs are told by their controllers NOT to award them unless certain. In other words, told to ignore the laws of the game.

The problem is you cannot pretend that Fox doesn't exist at all simply because his actual action was illegal, I cannot see any interpretation of the laws which leads to that, the presumption has to be: if Fox had timed his tackle a second later, giving time for one of Hodgson's feet to touch the ground, is it possible he may still have pushed Hodgson into touch?

Removing the illegal action does not mean the player in question ceases to exist, that would be silly. Now given how close Fox was, it is entirely possible he could still have pushed Hodgson in to touch before he grounded the ball, had he waited one or two seconds longer, therefore I think penalty attack was an entirely reasonable decision.

That's nonsense if you don't mind me saying so.

Imagine an attacker cantering towards the sticks for a try. Out of his eyeline a defender has sprinted back but instead of tackling the man he chooses to stiff arm his opponent who falls unconscious to the ground a yard from the goal line, losing the ball in the process.

Should the referee merely award a penalty attack on the basis that a legal tackle could have prevented a try?

The judgement is made on what a player does, not on what he might have done.

As for "certainty" or "the act of scoring" there's no such wording in the rules. In theory a referee could award a penalty try based on an illegal act on halfway if, in his opinion, a score would otherwise have resulted.

[i"the Referee may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the
unfair play of the defending team."[/i

It is, though, one of many areas where the laws could do with a substantial revision. If player A is in the act of scoring, but before the ball touches down Player B kicks him in the head him and knocks him out so the ball is dropped, a penaly try will be awarded. But if he kicks him half a second later, after the try has been scored, the ref has an option of an eight point try. What's the difference?

In the case in question, even with the illegal tackle, Fox only just hit the corner flag first. So yes, it is true that he would certainly have scored if not for the tackle.

The problem with this particular rule and these particular interpretations is this: if a player dives for a kick and catches the ball, so that the very first thing which is going to touch the ground is the ball, this interpretation makes him literally immune form being legally tackled. He can't be tackled whilst diving (he hasn't got the ball); he can't be tackled on catching it (he's off the ground). A defender could only try to place himself in such a way as to prevent a touchdown. There is no way he could legally touch the diving player whilst still in the air. And in my opinion that is a ridiculous result.

The coaches on Sky said they thought the attacking player can be tackled in the air. Can he or can't he? Another ridiculous thing is that the RFL in general, and the refs controller in particular, nowadays never ever go public in clearing up these interpretations.

4 points

2, possibly 4, it depends on if the kicker gets both conversions or not (and would he have missed the original kick)

I was naturally assuming player 'A' crashed over right underneath the posts and the goal kicker had kicked 2 from 2 already, the conditions were dry and there was no wind