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

Precisely.

Lance Hohaia's try in the World Cup Final is the perfect example. He didn't even have possession, the ball was bouncing, there were other defenders chasing the ball and he was a good few yards away and not even over the tryline when he was felled. There was no 'certainty' about it - yet the ref determined that in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team.

Any number of things [icould [/ihave happened. Hohaia could have slipped, the ball could have taken a wicked bounce, a defender could have reached him just after he gathered the ball and got his body underneath to prevent the grounding. What the defender could or could not have done is not the question posed by the Laws: the only question is, would the try have been scored without the unfair play?

And I find it extraordinary any RL coaches think players can be tackled in the air. I've known about it for years.

There are legal things that can happen. The defender can go for the ball himself and if level can of course shoulder barge across.

Indeed, if he is there to make the tackle, he can equally contest the ball.

I think the fact that a penalty was awarded for tackling an attacking player in the air made it pretty clear that you can't tackle an attacking player in the air. How much clearer does it need to be?

Someone should tell the coaches the rules...

The coaches who think it's ok are all Australian. In Australia it's legal to tackle the attacking player whilst in the air. Another example of the NRL having its own rules or are we out of step?

True. The ARL Laws state the no-tackle-in-the-air rule only applies when a player on the non-kicking team catches the ball on the full, however you CAN tackle attacking players from the kicking team. It should make no difference whatsoever because we are playing by the RFL Laws, and the game we're discussing was under RFL Laws - I don't blame Peter Fox, who was just determined to prevent a try (whether he knew it was an illegal challenge or not), but I do blame the coaches who haven't bothered to check.

I think FA was working from the position that the attacker had already caught the ball and was somehow out of reach of defenders at take-off, but would be within their reach at the point of landing. Obviously it's an edge case, but I'd like to know what FA would want the law to be in that case.