omg! read my post, you are truly a muppet, i stated it was a try for a start! 2ndly your stupidity is evident by your misguided belief that another posters use of a silly patronising smiley head patting emicom (that's what they are called btw) not an effing enicomb (which is your user name). your innability to read has been highlighted not mine.... you pie munching idiot!


now i think an apology is in order, what do you think?

yet again you fail to grasp my point, but using a silly emicom (not enicomb, just to ensure a certain pie idiot doesn't get his nickers in a twist again) without actually using any meaningfull dialogue in my opinion lacks a certain class.

as for ron... don't know him, don't want to tbh, have no real opinion either way in regard to his opinion!

Question: When is a tacke complete?
Answer: When the match officials say so.

End of discussion I would have thought. The specific incident being highlighted was given as a try after video review, therefore, the tackle was deemed not to be complete.

If people here think they have a better handle on how the rules of the game ought to be interpreted, then I urge you to get qualified as RL officials and start working your way up to officiating at top level Rugby League.

An you missed my point thats exactly what Ron is worthy of! IMO using childish name calling insults lacks class to!!

Ian get back to your shrine and quit trolling.

Reet o you get back to your vodoo doll or have a week off!

to answer the question.

Q.When isw a tackle complete?
A. (by vadge) when you hear the ligaments snap!

*lacks class as well*

an idiot is a measurement of IQ, nothing to do with childishness, your posts alone allow me to jump to that conclusion!

I never mentioned scratching it off he was a try all day!
But his ball carrying arm hit the floor whilst in the field of play with a tackler on him. He then made a movement to put the ball downonce over the line. Some on here have said that doing that is no try!
Both Sams and Hodgsons for me were tries!

I guess the question is, since the ball carrying arm had hit the floor, was it purely momentum which took the ball over the line? Technically it could be argued there was a second movement after the ball carrying arm hit the floor in addition to his momentum and his momentum alone would not have carried the ball over the line. Either way, it was awarded and it took some scoring.

Looked like a try to me.