One of the clearest double movements you’ll ever see.

I thought the delay was working out how to restart the game - i.e) double movement or knock on. Maybe I was being generous.

Firstly a caveat: I'm not arguing it was a try or that it wasn't a double movement. For clarity, my first instinct was always double movement and I called it as such while watching the game. However...

We often hear that a tackle is complete when the ball carrying arm hits the ground but this isn't true. A tackle isn't complete until momentum stops. No one would claim that the tackle was complete at the point the ball carrying arm hits the floor if the player then slides over the line. In the French example, the player is still moving at the point his arm hits the floor and is still moving when he starts to move his arm. Both allowable under the rules. At the point he grounds it he has stopped moving so it depends if you regard the arm movement as during 'live play' or not.

From the BBC website (couldn't find the RFL rule explanation):

However, if the player is in the process of being tackled and the ball has not been grounded before the try line, then they can make a second movement for the score.

I'm not making a judgement either way but it probably isn't as clear cut as it would seem if you apply the incorrect "tackle complete when the ball carrying arm hits the ground".

The ball was initially grounded 5 yards from the line….my only surprise is Wiganer Liam Moore didn’t give that itself as a try a la Wardle in the WCC.

Caveat - I know we was not robbed. Moore also responsible for both shocking yellow cards.

Not if he was still moving, which he was

Obviously it doesn't matter either way but I thought it interesting that we all (myself included) seem to think the "tackle complete when the ball carrying arm hits the ground" is cut and dried when, of course, it isn't.

TBH i thought it was a try at the time as French was still (just about) moving as he reached out to put the ball down. Those can easily go both ways.

As I say, French himself thought it was a try which is how I came to look at it again. I initially just went with the general consensus of "tackle complete etc." Looking at the rules, though, he probably has an argument (not that he was particularly bothered either way in the end of course)

Here’s one for you. If Eckersley fails to ground the ball then Wigan get a penalty try (kick from in front of the post) and King is sin binned for a professional foul. Wigan in theory were penalised twice and did not commit an offence

The rules https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 0Rules.pdf Page 23 and 24 When tackled: 2. (A) player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground. - this happened When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try. - so did this If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed. - the tackle was completed under 2 (A) Correct decision.

The rules https://www.rugby-league.com/uploads/do ... 0Rules.pdf Page 23 and 24 When tackled: 2. (A) player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground. - this happened When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try. - so did this If an attacking player in possession is brought down near the goal line and the ball is not grounded it is permissible to place the ball over the line for a try. In this case the tackle has not been completed. - the tackle was completed under 2 (A) Correct decision.

Yeah I know, it's academic. The only reference to "momentum" that I can find as relevant is

Sliding try (c) a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the
opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball
even if the ball has first touched the ground in the
field of play but provided that when the ball
crosses the goal line the player is not in touch or
touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

- this did not occur in my opinion.


I'm glad it wasn't given as it kept the game alive, albeit just, into half time.

Again, I'd probably say that isn't conclusive looking at the wording of that ruling. Nowhere does it say that the whole of the body needs to be over the line, or even which parts need to be over the line and, given his hand is part of his body (or at least it was the last time I looked! Haha) then I'd say there was some grounds for applying the rule in this instance. That said, I do accept that the ruling was more specifically meant for the typical "wet weather" type slide.

Interesting how badly worded some of these rules are though. They are definitely, shall we say, "open to interpretation".

I know what you mean on it not being given. I think it would have been game over had it stood.

And try to explain them to someone new to the sport!

RL is a simple sport, but putting complicated rules and interpretations in place makes its administrators feel very important.....I can see no other reason for it tbh!

I think there's quite a few overcomplications been introduced over recent years. The biggest one being the sending up of a try/no try. Why overcomplicate it? As a ref you've either seen it or you haven't. If they haven't why add a guess into the equation? Utter madness!

i think there is a very simple explanation to the double movement.

if a player is tackled and the ball carry arm hits the floor, its only a try if momentum carries that player over the line WITHOUT having to extend the ball carrying arm over the line.