The decision wasn't correct as the incident happened in the field of play and not the in goal. The player was deemed to have continued to play despite being "held" correct decision would have been for burgess to be pulled back to play the ball.

Incorrect. It was a double movement. The player attempted to score a try after the tackle was complete. The "try" took place in the in-goal area. Check the rules mate, it's there in black and white.

I don't have any great complaints about it as it could have gone either way. If it would have been a Saints player we would have all said it was the correct decision.

The strange thing about how hard and fast a rule interpretation should actually be implemented is usually IMO dictated on which side of the theoretical fence your a*se happens to be on at the time.

It was an illegal movement by Burgess to gain advantage over the try line beyond the rules, hence the penalty. The ruling is not all that difficult to understand, thats why the officials made a quick correct decision.

I think we would have moaned about it but not to the amount of wishful opinion on here. In Wanes World of Wugby it was a try, his fans will clutch onto that for comfort.

we lost, saints played better and wanted it more...end of

Watching it live, right in front of me, I'd have given no try. It looked like a blatant double-movement to me.

Was certainly a double-movement, but isn't it the case that the tackle needs to be complete or is it just the carrying arm hitting the ground before the shuffle? If that's the case, what if someone tripped half way up the park then got up & sprinted to the line?
(need to get the rule book out - if I can remember where it is)

If somebody tripped up and a defender put a hand/finger/thumb on him [iat the same time as the ball carrying arm was touching the floor[/i then the tackle would be complete.

If Turner hadn't have been touching Burgess then he could have crawled over the line and the ball carrying arm could have touched the floor as many times as he wanted.

Watching it live, I thought it was 50/50. Watching the reply makes me thing more that it was a try because in my view:

1) Burgess' arm hit the floor but neither tackler seems to have contact with him.
2) Burgess moves to dive for the try line, as he is moving forward the contact is made and his arm is still, just touching the floor.
3) This would be tackle complete in my eyes if he hadn't been moving forward in a continual motion.

If contact is made at point 1, it's a double movement. Otherwise, I just don't see it as it's the continuation of a movement without forward momentum being stopped.

According to the rules it wasnt a try, end of