Not if it was all one movement and his momentum wasn't stopped. However the momentum of Burgess had been stopped, otherwise he wouldn't have had to consciously lift his arm up off the floor and crawl over the line.



It wasn't a single movement though was it? His arm hit the floor and the defender made contact with him before he then made the 2nd movement of lifting the arm up; hence the term double movement.



I'm not making anything up; I'm simply stating that even if the try had been given there is no guarantee Wigan would have won. But I take your point that that is irrelevant to the discussion re. the decision itself.

We won, you lost. Stop picking at a potential try that was correctly disallowed. Some of you have understood why it was disallowed. But others, despite it being explained to you a number of times during this thread still can't grasp it. Either way, refs called it correct and we move on.

Not to mention the blatant forward pass for first Makinson try...

I agree.

Can you please re-read my original points? I don't think he was tackled when he picked himself up and regained forward momentum. As such, the contact with him past this point would be a player in mid-tackle with forward momentum preserved from picking himself up from the mis-tackle previously. Contact was then made after he had started what was deemed a double movement. E.g. attempted tackle, arm hit floor without St.H player touching, forward momentum regained, St.H player makes contact but as there's still momentum from propelling himself forward when NOT tackled, moves in a single movement from there on in and so a try.

It makes absolutely no difference to the outcome of the game, but I do think that the decision could have gone Wigan's way quite easily.

We'll have to agree to disagree. In my opinion there was a defender in contact with Burgess at the point that he lost momentum and the ball carrying arm hit the floor. Heh then had to make a 2nd effort to lift his arm up and go again.

The ref got it right by the laws of the game.

Haha. That blatant that no official or pundit saw it and Shaun Wane didn't mention it afterwards. How did they all miss it??

Is Zak Hardaker back yet?

Amendment - Section 11 – Law 6: Verbal instructions to resolve doubt.
If any doubt arises as to a tackle, the Referee should give a verbal instruction to ‘play on’ or shout ‘held’ as the case may be. If the referee is of the opinion that the player in possession could not hear the ‘held’ call before passing or running off with the ball he should instruct the player to play the ball at the point where the player was when ‘held’ was called unless it occurs after the fifth play the ball in which case a handover will apply.

Listen to yourself!! This thread has amused me. Worse than saints fans for trying to defend the indefensible.



Why do you have to start that by saying 'according to the rules...'? As if it's some travesty and the rules are bent...