His body never stopped moving towards the line, so he was therefore within his rights to lift his arm and put it back down.

As I've said elsewhere, the interpretation of that rule seems to have changed this season. Not sure I agree with it TBH even if it did benefit us last night.

I thought the other way round, would have given the first but if I was a Bradford fan I would be very annoyed about the second.

Huddersfield had one like Briscoes first ruled out in the challenge cup final. Different ref different week and a different outcome. They all need to be brought into line.

Ian Smith.

I agree. Both could have gone either way imo.

On both occasions, the Bradford tackler had gone into touch, so has that got something to do with it ?

ie the tackle cannot be completed if the tackler is off the field of play.

It would seem a good explanation and I am sure I have read it somewhere.

Briscoes second try would of been cruel to disallow after when he got up he looked at the ref to see if he was tackled but the ref said play on.

Thats a new one on me! Youre allowed to make a double movement if youre still moving? You sure?

Isn't that the momentum rule

If your body is still moving forwards, then it isn't a second movement. You can do what you like with your arms, you are still in the first initial movement.

If however, he had stopped dead, and then moved his arm over the line, it would have been a double movement (as the second movement would be his arm made, as the first movement had stopped).

Lee Gilmour's try for Saints last week for example. He was tackled near the line, ball carrying arm hit the floor, but because the movement of his body rolled him through the tackle and over the line he was allowed to stretch out on put the ball down.

The rule is that way basically because in some instances a player would actually have to try and NOT score (because of the initial movement of his body taking him over the line after his ball carrying arm is grounded) to avoid what would be classed as a 'double movement'.

It was certainly not a double movement.

Whether he was in touch or not to me is still debatable though!

As for his second try, how they gave that I haven't a clue! He was definitely tackled. Ball carrying arm on the deck with an opposing player tackling him. Tackle was certainly complete to the letter of the law.

Perhaps it was given because when he got back up, he looked at the ref to make a call, in which he said play on. He was prepared to play the ball, and as such benefit of the doubt was given to the attacking side due to the refs error?

Had the VR not given the try, it would have been a penalty to Bradford. That would have been unfair, since the ref did not give the signal to the player to play-the-ball (as is what he was looking for). Would there have been a case in the rules (or a case to be made to change the rules) in which the player in possession is taken back to the point of the tackle and carry on at whichever tackle that was? (Common sense to me).

So when your ball carrying arm hits the ground and the tackle is deemed to be complete you can still make a 2nd movement cos youre still moving? You sure?

It's not a second movement if the player is still in the first movement.

Did the referee call the tackle complete?