I've taken a screen shot from Sky to confirm ithttps://www.fanatique.ca/images/_blogue/undertaker_purple_tombstone.JPG" >

If you listen on Sky you hear (from the referee's mic) that he did not penalise him for the tackle, he penalised him for retaliation. He says something like "you picked him up into a dangerous position but then you put him down again - no problem with that"

But the ref had blown for the penalty before Fox came trotting in.

Particularly as we decided the best way to get through it was to drop loads of ball and give away silly penalties! Just to keep us on the edge of our seats.

Honestly, I watched the incident this morning because at the game I didn't understand why he had been penalised as it was not a dangerous tackle.

It most certainly was not a dangerous tackle. I don't whether he started out trying to marmelise Briscoe but a moment of clarity meant he was put down safely.

It seemed to me like he'd picked him up to carry him over the line, realised what sort of position he had him in and thought he'd better put him down sharpish.

You could almost see him thinking "This is not a good idea" as he decided against slamming him into the ground.

Let's hope the RFL decides the penalty was enough and he's not up before the panel.

Everything was in slow motion and all I could see was three rovers players to one, with the try line wide open - $hit City!
I could'nt believe what I was seeing when 'Tommy Lad' slammed Fox into touch.
It would have been a total injustice if they had won or drawn.