As the next instalment in my occasional explanations of the laws of the game, dating back to the debacle of Wide to West, I would just like to explain why yet again we were on the wrong end of official incompetence.

First, let me quote from the Laws:-





Next, let me quote from the Disciplinary:-

Webster's case was considered for TWO possible infringements:-

(a) the contact in the air
This could be a penalty try, IF the try was not scored due to the foul play; but that is not an eight pointer. It is a penalty try with a kick to follow, max. 6 points.

(b) Dangerous contact on the ground.
This can NOT possibly be a penalty try, because it was found specifically that that this contact was "after the ball is dead", and so not during the period it is touched down" (if it ever was?) but plainly in a "subsequent period.

Disciplinary notes:




I am sure some people will either fail to read or fail to understand, but the inidsputable fact is that the decision was fcukked up, there is simply no way it could possibly have been an 8 point try. If you haven't understood it yet then I will sum up:

1) It can only be a PENALTY TRY if the player WOULD HAVE (but DIDN'T) score. The foul play must prevent a score. The only possible foul play was the brief contact found with the head.
A PENALTY TRY does NOT get an extra kick. A Penalty try is NOT an eight pointer.

2) The second illegal act found by the Panel was in terms stated to have been AFTER THE BALL WAS DEAD, which by definition means it cannot justify an Eight Point try. (The" period during which the ball is touched down for a try" can't include "after the ball is dead". You can't score a try once the ball is dead.)

In my opinion, either the referee saw "Penalty Try", and obviously wrongly concluded that it was an eight pointer; or more likely, the VR screwed up, and told him it was an 8-pointer, but that was a clear and basic mistake, and the ref didn't spot it.

This is not sour grapes, as we would almost certainly have lost anyway, just another important decision against the Bulls by a combination of ref and VR to add to an already overpopulated catalogue.

It’s too early to take all the of the above post in. As I understand, it was an 8 pt try not a penalty try. Fouled in the act of scoring as confirmed by his charge of dangerous contact. It seems quite simple to me. Try usual conversion and a penalty in front of the sticks for foul play whilst scoring a try

But by the panels own admission the dangerous contact was after the ball was dead, in which case the rules explicitly say that an an 8 point try cannot be awarded.

There used to be a rule that if fouled in the act of scoring it was an 8 pt try. Are we saying this has changed?

You can tell you're a lawyer

I agree it was not a penalty try but Webster did make contact with the head after the ball was touched down. Webster did tackle him in the air and around the head. Anyway it was a try so the score would have been 16-18 and we would all still be in the position.

The above surely states that there was contact on the head whilst in the air. The fact that he let go immediately is the reason for NFA. It doesn't say that the offence did not happen. Therefore we have an offence in the act of scoring which is a 8 pointer. THe VR clearly said to the ref that it was a 8 pointer. Presumably the BBC did not have a caption to say 8 point try. SAme as they did not have the correct camera angles to check on offsides for the kicks through.

Not being funny, but you didn't understand what I said.

If you are saying that it wasn't given as a penalty try, which I'm happy to take your word as I haven't watched the recording, then explain to me how a momentary contact with the head in the air, which was immediately released, can possibly be a foul on a player "who is touching down for a try".

He isn't. He is IN THE AIR. At the point of that contact, neither you nor anyone can sensibly claim he was a man "who is touching down for a try". At that point, what he was (plainly) doing was jumping up in the air, catching a ball.

"This law applies to the period during which the ball is touched down for a try ... "

I suppose Stage 2 of the debacle, in true double-whammy style, was that it should have been a penalty to the bulls in the first place, for a blatant offside. Hey ho. It would be churlish to point out that minus 8 points off Halifax's score could conceivably have made a difference, so I won't mention it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lq8vN9UJdj5jRKwd_EFX4HjAX45W-8TI/view?usp=sharing

I suppose Stage 2 of the debacle, in true double-whammy style, was that it should have been a penalty to the bulls in the first place, for a blatant offside. Hey ho. It would be churlish to point out that minus 8 points off Halifax's score could conceivably have made a difference, so I won't mention it. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lq8vN9UJdj5jRKwd_EFX4HjAX45W-8TI/view?usp=sharing

I suppose an elbow to the chin of a player lying on his back is o.k. then?