I can only post this because we won.

Both Leeds' double-movement tries should most certainlly have been chalked off.

In each case, the ball carrying ar had previously touched the ground. After that, you can ONLY score if you slide over with your momentum.



You CAN NOT promote the ball over the line by reaching out.

I don't blame the ref as he couldn't be sure the ball carrying arm had touched the ground, but Child has absolutely no excuse - especially the second one; he was looking for an angle as he saw from the head on (and said so) that it looked like the BCA had contacted. Then, he got the definitive proof that it did from the side angle - and made something up to give the try anyway!

Maybe some coaching in the laws for Mtr Child is required?

Credit to the Bulls, they just got on with it.

Well said FA. It was a definite double movement. As you say he promoted the ball after his ball carrying arm was grounded. If he had momentum then he would not have had to promote the ball to a better position to reach the try line.

James Child says his legs in momentum allowed him to lift his arm up.

James Child also said that the ball carrying arm touches the ground.

Absolutely bent, and the first try was a forward pass the play before Dwyer made the break from dummy half.

Newman try, when do you call held if a player is moving backwards?

They seem to be using momentum as the reason, though as said, this doesn't under the current laws of the game include stretching the arm out.

It does seem to be one of those, I think the expression is "interpretations", which crop up very regularly, and pretty much always have - a bit like when they first allowed scrum halves to put the ball into the second row when feeding the scrum, whilst leaving the 'old law', about 'centre of the tunnel, still firmly in the book.

to be fair, and I'm far from keen on being fair to Child, but this is far from the first such incident and we have also benefitted on occasion from exactly the same thing so what can you say?

I've found the section which is tin the Notes to "Tackle & Play The Ball" Section. With pictures. it clearly states:




Surely no qualified ref could find that in any way unclear?


But what irked me about the second one, he knew it was a double-movement as he watched the whole "try" several times, and became convinced the BCA may have touched the ground. So he got a final angle to check. If there was any "momentum" issue (there wasn't, as the player never did get across the line) then why hadn't he already made tthe decision, sinc ethen, the BCA point would be completely irrelevant. IIRC his final off-the-cuff words were ludicrously "not held". What he meant was the tackle may not have been called complete, but the player was indisputably in an effective tackle, and the point is not whether the ref called "held", but that he was now prohibited during the completion of the tackle from promoting the ball over the line.

I'm confused. In essence, you're not allowed to promote the ball when the BCA (or ball?) has touched the ground, but when the tackle is such that the BCA (or ball?) is not in contact with the ground, the player can promote the ball?

Literally makes no sense. Is this what you are alluding to FA with your question about professional refs finding the rules unclear? Half the time I think laws (in general terms, not just RL) are purposefully written in ambiguous ways such that any scenario can be argued when seen fit to do so.

If I could play devil's advocate.

The wording quoted is specifically about momentum carrying the player over the line after the arm/ball has hit the floor. It's specifically about double movement being the player promoting the ball from behind the line, to over it.

For the Newman try (which I admit I was astounded was given when I just watched it), the ruling is that the player's momentum has indeed carried him over the line. He THEN grounds the ball. The wording of that rule doesn't say he can't do that.
It's very hard to explain, and I fully expect people won't understand what I'm saying. But having now seen the wording of the rule, I can understand why the video referee gave it.
It's all in the way it's worded and I think perhaps commentators in the past, people have a misunderstanding of what the double movement rule actually is (much in the same way people misunderstood momentum for forward passes for years thanks to Stevo).

The McLelland one I think is more questionable than the Newman. I now fully agree the Newman one was a try having read that. I'm not convinced the McLelland one is though, as he's not carried over the line.

The basic fact of it is that it's a very bloody confusing rule and they could really benefit from explaining it properly instead of complicated wording making it easy to misinterpret.

I thought both the "double movement" tries should have been disallowed. People need to remember the definition of "tackled", which comes into effect before anything else... RFL Rules wrote:When tackled: 2. A player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_the_ball

I thought both the "double movement" tries should have been disallowed. People need to remember the definition of "tackled", which comes into effect before anything else... RFL Rules wrote:When tackled: 2. A player in possession is tackled: Grounded (a) when he is held by one or more opposing players and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball comes into contact with the ground https://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/ru ... y_the_ball

Well the decisions allowed Leeds to keep pace with us and ultimately made it a more exciting contest so I’m not losing too much sleep over it.

There was another in the Wigan game today which I have to say I think was more controversial. To me that was a clear case of double movement as he was short of the line, stopped, then deliberately made a move to put the ball over. Presumably referee ruled he bounced over the line rather than deliberately moved but certainly didn't look like that. It would probably be a bigger talking point right now had either Leeds or Wigan got the wins.

Yeah the Sarginson try was a blatant double movement and it felt like Hicks was just too scared to overrule the on-field decision.
I hate that this system is still in place that makes the ref essentially 'guess' before the video ref even takes a look.