Yeah I know, it's academic. The only reference to "momentum" that I can find as relevant is

Sliding try (c) a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the
opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball
even if the ball has first touched the ground in the
field of play but provided that when the ball
crosses the goal line the player is not in touch or
touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

- this did not occur in my opinion.


I'm glad it wasn't given as it kept the game alive, albeit just, into half time.

Again, I'd probably say that isn't conclusive looking at the wording of that ruling. Nowhere does it say that the whole of the body needs to be over the line, or even which parts need to be over the line and, given his hand is part of his body (or at least it was the last time I looked! Haha) then I'd say there was some grounds for applying the rule in this instance. That said, I do accept that the ruling was more specifically meant for the typical "wet weather" type slide.

Interesting how badly worded some of these rules are though. They are definitely, shall we say, "open to interpretation".

I know what you mean on it not being given. I think it would have been game over had it stood.

And try to explain them to someone new to the sport!

RL is a simple sport, but putting complicated rules and interpretations in place makes its administrators feel very important.....I can see no other reason for it tbh!

I think there's quite a few overcomplications been introduced over recent years. The biggest one being the sending up of a try/no try. Why overcomplicate it? As a ref you've either seen it or you haven't. If they haven't why add a guess into the equation? Utter madness!

i think there is a very simple explanation to the double movement.

if a player is tackled and the ball carry arm hits the floor, its only a try if momentum carries that player over the line WITHOUT having to extend the ball carrying arm over the line.

Everyone is dissecting what went wrong, but what is criminal, is putting ourselves in a position of dis’s advantage before we had even kicked off!

The decision to play an unfit Fitzgibbon was unforgiving.
He stank the place out.
To play him above one or our fit young forwards!

If you’re not 100% Wembley will always find you out.

It’s a very good point. Maybe that’s a learning curve for Burgess - no matter how good the player and how integral he is to your side if he’s not fully fit you don’t play them. Burgess knew he wasn’t fully fit and threw the dice, it didn’t work.

That's what we generally accept the rule to be but if you look at the wording above there is no mention of moving the arm.

As an addendum to this, do you think the wholesale resting of players fed into the seemingly disjointed performance. I know Wigan rested a few but we left a lot of the spine intact.

I think that is implied with the "penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over" - would you not read this as to include moving the arm?

The wording could be improved though.