Excellent performance

We were convinced he was looking for a way to give Benefit of Doubt.

Is it a double movement if the tackling player is in touch, over the line out of play?

Is that what he was working on?

Is it a double movement if the tackling player is in touch, over the line out of play?

Is that what he was working on?

The position of the tackler - in or out of the field of play - is irrelevant.

Hall clearly repositioned the ball after the ball carrying arm had hit the floor. The only thing that could have saved it from being a double movement would be if Charnley had lost contact with him and not completed the tackle, as Hall was still moving.

I can see why the ball steal on Hall was given. If you look at the motion of O'Loughlin's arm and the way the ball comes out, it has all the hallmarks of the ball steal. My first thought on watching it though was that he had attacked Hall's ball carrying arm and not the ball itself, would have to watch it frame by frame to see whether that was right or not.

The Peacock one was a clear forward pass from dummy half, but there are dozens of those that go unpunished in every game, usually due to the referee being at right angles to them and therefore not in a good position to judge and the TJs being fifty yards away and obstructed by other players in the way. That Tomkins and Hock decided to stop playing and wait for the whistle doesn't make it a good decision by the officials, but it compounds what would otherwise have been a fairly straightforward carry by Peacock into a try scoring opportunity which Leeds took well.

The Hardaker second try is just a howler by all concerned. While it's good for referees to back their own judgement at times, given the situation in the game and the potential for it to have touched a Leeds player on the way to Hardaker's hands, either Thaler should have given himself a second to think before making his decision or one of his TJs should have held his ground to bring the possibility up.

As others have said, Leeds got the wrong end of the stick on two potentially game changing decisions in last year's Final. What goes around, comes around.

If you look at the photos posted elsewhere on the forum, O'Loughlin's hand is shown to be on the ball, also I thought Tomkins collected the ball in or from an offside position.

On the Peacock forward pass, if the Wigan defenders hadn't been stood so far offside then maybe they would have had more time to react

Hardakers knock on was a howler!

Hardaker's second try was a really, really poor decision.

I thought O'Loughlin made a motion that looked very much like a ripping action omn the ball to dislodge it, only he'll know whether that was the intention, but it looked a penalty to me. Penalty try anyone?

The forward pass for Hardaker's first try looked, well, forward, but they happen several times a game. The real error was when Wigan stopped playing and allowed peacock and Hardaker to open them up.

We got the rub of the green from the ref, but I thought we very much deserved the win anyway. Better side on the day won.

It was O'Loughlin and that is proof enough for me that it was intentional.


I suspect it was he who taught Ratboy how to fake interference at the PTB, as O'Brotherinlaw does it almost every time I see him play.

Thaler did let a lot go but it made the game a lot more exciting instead of the stop start games you get for over keen refs.
Wigan do kinda bend every rule in the book too so was good to see a free flowing game.

Im not sure that is right,

I have seen many many a try given in a similar situation and the referee has justified it on the basis that whilst the player is in motion, they are free to pretty much do what they want, if the tackle isnt complete, it isnt complete.

What you seem to be saying is that there is a period of time between Hall's ball carrying arm hitting the floor, and his momentum stopping where he is tackled in that he cant make any kind of effort, but he also isnt tackled in that his momentum can allow him to score a try or be pushed in to touch, and if Charnley loses contact with Hall he somehow becomes not tackled again.

If Hall was tackled and couldnt make that second effort, then Hall was tackled and Charnley cannot make the second effort to put him into touch.

I think Ganson got that decision wrong, i dont think he was tackled, i dont think the tackle was completed so Hall was entitled to put the ball down.

He was however in touch.

look at the ball when todd flanders ripped it. its like a spinning top. it had to be ripped out

If Hall was in touch before the double movement then it would have been a restart with a scrum, not a penalty, if that's what you mean?

On the O'Loughlin rip: whether it was a steal or loose carry Tomkins caught the ball in an offside position after the ball had been dislodged, so it's a penalty anyway.

Only if the ball is stolen, if it's a loose carry then Tomkins isn't offside.

Really? A loose carry that O'Loughlin plays at, dislodges and knocks forward?

What a game by the rhinos well deserved the win even if we did get lucky but thaler had a howler of a game giving god knows how many wrong decisions to both sides through out the game. here is my take on those decisions, first up leeds,

Zak Hardaker's 1st try, while i do agree it looked like a forward pass from 1 or 2 angles others show it as a flat pass, 2 reasons for this first burrows hands were not positioned in a forward motion, the second peacock actually reached back behind him for the ball. TRY GIVEN, my opinion correct decision.

Zak Hardaker's 2nd try, clearly a knock on from mcguire, why thaler did not use the video ref is beyond me. TRY GIVEN, my opinion wrong decision.

Ryan Hall's disallowed try, for me this was a try, refs and video refs are been very inconsistent, Hall has every right to put that ball down even though the ball carrying arm touches the floor, the reason for this, he was still moving forward.(if your tackled the moment the ball carrying arm touches the floor and then pulled into touch, should that be a penalty and if it is not a penalty then it cant be a double movement) a similar incident happened in the wolves vs giants game where 2 players were tackling a player who's ball carrying arm touches the floor only to roll over and reach for the try line, benefit of doubt was given for the try. TRY DISALLOWED, my opinion wrong decision.

Ryan Bailey's Try, fantastic play by bailey to get this try, but its the events leading up to it i want to discuss, Ryan Hall going over the try line being tackled by 2 wigan defenders and just as he is about to score the try the ball is stolen and knocked on before tomkins picks up the ball from an off-side position, the ref gave a penalty to leeds when in-fact he should have awarded a penalty try. PENALTY TRY NOT GIVEN, my opinion wrong decision but we scored from the resulting penalty anyway.

Wigan's decisions.

Gareth Hock Try, great bit of play by wigan to make the break here and i take nothing away from hock for this try but it simply should not have been awarded, danny mcguire gives chase, 1st the ref gets in his way(mcguire knocked him straight on his backside lol) and then tomkins obstructs mcguire so that he could not get to hock. now even if he didn't obstruct him he probably wouldn't have caught hock but because tomkins did it should have been a penalty to leeds( i think thaler gave it cos he knocked on his by mcguire) TRY GIVEN my opinion wrong decision.

There were a couple of penalty's given to wigan that i thought were wrong decisions like the 1 bang on half time that tomkins kicked he was never pulled back by a leeds player, and when tomkins made a brake and hardaker tackled him he gave a penalty for hardaker been offside and he wasn't he was stood square at the play of the ball, tomkins moved of the mark.

There the incidents which stand out for me in the game, Leeds Rhinos fully deserved the win they were the better team on the day and its probably there best performance i've seen in 2 years, wigan did not play all that well they were slow out of the blocks and leeds punished them for that, and they never really recovered from.

If O'Loughlin deliberately plays at the ball then it's a 2-on-1 steal and so not a loose carry.

That's exactly what I am saying.

If the ball carrying arm hits the ground while the player is being touched by a defender, he cannot then make a second movement to reposition the ball.

The player can continue to slide towards the line due to momentum, but he can't pick the arm up and promote the ball while doing so.

Had Charnley dropped off Hall before the ball carrying arm hits the ground, then the tackle would not have been complete and he would have been free to play on. Had he dropped off after the ball carrying arm hits the ground, the tackle is complete and Hall would have had to play the ball.

In the scenarios you have described, I can only think the referee has adjudged that the player did not make a second movement. Sometimes if a player is rolling or bounces off the floor after being tackled they can get away with making a slight second movement with the arm and get the benefit of the doubt.

I suspect that's what Ian Smith did on Sunday, but IMO he was wrong to do so. It wasn't Carvell's momentum that enabled him to get the ball down. The tackle was complete even though he was still moving, and he made a distinct second movement with the arms to get the ball down.

Is it a little bit like the Danny McGuire one at Hull KR a couple of seasons ago ? I'm trying to trawl through my memory banks but from recollection that day it was disallowed because of exactly the same scenario ? ie tackled, bounced up off the ground, and promoted the ball whilst still being held ?

Nah. If anything I think Danny ran into Tomkins on that one, hoping it would then go to the VR for a possible obstruction, because he knew he had no chance of getting to (and then stopping) a runaway Hock

I've seen a couple of people say this on here, but the way I remember it (although I could be thinking of a different incident) I'm sure in slow motion it shows a Leeds player (Delaney?) grabbing at Tomkins as he ran after the ball and getting just about enough purchase on him to slow him down? Therefore the penalty decision was correct.

Indeed. No disrespect to Danny McGuire but there is just no way he was going to stop Hock on the charge anyway. Like firing a pellet gun at a freight train.

Which is of course irrelevant if he was impeded to prevent him attempting the tackle, but I see no obstruction there, Tomkins doesn't have to get out of the road.

I wonder if McGuire will get a ban for manhandling the ref.



I thought the Hall no try was correct. It didn't look a try at full speed first time and I didn't change my mind, although with another ref it might have got a BOD call. But correct call for me. Some similarities with the Carvell try in the other semi, which I was a bit undecided on, but probably wouldn't have given if I'd been the VR. I did also think Hall might have been in touch if the penalty for the double movement wasn't given, but I'd need to watch replays again.

On the O'Loughlin steal, there's no way Tomkins can be offside. Offside only applies in that situation if O'Loughlin has played the ball deliberately, in which case it's already a penalty. I'm still curious as to why a penalty try wasn't give though.

I was under the impression that they had implicitly stated that a penalty try could not be given under such circumstances, i.e. a ball steal when the ball carrier is in the act of grounding the ball?

have they? I missed that. Seems an odd ruling, but it certainly explains the decision.

Luckily TMFMISL was on hand to make sure it wasn't an issue.

Classic Bailey.

Yep, glad someone else remembers that.

From my memory of the time, that never should have been disallowed. Danny was sliding forward and to not score would have been more difficult to be honest. ..

Yep. Though if it had been a 1-on-1 steal then Tomkins would have been offside.
Like GCH says, a few years ago they changed the rule (I think after a Michael Platt ball steal on Diskin at Odsal a few years ago, maybe 2007? was given as a penalty try) so that a ball steal over or near the line was just a penalty rather than a penalty try