Thought it was correct call myself. Hull player originally contesting kick then wraps his arms around player and tackles him in air. It was harsh but right call for me. If they had slowed that try against my team I would be fuming.

Great performance from Silverwood this half. 100% improvement on last week. Play the ball a bit slow but only penalties have been justified. Gareth Ellis just proving my point there.

he's lost the ball before contact - like you say if its against your team you would be livid

its hard to know what to say if your Radford at HT, his team haven't done too much wrong and should be ahead really.

I'd agree with that. What's laughable is last year in a similar situation with Hardaker, except Hardaker didn't try and place hands on the opposition guy and only went for the ball, Stuart Cummings said it was a clear foul, tonight he said it was fine.

Is this not a try, considering they allowed that Leeds one last week?

I would say yes, considering it went up as a try.you say last week but similar with the HKR one that got disallowed simply because it went up as no try. No consistency again.

True.

I was massively surprised Bentham never even looked at a second angle, seemed odd.

No it's not a try.

Not comparable. Just like the HKR one the other week we're talking about someone who had the ball and lost contact with it. Leeds one was a grubber kick and loose ball and whether he got downward pressure on it. No question of the ball becoming separated from the hand of the ball carrier so just like last week when someone called it, they aren't comparable incidents.

There was no downward pressure on the Leeds one either. Like I posted after the game there's a difference between having downward pressure on the ball and the ball having downward pressure on the ground.

All 3 are fingertips on the ball as it's on the ground and absolutely comparable.

Poor decision for the tackle in the air, but it seems that Hull have given up after that.

all that early season confidence from Hull fans seems a far cry away, i did suggest the Radford out stuff might start after 6 rounds this year, if they carry on not bothering defending then it might just be!

In your opinion.



As pointed out, they really aren't comparable.

he clearly lost the ball, no try for me, i wish all this fingernail stuff would stop, he dropped the ball simple..or it should be!

Regardless of the knock on you can't tackle someone in the air. The player might have been able to get a fingertip to the ball on the way down which would've knocked the ball away from Manu's path or he might've been able to aid defensively to stop Manu getting over the try line but is essentially taken out illegally.

You pointed out that the ball was already on the floor for the Leeds try. Well done Sherlock.

I pointed out one was from a grubber kick and the other two were ball carriers losing contact with the ball. A massive yet simple difference that you can't grasp.

I know you want to say they're the same and say the Leeds one shouldn't be given.....because well it was scored by Leeds.

How's that for comparable?

Oh my aching sides

Replays didn't show separation unlike the Hull one which clearly showed separation on the way down.

You seem to be of the thinking that all fingertip tries are the same. It's the clear separation on the Hull and HKR ones that's the problem.

Meanwhile Widnes are playing some great stuff, really smart attacking footy.

To bring it back to the subject of refereeing, Chris Joynt's voluntary tackle. What should have happened?

Bradford should've let him get up and then battered him.

As for the decision, it was correct, it wasn't a voluntary tackle.

I've never seen one given either so, fair enough. That's settled.

Only if you don't know the laws.


Was the player attempting to field a kick? - Yes
Was he in mid-air? - Yes
Did the opponent attempt to tackle him? - Yes

The only area for any debate would be the weak argument that he wasn't tackling, he was contesting for the ball. You don't contest for the ball with your arms around the sides of the opponent.

The argument that the ball had already gone doesn't hold water, you can't dispute that the player in mid-air was attempting to field a kick. The fact that he did so badly is not relevant. A definite penalty, and the correct call.

Actually, I may be mistaken. I've just read the rules on a voluntary tackle and I had them wrong in my head. I thought it was a voluntary tackle if the ball carrier either fell to the floor and made no attempt to get up and play on, or played the ball without being a tackle being completed.

Which pretty much is the definition of a voluntary tackle as stated in the Glossary of the Rules:
[i"Voluntary Tackle is where a player in possession voluntarily stops play when not effectively tackled."[/i

However the relevant section in the Rules, under the section Tackle & Play the Ball states:
[i"Voluntary tackle 4. A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if he has time to regain his feet and continue play."[/i
Now admittedly my memory of the event is somewhat hazy, but I'm pretty sure you could describe Joynt's actions as "voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent".

So by the Glossary definition I'd say it's not a voluntary tackle but by the description in the Rules I'd say it was.

What's that I hear you cry? Inconsistency at the RFL? Be gone vile heathen.