Has this completely gone from the game?
Watching the Leeds-Catalans game, Kristan Inu caught a ball in the Leeds in-goal area. As he was in the act of scoring the try, he was clearly tackled in the air by a Leeds defender. If this isn't a clear 8 point try, I don't know what is!

They changed the rule so now it has to be literally in the split second when the ball is being put down.

Can't be much more split second that contact in the air as the ball is grounded?

According to the RFL it can.

Sam Tomkins got knocked out while diving to score a try a few years ago and that wasn't an 8 point try

Never a penalty try in my book. Don't think Briscoe did too much wrong; he can't just disappear.

He did make contact once he was back in the floor and Inu was in the air though. It wasn't much, but more or less any contact, deliberate or not, with a player in the air has been a penalty this year,

If it wasn't in the act of scoring, yes, a pen, but I'm happy for 8-pointers to be restricted to serious foul play by a defender, like going in with the feet Billy Slater style.

Possibly wrong but I was under the impression that once the ball has bounced, Which I think it did in this case... then the tackle in the air rule isn't applied?

As Moto said Briscoe didn't do anything wrong. Inu jumped over the top and onto Briscoe.

As for 8 point tries in general, I agree they're hugely underused. For some reason the authorities appear to want to get rid of them. I think they should be used more often to prevent foul play on try scorers. The most prevalent being high tackles and use of the feet/legs/knees by a defender.

Correct. Not sure why this rule exists though, in the air is in the air regardless of how the ball gets to the man.

I'd prefer to see the rule remain under-used. I don't think I could bear all the fannying about by video refs that would result, were its use revived. They'd be analysing the minutiae of the most trivial of fouls from now until kingdom come.

Yeh It is a weird one. I'm not sure if they applied the rule for safety reasons to stop players being tackled in the air and landing in awkward positions but like you say.. if the ball bounces high enough for someone to need to jump up then the resulting tackle in the air is going to be no different, regardless of it bouncing or not.

I'd prefer to see the referees/system actually trying to protect players from being injured whilst (often) in vulnerable positions when in the act of scoring. Penalties should be applied in the same manner whether it's scoring a try or on the halfway line. Leaving players essentially unprotected and not penalising the offending team is a failure to apply the rules, it's as simple as that and does not need a review from the VR.

The one that sticks in my memory of recent times of an 8 pointer that wasn't given (aside from rat boy getting laid out by Raynor) was Moto Tony getting kneed in the face by the Leeds FB Mathers at the 2005 CC final, he steamed across and basically jumped off the ground knees first at Tony's head as he was in the act of scoring, couldn't believe fatty Ganson didn't give the 8 pointer for that.

I guess you have to draw the line somewhere or players could jump when receiving a pass so as to avoid getting tackled.
I'd still put some onus on the players to be careful with their actions and penalise them if they're reckless.

I suppose a penalty could still be given if an attacker is put into a dangerous position by the defender just like in any other tackle. It just isn't an automatic penalty.

In the NRL the anomaly is that you can tackle an attacking player in the air, but not a defender. So under the same high ball if a full back catches it in the air and is touched its a penalty, but if the attacking winger does the same its not.

Robbo is right, it is illegal to tackle a player in mid-air attempting to catch a kicked ball on the full. If the ball bounces first the player is fair game.

More difficult to hit the jumper with the same momentum following a bounce I'd say, given that there's less time available to pinpoint where the ball's going and react accordingly. But worst case I'd have to agree: both could be equally serious.

As long as it stays outside the remit of the VR I agree with this. And yes, even as a Leeds fan I thought Mathers' offence warranted another shot at goal and possibly a dismissal.