Would this now be accepted as a surrender tackle?

Do we still think it was an illegal move?

Did he keep moving so it was ok?

[youtube7wXaltwdCDY[/youtube

Voluntary tackle all day and the ref bottled it. If it's a 7 point game he gives it IMO.

I believe I have addressed it in a fair minded and ruthlessly scientific fashion in the review thread above. Copied again below for ease.

I’d like to review something that has a direct impact on every Rugby League fan’s lives, and a good cross-section of society as a whole. A topic that everyone from Refuse collector to Queen will have an opinion on. The review is of the societal impact, public perception and available evidence surrounding whether Chris Joynt perpetrated a voluntary tackle in contravention of the laws of the game in the 2002 Superleague Grand Final.

The case

On 79 minutes and 50 seconds of the 2002 Grand Final, St Helens hold a narrow 19-18 lead over the Bradford Bulls. Chris Joynt takes the ball as first receiver and crosses 9 metres to his left when he is intercepted by Paul Deacon and Lee Gilmour. At that point he dives to the floor before contact is made with any Bradford player.

At the time of the incident, the official position of the Rugby Football League (RFL) was: "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.". Indeed the crime is almost universally regarded as 'malum in se'.

Writing in the Guardian, Andy Wilson eruditely summed up common opinion when he stated "There can never have been a more blatant voluntary tackle than the way the Saints captain Chris Joynt went to ground on the penultimate play of the game". This widely held viewpoint was further reinforced on visitmanchester's list of greatest sporting events to be held in the city. This included the 2002 Grand Final, and their assessment is that "The event is even enshrined in St Helens captain Chris Joynt appeared to take a voluntary tackle with just seven seconds left on the clock to run out the game. The decision should have been a penalty against Joynt, which would have most likely resulted in Bradford taking the victory"

But perhaps the most damning statement came from a 42 year old Civil Servant* who stated "This was a dark day for this sport and indeed for society as a whole. A historical injustice that sent ripples of evil cascading around the world, rocking the fabric of all that is held to be right and true. No one would sleep as soundly in their beds afterwards, crops failed in the years to follow, and shadows in the corners of our minds seemed somehow darker and more pervasive. Chris Joynt is to all intents and purposes Satan".

Reparations
The prima facie evidence points to an animus nocendi wrongdoing perpetrated by Chris Joynt for which the notion of “restorative justice” might be deemed to be an appropriate salve. The most apt form of reparation would be toward the club that was disadvantaged. The author proposes that Chris Joynt now puts plans in place to single-handedly renovate Odsal to meet current standards of safety and comfort.

*Competing interest declaration - the 42 year old Civil Servant and the author occupy the same body.

I have a question though, if he fell to the floor but kept on moving, is it a voluntary tackle and what about if he said "oh I slipped a bit" but I got back up?

Interesting.

Or he got a little cramp/pain in his leg but got up to try and carry on.

did he play the ball?

no?

its not a voluntary tackle.

The rule at the time didn't mention playing the ball. It says "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." which is what he did. If you bump into Chris Joynt even now, the bloke is visibly haunted by what he's done. Shell of a man.

when did that change then? thats always been my understanding of a 'voluntary tackle' not someone throwing themselves to the floor, its someone starting the recycling process of placing the ball on the floor and playing it back to the half back with his foot (yeah i know on this bit).

It changed when they introduced the dominant and surrender tackles didn't it?

He certainly surrendered but, had to get back up when he realised that no one was anywhere near him.

They may have changed the interpretation of throwing yourself to the floor for a quick ptb, or not get chucked into touch, but as mentioned above, an actual voluntary tackle was playing the ball.

Was it Deacon who moved out of the way as the tackle was about to be made resulting in Joynt falling to the ground?

Aussie full backs have been doing it for years diving out of the in goal area into the field of play. Slater was a master of it. It's a 'skill' our FB's never mastered.

It was never worded that way though until they brought in the actual surrender tackle.

He dives to the ground thinking they would touch him (as Aussie fullbacks do mentioned above) but once he realises what he's done when the Bradford defenders sensibly don't touch him, he gets up and tries to make contact to complete the tackle. He even rolls over FFS. It was a voluntary tackle all day long under the rules at the time and Smith bottled it.

hmmm, i dont know, i said it wasn't at the time because this was my understanding.