You are not allowed to lift arm if tackler is even fin ger touching you, if due to momentum the ball carrying arm bounces off of the floor and u stretch out play on, u cannot wriggle etc out of tackle, if your ball carrying arm has touched floor and u lift it while tackler is touching you its penalty.

If ball carrying arm does not touch floor and ur momentum is fully stopped u can still try and get up or pass ball, but normally its easier to try and push up wi5th ball carrying arm, hopefully tackler holds on and penalty.

Briscoes second try was a clear penalty to bradford, first one was momentum as ball carrying arm bounced, but you couldnt see properly if foot in touch so benefit of doubt.

Menzies hands were going backwards when released ball, we are told to look at position of his hands when adjudging forward passes, but you cant do that noones eyes are that quick as to look in direction of ball and offloaders hands at same time.

I hate forward passes and nearly always call them forwards, players dont like it but tough, refs are only human as well, at last weeks match coach who was winning said i was best ref he ever seen, they ended up losing and i was a complete and utter xxxxxxx..who should give it up cos i completely erm rubbish lol.

still superb at his age! such a shame we couldn't get him in 2006!

Must admit i was surprised that his second try was allowed to stand. I thought if the ball carrying arm touched the floor whist an opponent was tackling him that the tackle was complete.

His body never stopped moving towards the line, so he was therefore within his rights to lift his arm and put it back down.

As I've said elsewhere, the interpretation of that rule seems to have changed this season. Not sure I agree with it TBH even if it did benefit us last night.

I thought the other way round, would have given the first but if I was a Bradford fan I would be very annoyed about the second.

Huddersfield had one like Briscoes first ruled out in the challenge cup final. Different ref different week and a different outcome. They all need to be brought into line.

Ian Smith.

I agree. Both could have gone either way imo.

On both occasions, the Bradford tackler had gone into touch, so has that got something to do with it ?

ie the tackle cannot be completed if the tackler is off the field of play.

It would seem a good explanation and I am sure I have read it somewhere.

Briscoes second try would of been cruel to disallow after when he got up he looked at the ref to see if he was tackled but the ref said play on.

Thats a new one on me! Youre allowed to make a double movement if youre still moving? You sure?

Isn't that the momentum rule

If your body is still moving forwards, then it isn't a second movement. You can do what you like with your arms, you are still in the first initial movement.

If however, he had stopped dead, and then moved his arm over the line, it would have been a double movement (as the second movement would be his arm made, as the first movement had stopped).

Lee Gilmour's try for Saints last week for example. He was tackled near the line, ball carrying arm hit the floor, but because the movement of his body rolled him through the tackle and over the line he was allowed to stretch out on put the ball down.

The rule is that way basically because in some instances a player would actually have to try and NOT score (because of the initial movement of his body taking him over the line after his ball carrying arm is grounded) to avoid what would be classed as a 'double movement'.

It was certainly not a double movement.

Whether he was in touch or not to me is still debatable though!

As for his second try, how they gave that I haven't a clue! He was definitely tackled. Ball carrying arm on the deck with an opposing player tackling him. Tackle was certainly complete to the letter of the law.

Perhaps it was given because when he got back up, he looked at the ref to make a call, in which he said play on. He was prepared to play the ball, and as such benefit of the doubt was given to the attacking side due to the refs error?

Had the VR not given the try, it would have been a penalty to Bradford. That would have been unfair, since the ref did not give the signal to the player to play-the-ball (as is what he was looking for). Would there have been a case in the rules (or a case to be made to change the rules) in which the player in possession is taken back to the point of the tackle and carry on at whichever tackle that was? (Common sense to me).

So when your ball carrying arm hits the ground and the tackle is deemed to be complete you can still make a 2nd movement cos youre still moving? You sure?

It's not a second movement if the player is still in the first movement.

Did the referee call the tackle complete?

Does the referee have time to call a tackle complete when its a double movement and the player has stopped moving? Often there isnt the time before the 2nd movement.

Anyhow, ive given up trying to understand the basic rules of the game, they seem to never be applied consistently anyway.

Just watched it again. His foot was definitely in touch! Shocking decision by the ref. Why they went to look at all the various angles of when the ball was grounded is beyond me as his foot was in touch in the build up.

As for the DM, definitely not. Still the first movement as he bounced up off the ground so he was allowed to continue the initial movement. His momentum had not stopped. The movement happened during the initial movement (may not have been because of it, but it was during it). Had he been stopped dead (end of movement) and then raised his arm and plonked it over (second movement) then there may have been a case, but there wasn't.

Ive still seen them given either way!

That's the key bit. The player had not stopped moving.

[iA try occurs when...

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.[/i

As his momentum had not stopped (and was carrying to the goal line) he was entitled to try and score. If you ignore the touchline, he would have had to actually try and NOT score had this rule not been in place, as his momentum would have taken him over the line.

So have I, which means some people get them wrong!

In this case, this try shouldn't have been given anyway as he was clearly in touch!

The commentators make no comments about the possibility of it being a double movement, as IMO it was clearly not an issue due to his momentum. But his foot certainly was in touch.

Also, for the benefit of those who aren't sure about his second try:

[iA player in possession is tackled:

when he is lying on the ground and an opponent places a hand on him.[/i

With the definition of being on the ground being:

[iwhen he is held by one or more opposing players
and the ball or the hand or arm holding the ball
comes into contact with the ground.[/i

Sykes definitely had a hand on Briscoe when the ball carrying arm was on the deck.

I'll have another look, but I don't recall an angle that showed his foot to be definitely in touch. In that case BOD goes to the attacking side.


That's how I've always understood the rule. However, this season the refs appear to be using a different interpretation and Briscoe's is just one of a number of occasions where a player has been allowed to get up and carry on because he's slipped free of the tackle and the ref hasn't called held.

Don't bother pal there wasn't one even Smith couldn't find it.