Having just watched the recording, that is probably right, although he actually turned and supported simultaneously as Burrow went past him but its hard to argue that negated the advantage from being there in the first place.



That's the pertitant point IMO. By plucking this one out tonight they have opened a potential can of worms, it would probably better for all concerned if this one was put back in the "obscure" cupboard rather than earning a high profile on the refereeing agenda

You really pussied out there young un



NO EMOTICONS!!!

I'm not as convinced as some appear to be that it's a common occurrence and I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see another such obvious example the rest of the season. I guess we'll see.

Id love to know what made that rule even pop into the TJ's mind



Must have been bored on the toilet earlier

It says in the ruls that voulentry tackles are ilegal but you NEVER see them given. Out of interest how many on here actually knew about that rule before the Burrow no-try. Even the Bradford players didn't know.

Whether anyone knows the laws or not it's common sense isn't it? An attacking player cannot possibly be allowed to stand in the defensive line at the play the ball and immediately be in position to back up a break can he?

Ellery made a career of it. If the game isn't on sky that try gets given and noone would have said anything (apart from a few complaints about the last pass)

Any recent examples rather than using what Hanley did more than 15 years ago to illustrate your point?

Well no. Because I never thought I'd have to remember any, but I know I must have seen it. Webb ran a support line and didn't get out of the way, Leeds then went on to "score" on the next play. That can't be the first time something like that has happend. It just never gets picked up on.

Well that's a shame because your case would be strengthened if you could refer to similar situations that have occurred recently that resulted in tries being allowed to stand.

I can't think of any either which strangely leaves me to conclude they're not as common an occurrence as some would have us believe.

The decision, in any case, was the correct one.

Calm down, calm down (in my best plastic scouse) There seems to be some anger here, may i suggest some/all of you get laid/drunk or both

So, the rule states that once the advantage has gone, the player is onside: ie rob put him onside when he went past him.
Also, you have to credit Stevo this one time: if this was offside, every time a fullback collects a ball put behind the play and then runs forward, the whole team are offside.
Complete bollox? Exactly. we were robbed!

As I remember this law was highlighted in the days when the scrum on tackle 6 was abolished and teams started punting the ball downfield. In the early days none of the attacking team retired behind the PTB so were already most of the way down the field when the ball was kicked over their heads, ready to tackle the kick returner once he had moved the obligatory 5 metres.

Seemed a solid decision to me, as did the knock on for McGuire's no-try.

If you want to talk about incomprehensible decisions then the Ablett yellow card and the resulting no penalty for a blatant body check off the ball at the Bradford try are head and shoulders above the rest.

I liked the idea of the Smith being match ref and video ref. Can't blame the puppet operating the VR facility. He just did as Smith told him

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFlwTiE6Koo Hanley try.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFlwTiE6Koo Hanley try.

similar to the newton voluntary tackle, then sinfield stealing the ball 1 on 1 then being penalised....

Just to clarify ...



but, in the notes ...



So nobody (Webb) can be "placed onside" under this law, its possibly a matter of the perceived advantage having passed (see earlier post).

Clearly a case of "Let's Learn The Laws Week" up at Carnage .... Then try our raft of new knowledge out whenever Leeds are playing.

Given the amount of blantant used-ever-week rules that are missed during the game .... Last weekend's laughable example was the penalty against Leeds for not playing the ball properly, proceeded by at least three of the Saints players on the first set-of-six after the penalty DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING of rolling the ball between their legs and NOT touching it with their foot as the rules clearly state .... It beggars belief that this rule has suddenly just seems to have been plucked out of the air to use. Why now ? Why hasn't been applied before (I bet there are other examples this season where it as happend)

Why people keep looking at Hanley's tries I don't know. The game changes, the rules change (How many times do you see tries scored from the resulting scrum off a 40-20 nowadays?). It IS a rule, has been for some time now. Get over it and move on. We've all been on the receiving end of a few costly decisions. It's the way you deal with it in the next game that counts.

Someone's a bad loser.




I'm not into big boys. It seems you are judging by who you hang out with from your above post.



You can go collect your dummy from the floor now.



Hi there softcock.

Someone is now cooling his head for 48 hours

Others may follow

It was the correct decision though, get over it