It’s too early to take all the of the above post in. As I understand, it was an 8 pt try not a penalty try. Fouled in the act of scoring as confirmed by his charge of dangerous contact. It seems quite simple to me. Try usual conversion and a penalty in front of the sticks for foul play whilst scoring a try

But by the panels own admission the dangerous contact was after the ball was dead, in which case the rules explicitly say that an an 8 point try cannot be awarded.

There used to be a rule that if fouled in the act of scoring it was an 8 pt try. Are we saying this has changed?

You can tell you're a lawyer

I agree it was not a penalty try but Webster did make contact with the head after the ball was touched down. Webster did tackle him in the air and around the head. Anyway it was a try so the score would have been 16-18 and we would all still be in the position.

The above surely states that there was contact on the head whilst in the air. The fact that he let go immediately is the reason for NFA. It doesn't say that the offence did not happen. Therefore we have an offence in the act of scoring which is a 8 pointer. THe VR clearly said to the ref that it was a 8 pointer. Presumably the BBC did not have a caption to say 8 point try. SAme as they did not have the correct camera angles to check on offsides for the kicks through.

Not being funny, but you didn't understand what I said.

If you are saying that it wasn't given as a penalty try, which I'm happy to take your word as I haven't watched the recording, then explain to me how a momentary contact with the head in the air, which was immediately released, can possibly be a foul on a player "who is touching down for a try".

He isn't. He is IN THE AIR. At the point of that contact, neither you nor anyone can sensibly claim he was a man "who is touching down for a try". At that point, what he was (plainly) doing was jumping up in the air, catching a ball.

"This law applies to =#FF0040the period during which the ball is touched down for a try ... "

I suppose Stage 2 of the debacle, in true double-whammy style, was that it should have been a penalty to the bulls in the first place, for a blatant offside. Hey ho.

It would be churlish to point out that minus 8 points off Halifax's score could conceivably have made a difference, so I won't mention it.

[urlhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1lq8vN9UJdj5jRKwd_EFX4HjAX45W-8TI/view?usp=sharing[/url

I suppose an elbow to the chin of a player lying on his back is o.k. then?

I've seen some straw clutching in my lifetime.....

Er, no. As was clearly stated by the disciplinary.

Why would you think it was OK?

Why not pause it when the ball is on his foot? He's already kicked it in that frame and even there it's probably given onside by the video ref.
I think he was onside for the kick personally.

Very nice for you. Now run along and leave the adults to chat, there's a good lad

Looks a yard off to me, I did freeze the Bulls footage as exactly on the kick as possible, but if anyone has anything better then I'd love to see it. I'm not posting that as some kind of incontestable proof. Is there anything better? Apparently the Beeb didn't have any angle at all?

Weirdly the bbc footage does actually show the kick from the other side of the field, it's a brilliant angle to tell if he's onside or not. But this was shown [iafter[/i the try was given and not during the review process.

I noticed that as well. Was shown in the roundup at the end of the game, and you could see Tyrer was well offside.

Still, water under the bridge now....

Is there a definition of "in the act of scoring", i.e. does the player have to be in contact with the ground in order to be "in the act of scoring" or can this be extended to the point at which the player takes possession of the ball? That seems to be the real debate here. The video ref in giving the 8 pointer must be assuming that once Tyrer takes possession of the ball he is immediately in the act of scoring. It was at this point, in possession and in the air that he was fouled. Based on that assumption then the 8 point try is surely the correct decision. It's quite a grey area. I called it an 8 pointer from the terrace though naturally everyone disagreed with me

After the ball was dead that. Obviously not read or know the rules

Might have been a different case had sky had the balls to put our game on. I think it shows their disregard for our level more than anything.

And yes FA makes valid points with rules etc as it’s inconsistent.

Agree with what he said but I think had we on same performance fax could have felt hard done by. Created more than us, more energetic than us, can’t keep blaming Easter and Toronto and Leeds for our lack of energy for me

Contact with the head is still contact with the head. I remember Gareth Raynor being sent off for momentary contact with Sam Tomkins head. Can't remember if it was given as a 8 point try in that case. With my pedants head I couls also argue that he was touching the ball down (even if it was from about 7 foot in the air)

Wasn't the comment by the video ref something along the lines of..."well if you can't show me that angle, I will assume that he was onside then..."

So what's the point of the VR again?

That is correct. VR cannot rule against on field ref without definite proof.

The clear elbow to the face would constitute a penalty either way. I think the initial contact; Webster was contesting the ball and what he did was pure instinct in attempting to tackle Tyrer. I think him then dropping the elbow on Tyrer was out of pure frustration for being out- performed in that instance. To be honest, apart from the try he scored he was pretty ineffective. Potentially he might suffer from a lack of opportunity down that wing without a decent second- rower playing inside him. I expected him to do some real damage in the Championship??? Not sure what channel Minchella plays down. I think if you look at Chester Butler, he was pretty anonymous having Larroyer playing inside of him. Larroyer is no ball handler. A different proposition when he has Grady or Barber playing inside of him.

TBF I didn't have much of an issue with it being an 8 point try. The BBC fecked up by not putting that up on screen, it wasn't a penalty try.

I think whoever was in charge of the BBC scoring had never heard of an 8 point try either. When the 8 pointer was awarded, they put the score as Bulls 6 - 8 Fax, then when they kicked the first conversion Bulls 6 - 10 Fax, then I think even after (though can't remember) the second conversion they may have put it to Bulls 6 - 12 Fax before someone whispered in their ear to tell them the actual try award is still only worth 4 points