To bring it back to the subject of refereeing, Chris Joynt's voluntary tackle. What should have happened?

Bradford should've let him get up and then battered him.

As for the decision, it was correct, it wasn't a voluntary tackle.

I've never seen one given either so, fair enough. That's settled.

Only if you don't know the laws.


Was the player attempting to field a kick? - Yes
Was he in mid-air? - Yes
Did the opponent attempt to tackle him? - Yes

The only area for any debate would be the weak argument that he wasn't tackling, he was contesting for the ball. You don't contest for the ball with your arms around the sides of the opponent.

The argument that the ball had already gone doesn't hold water, you can't dispute that the player in mid-air was attempting to field a kick. The fact that he did so badly is not relevant. A definite penalty, and the correct call.

Actually, I may be mistaken. I've just read the rules on a voluntary tackle and I had them wrong in my head. I thought it was a voluntary tackle if the ball carrier either fell to the floor and made no attempt to get up and play on, or played the ball without being a tackle being completed.

Which pretty much is the definition of a voluntary tackle as stated in the Glossary of the Rules:
[i"Voluntary Tackle is where a player in possession voluntarily stops play when not effectively tackled."[/i

However the relevant section in the Rules, under the section Tackle & Play the Ball states:
[i"Voluntary tackle 4. 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. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if he has time to regain his feet and continue play."[/i
Now admittedly my memory of the event is somewhat hazy, but I'm pretty sure you could describe Joynt's actions as "voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent".

So by the Glossary definition I'd say it's not a voluntary tackle but by the description in the Rules I'd say it was.

What's that I hear you cry? Inconsistency at the RFL? Be gone vile heathen.

I thought that but then you can't tackle a player that doesn't have the ball.
He couldn't pull out of the collision as hr was committedb but he appeared to deliberately wrap him up.
If he'd kept his hands up he would have been OK.

Spot on. Had the Widnes player landed badly and suffered a serious injury would anyone say it's ok because he lost the ball? Regardless of the knock on their's still a duty of care not to put your opponent in a dangerous position and that's exactly why all tackles in the air are fouls, knock on or no knock on.

Indeed. He did. And a right amateurish and embarrassing job he made of it, too. Completely blatant, and he didn't even attempt to deny it afterwards.

Here he goes:


It signalled the final demise of the voluntary tackle rule, because if that one was not good enough, then none could ever be good enough.

Er, of course you can! Pick any player who does not have the ball. Tackle him.

Job done.

LOL OK, Mum. [iMay I [/itackle a player without the ball

No, you jolly well mayn't. You're a very naughty boy

James Child with the on field guess and the VR has no choice but to give a try despite absolutely no evidence showing the ball on the ground, in fact there was plenty of evidence of hands under the ball.

should've been ruled out, he went for try after seeing the wire player jump around in front of him lol!


time to get rid of this rule, tries been given when they shouldnt and chalked off when they should

Even as a fan of the team who the received this debatable decision I will say for the hundredth time that this silly "I've got a try"/"I've got no try" needs binning off immediately!

It has to be said that from the camera looking in at the left of the incident the ball looks grounded so it almost have to be given on that in the current rules but the two angles from the right show about four hands under the ball.

But the ref should be giving decisions he thinks are tries or no tries and then sending "can you determine whether that is a try or no try, please?" up the the VRs if he doesn't know.

At the moment refs are having to stamp a random guess on some incidents because they have to send it up as one thing or another. That's like a jury having to make a decision of guilty or not guilty when they haven't seen enough evidence. The VRs should be the jury and the video technology the evidence. If the ref sees enough evidence on the pitch either way, he can be the jury and make an informed decision there and then. But nobody should be having to stamp a guess on tries or no tries.

Just have done with the VR, it's almost like we are trying to find as many gimmicks and obstacles as possible.
Go back to having a referee, making decisons, along with his TJ's and in goal judges, and just accept that sometimes they will make mistakes and a try could be given if it's a wrong call and accept that our team's will get decisions go for and against them.

It won't stop us fans claiming the ref is bent/a cheat/born out of wedlock etc

at the games but at least we all play along with the same rules.

I think the VR is essential. Just need to use them properly.

Regarding last nights try, even under the old VR system where 'benefit of the doubt' should go to the attacking team, I think it would/should have been given. Despite all the evidence from other angles there was one angle which clearly showed the ball on the ground, hence a try - 'Benefit of the Doubt'.

I actually quite like the referee giving try/no try on the field as it gives a good starting point for the VR. However from that point the VR should get to see the incident once in slow motion and once at full speed from each angle. If there's nothing obvious to overturn the on field decision then go with it. If the VR has to look for several minutes rolling one angle back and to, then using 'superzoom' then clearly there isn't enough evidence to overturn the referees decision.

im guessing your a wire fan, of course you will like the 'is it a try, not a try?', your team has benefitted twice from questionable tries, lets see if you still have the same opinion when a couple of these go against you that costs you the game

I'm not so sure, for me, there was no evidence that he grounded the ball, other than the ball was on the ground at some point, i can't believe we are now awarding a try based on the fact that ball, or some part of it is on the ground under a mass of bodies.
Benefit of the doubt? maybe but in that instance i would want good defence to be rewarded.

Yes I'm a Wire fan, and yes we benefitted last night, but we have been on the wrong end of some pretty dubious VR decisions that have cost us games in the past. Yes I am please that decisions went our way last night, and I have been pretty disappointed in the past when they have gone against us, but my opinion remains the same either way. You win some, you lose some.

But if the ball is clearly on the ground, which it was, then surely a try has to be awarded. You can't say "Well the ball was on the ground, but it was a pretty good defensive effort to try and stop it so we won't give the try."

We had a few last season.

There's a difference between the ball, clearly being on the ground and how it got there.
you can't just award a try because the ball is on the ground, or at least in my opinion you can't, but it seems anything goes these days.

King went into the challenge and for the line with full possession of the ball and shortly after the ball could clearly be seen on the ground. There was absolutely no evidence whatsoever that King had at any time lost control of the ball and I'm assuming, because he awarded the try, that the referee at no point called held. Maybe it was a great effort by the Catalan players to prevent the try, but it wasn't enough. Having the try awarded by Child before being passed up there was absolutely nothing the VR could have seen to disallow it.

You suggest that good defence should be rewarded, but shouldn't a good, strong, determined and ultimately successful attempt to ground the ball be rewarded too?

both defence and attack should be rewarded, but when there is no evidence that he actually grounded the ball then, the defending side should get the B.O.D, for me, anyway.