Ian Smith was obviously watching the nature channel and assumed he was an EEL.

Firstly its called "ROLLING" and secondly he was on his front, rolled onto his back and then his arm continued outwards to place the ball down. He was on his back when he scored (IIRC). It was the fact that at no point in the whole chain of events did he stop or change direction of imputuss. Hence the BotD decision.

The act of stretching his arm out from the position of been tucked underneath him is where the double movement occurred. Not the roll.

I thought Huddersfield were on the end of some very dubious decisions yesterday, however, the spilt balls were nothing to do with officialdom.

It was interesting hearing Nathan Brown saying the team decided on the way they played the game, I thought that was his job!

momentum has to stop before you can call a double movement doesnt it? if so a try with BoD was the right call!!

BoTD was a ridiculous decision as there was nothing that the video ref could not see, he can see the ball carrying arm down and the subsequent movement, he has to decide whether that was a double movement or not. He could decide Try or No Try and whatever he chose some would disagree, however there was no act that he could not see, so why BoTD.

From my vantage point behind the sticks I thought clear double movement, but I am biased. What was more interesting was Silverwood's actions. Danny Brough was having a moan, pointing at the screen, watching the screen Silverwood was still talking to DB and appeared to agree with him. He then actually moved out of in goal to a position to award a penalty.

Before the decision came up on the screen his hand went to his earpiece and he appeared to be querying the decision. By the look on his face as he was talking I very much got the impression that he did not agree. Again as pointed out by others this was a different interpretation to Ryan Hall's "no try" the previous day.

Fortunately in the long run it did not matter in this match, but the VR decisions need to be less controversial for the health of the game - remeber the Grand Final offside try a couple of years back? It would be better for the game to have Silverwood or whomsoever make a decision as they see it, right or wrong, than delay the game to still often get it wrong (either the Carvell or Hall decision was wrong as they were different interpretations of very similar actions)

if there were video refs at each game, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.......

I blame Robert Hicks.

Who doesn't?

Here's a thought that I "put out there" a while ago. If there is video at each game, why not leave the decision still in the refs hands. During Warrington v Catalan game the ref seemed to decide to consult with his touchjudges after a high shot after watching it on the screen. The ref can see what the VR sees and knows what it is he isnt sure about. Silverwood was clearly heard to ask the VR to "check the grounding" not "to check for a double movement". Did the VR overstep the request made of him ?

The cost of the screen at every ground and every SL game will be very high. Video refs at every game without the screen will be more viable and cost effective.

That is correct.

The rule is that a player who has forward motion is not tackled at the point where his ball carrying arm hits the ground, but at the point where his motion stops.

The laws are not clear cut on this point, and there are two different sections that address the same area. However, firstly, it was definitely NOT the case that he was stopped short, but reached over the line to ground the ball. His movement, i.e. the roll, was what took him over the line.

Once over the line, he is permitted to ground the ball.



The debate should therefore be whether he was stopped short of the line, or whether his momentum got him over the line.

If he had been stopped a foot before the line, and then twisted and reached over to ground, then a definite penalty, but he didn't.

Watched at normal speed there didn't seem to be any obvious stop in his forward motion, and so the decision seems perfectly reasonable, if you take the time to read the actual Laws.

OK fair enough. Slight variation then......"when there is a screen available, let the decision remain with the referee". Or even employ a system similiar to NFL where the ref himself can review a monitor at the side of the pitch.

Completely OT, but just reminded me of a bloke I know who's basically never worked a day in his life, and he was telling the story about form-filling down the Jobcentre and for "What was your last job?" he put "milk monitor"

So whats the definition of a double movement

(Im betting its a video of Carvell reaching his arm forward to put the ball down)

Carvell's momentum didnt carry him over the line. He projected his arm foward in what was pretty clearly a double movement. If Carvell hadnt extended his arm, it wouldnt be a try. Therfore its a double movement.

There is simply no room for doubt.

Ask yourself this, if the same try had been scored against your team, what would your opinion be?



Which is CLEARLY what Carvell did.

Carvell extended his arm in the direction he was STILL TRAVELLING in after , at no point, ceasing to travel in that same direction.

The BoD was given because at full speed this is what the TV showed. In slow-mo it appears that there may have been a tiny momentary cessation BUT it was unclear whether this was actually a cessation of movement or infact due to the fact that the slow-mo footage is actually affected by the framage.

I agree with your comment that had this happened against Warrington I would have been screaming blue murder at the officials....

But the point remains, if he hadnt extended his arm, he wouldnt have scored.

Therefore its a double movement.

Look at the rules on the RFL website, there is even a picure of Carvell and next to it it says "penalise this"! (seriously, it does)

That's easy, Notes to Section 11:




You are either not looking, or your bias is preventing you from seeing. But Carvell never stopped moving forward. He was never stopped short of the line.


Making blunt claims is not an argument. You saying this, does not make it true.


My opinion is my opinion. If you are suggesting that I would change my tune had the try been against the Bulls, you are wrong. I can and do look at any incident on its merits. Who's playing is not relevant.


No it isn't. At no point before the line had Carvell's motion been halted. I'd say that is self-evident, because if his motion had been halted, we wouldn't have an incident to discuss.

A penalty would be if he was stopped short of the line, and then reachd out to place the ball over the line. I do not understand how you could maintain that that was what happened here. The video images do not support you.

So are you genuinly saying Carvell did not extend his arm and promote the ball forward?

Are you actually saying that?

He was not even tackled at the point where he 'extended his arm' as you put it. Neither defender had any sort of grip on him. Not an easy decision, but that fact that Claire Balding reported many txts/tweets about it split roughly 50/50 is further proof that it's nowhere near as clear cut as you think.

So if he had passed the ball, would he have been allowed to play on?

Or if he had got up would he have been allowed to carry on?

He was down, he was in contact with a defender and [ihe had to project his arm to score[/i and its that last part thats the key in all this.

Please note, I am in no way arguing this point as a Huddersfield fan, but rather I would be taking this standpoint no matter who the teams involved.

Was your question so good that you thought you'd ask it twice? Or do you think that being condescending helps you to discuss the point?

What I am saying is pretty simple: that he had not been stopped short of the line.

If he had been stopped short of the line, and then extended his arm to take the ball over the line then that would have been a double movement. But as he wasn't, it wasn't.


I would say not. The ball-carrying arm had contacted the ground, and so the tackle would be complete at the point where his forward motion stopped. He couldn't "untackle" himself.


I would say not, for the same reason.


No, the fact that his forward motion had not been stopped is the key. You keep overlooking it.

Fortunately this incident was not the one that decided the match. That appears to be when the Huddersfield players decided they would take control away from Nathan Brown and do as they pleased.

Ridiculous post. If Silverwood thought it wasn't a try, then surely he would have given the penalty instead of going to the VR.

@FA

No I dont keep overlooking it at all, you keep fixating on it.

What you are overlooking is
a) His momentum alone would not have carried him over the line
b) He made an extra effort to extend his arm over the line

One alone means its a double movement. Both together is pretty clear under the rules its a penalty, no try.


If he had simply rolled over and the ball had crossed the whitewash, no argument its a try. But thats not what happened is it. The only way he scored that try is by a projection of his arm, the very definition of a double movement according to the rules on the RFL website.