been pushed". Should have been a penalty either way.

=#8000FFThere's a case for Brown being in the act of scoring, but isn't it denying a clear try scoring opportunity like a tackle off the ball when the player would have reached the ball?

Just read the rules. The Hodgson one wasn't guaranteed to score, therefore, penalty. There's certainly a case for the offence on Brown to be given as one but very sketchy in my opinion.

Galea was going for the ball though and so long as both players are going in the same direction I dont see a problem with it. Brown knocked on and there is no 100% certain that given Galea not diving that Brown would have scored anyway.

Again Hodgson, no way a penalty try. I have seen much more obvious ones not given so for me its a no on this one. Again its not 100% certain he would have scored. At the speed he was going, if Fox had waited until Hodgson had hit the ground then there is a slim possibility he may have been able to push him out or dislodge the ball? Small chance i know but a penalty try has to be 100% certain he would have scored - neither of these were for mine (first one was right call and not even a penalty anyway)

Attempt or not, the fact he went through the man to even gain that opportunity of getting the ball is wrong. Had he tried to come round Brown and swipe at it, fair enough, I could see your point. It's just one of those decisions though and if it had been any of our own sides we'd be saying it's correct decision so no qualms really.

How did you work that out?

Hodgson caught the ball cleanly and had it in his possession. He was moving towards and would have landed over the tryline. Without Fox's interference, what would have stopped him grounding it? Nothing. No-one. If that's not someone in the act of scoring I don't know what is.

Fox tackled him illegally in the air and pushed him into the flag and out of play.

World Cup Final. Hohaia was not in the act of scoring - he wasn't even in possession of the ball but just chasing it down and was taken out on the goal line, a distance from the ball. Hodgson, on the other hand, had the ball in his hands and was travelling over the goal line to score until taken out illegally.

You could argue that Fox could have gave Hodgson space and either secured the ball from being grounded or could have been pushed into touch as soon as his feet touched the ground.

Do you really think that?

You could argue Hohaia might have tripped. That's not the point. Remove Fox from the equation and Hodgson scores. Simple as that.

Morgan,Brown & Matterson all said they believe you can tackle the attacking player in the air. Thats 3 SL coaches that believe that interpretation of the rule. As Matterson said what are you meant to do let the Attacking player catch the ball and just put the ball down. If you can tackle the ATTACKING player in the air then it was never a penalty and Hull KR should have won.

I'll admit i aint got a clue whether you can or can't. Anybody actually know this 100%

Look closely at Hodgson putting the ball down. He's in touch but that wouldn't have happened hadn't Fox tackled him BUT didn't he fail to ground the ball correctly. That could have happened with or without fox.

=#8000FFMatterson is a clueless buffoon, Brown was coaching in the NRL where you COULD tackle the attacking player in the air and Morgan well he was trying to find an excuse. In the NRL you could/can tackle the attacker in the air, in SL you've never been able to.

You definitely CAN'T tackle a player in the air. This has been the rule for donkey's years:


Section 15 refers to Player Misconduct.


He grounds the ball incorrectly precisely BECAUSE Fox is shoving him into touch; he rushes it in an attempt to ground it before finding touch. The overwhelming odds dictate that without interference, Hodgson would have grounded the ball cleanly. He was travelling over the try line with the ball in his possession. There is NO reason whatsoever to presume otherwise.

Should we not all be playing by the same rules especially so we know where we all stand for internationals. Either you can or you can't. Can you imagine football having seperate rules for domestic competitions in different countries, FIFA would go ape.

=#8000FFAussies have a load of different rules most are pretty inane but the 10 subs (same as international) is one of the better ones along with the people who pack a scrum down to stop the clock have to stay formed, and football does have seperate rules, for example the MLS has extra time for league games.

He lands on the ground steadies himself and fails to ground the ball correctly. Who is to say he'd ground it otherwise. Your simply presuming.

National leagues have different points scoring rules and the NRL golden point thats not the same as different technical rules. In football everygame played between that 90 mins are played using the same rules.

Exactly. Penalty tries are given on the presumption the attacker would have scored without illegal interference.

Seeing as that's the case here, it should have been a penalty try.

Let me spell it out. If you remove Fox from the situation, the hugely massively overwhelming probability, pretty much a guarantee, is that Hodgson - with the ball safely in his hands and travelling over the line in a safe direction - will score. Fox tackles him ILLEGALLY and Hodgson ONLY fails to land cleanly or ground the ball due to Fox tackling him IN THE AIR and pushing him into touch. Without Fox, none of that would have happened.

I'd have been interested to see the reaction if Hodgson had taken out Fox in the exact same circumstances.

The last sentence says it all. If it was the other way round every hull KR fan would be saying it should have been a penalty try. I'm not saying the KR fans are making things up, just that they are ( obviously ) biased as any fan would be towards thier own team. I doubt there are many neutrals who would disagree that a penalty try should have been awarded!

Despite 3 Super League coaches stating they thought it was a legal tackle!

Yep, you can't tackle somebody whilst he's still in the air. He did, therefore penalty.

He commited this penalty whilst Hodgson was in the act of scoring. If he hadn't commited that penalty then I would say (with the evidence available) that the overwhelming probablility was that he would have scored. So IMO a penalty offence was commited that directly stopped an almost certain try. So a penalty try should have been awarded.

He went for the ball it's a contact sport what do you want him to do?

You cant tackle a player in the air

so hudds did nothing wrong all game then and was good little soldiers bull s'@t

Wow, what a way to miss the point of the debate.

The three coaches showed perhaps whats wrong with English RL...they dont actually know the rules!

I will have to wait and watch it on SKY but i think that both decisions should have been penalties possibly with sin binnings.

I remain sceptical about them being penalty tries as the rules stand because you almost never see them in RL. I think their needs to be clarification on this and that a professional foul to stop a try scoring situation should probably be a penalty try.