Question: When is a tacke complete?
Answer: When the match officials say so.

End of discussion I would have thought. The specific incident being highlighted was given as a try after video review, therefore, the tackle was deemed not to be complete.

If people here think they have a better handle on how the rules of the game ought to be interpreted, then I urge you to get qualified as RL officials and start working your way up to officiating at top level Rugby League.

An you missed my point thats exactly what Ron is worthy of! IMO using childish name calling insults lacks class to!!

Ian get back to your shrine and quit trolling.

Reet o you get back to your vodoo doll or have a week off!

Out of interest I take it you screamed for Hodgsons 2nd try not to be given yesterday?

Fucking hell, you are stupid or a bad troll.

I don't think I should tell you he was over the line, while sam wasn't.

No matter what your opinion on ratboys 'try' you can't, without being laughed at, scratch off Brett's

I think this all comes down to how the referees all have different ways of interpreting the rules? Yet another reason that Cummins doesn't know what hes doing, IMO if all the referees used the same set of rules, there would be much less of this debate.

to answer the question.

Q.When isw a tackle complete?
A. (by vadge) when you hear the ligaments snap!

*lacks class as well*

an idiot is a measurement of IQ, nothing to do with childishness, your posts alone allow me to jump to that conclusion!

I never mentioned scratching it off he was a try all day!
But his ball carrying arm hit the floor whilst in the field of play with a tackler on him. He then made a movement to put the ball downonce over the line. Some on here have said that doing that is no try!
Both Sams and Hodgsons for me were tries!

I guess the question is, since the ball carrying arm had hit the floor, was it purely momentum which took the ball over the line? Technically it could be argued there was a second movement after the ball carrying arm hit the floor in addition to his momentum and his momentum alone would not have carried the ball over the line. Either way, it was awarded and it took some scoring.

Looked like a try to me.

Can I be so bold as to ask your reasoning?. Presumably it's either that the ball carrying arm didn't hit the floor or he didn't make an intentional movement after the ball carrying arm had hit the floor?

I think it's hard to argue that it was momentum that resulted in the ball crossing the line since he obviously intentionally reached his arm out to place the ball over the line.

It was a great peice of skill to twist in the tackle to get him self in a position to put the ball over the line but in my opinion the ball carrying arm hit the floor and he therefore is not allowed to intentionally move his arm to promote the ball subsequent to that.

I've not seen it since last Friday but if memory serves I didn't think that the ball carrying arm hit the floor or that, if it did, the tackle wasn't complete.

It's like Cherry Pie never posted this



Have a look at the rules here:[urlhttp://library.thinkquest.org/3369/rugby/rule.htm[/url and read section 11.5.

Until the tackle was complete - i.e. [uhis sliding had stopped[/u and opposition players were holding him - he was within his rights to put the ball over the line.

So what would happen if :-
A player was "tackled" and slid along the floor with his arm in contact with the ground. He then lifts his arm BEFORE he stops sliding and is then stopped 6 inches short of the line where he reaches out and puts the ball down?

Didn't Brett Hodgson score for us in almost exactly the way you describe at Hudds earlier this season?

Yeah but;
1) we didn't win
2) we aren't Wigan

The player is not tackled until his sliding comes to a halt, which is why you correctly put your word "tackled" in quotes.

In the situation you describe, as soon as his slide comes to a halt, the tackle is complete, so he can't then reach out and put the ball down.

In the case of the Brett Hodgson incident, maybe the ref considered he was still sliding. I didn't see it so can't really comment.

The main difference between the two (and I am certainly not making a concrete decision on the 'tries') is that Brett, last week and against hudds, slid over the line facing forwards. He fell onto his belly and, against hudds, slid over the line or, against brad, landed over the line from the tackle. While Sam was rolled over onto his back and was moving horizontal to the try line and came to a stop and then moved his arm towards the try line.

Typical Wigan cheating

Thats not what rule 11.5 states, to quote:

"11.5) If a tackled player, because of his momentum, slides along the ground, the tackle is deemed to have been effected where his slide ends."

His slide ended 2 feet before the line, it was his is double movement that allowed the ball to cross it.

The crucial word being 'tackled' player in the past tense as opposed to the player being tackled. The player is tackled when his ball carrying arm hits the ground (rule 11.2 a) it's up to momentum then to dictate where the ball finishes.

According to rule 11.5 the tackle is effected where his slide ends, not when his slide ends. Therefore in between being tackled and his slide ending he is still a tackled player and can't, for example pass the ball, or intentionally twist and lift his arm up and place the ball over the try line.

Moreover rule 11.5 says explicitily states "because of momentum". The ball did not cross the line because of momentum.

It was great work by Sam Tomkins but personally I think the video ref made a mistake and I think rule 11.5 proves it. To be fair the video ref does not get the opportunity to scrutinise the rules to the extent we just have.

That's a fair point actually. It appears rule 11.5 is talking more about where the next PTB should be.