Yes, I was pushing it with genius, but let's face it, those griping about it are merely doing so because its Tomkins and Wigan....If it was a Wire player, we'd all be proclaiming what a fantastic, legal try it really was.

Yes, it's when momentum stops. NOT when the 'ball carrying arm' touches the ground like Stevo says.
Tomkins' try was a try. No doubt about it.

"Sliding tackle 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. (See Section 6, 3(c).)"

With regards to a second movement the rules say "When an attacking player is tackled within easy reach of the goal line he should be penalised if he makes a second movement to place the ball over the line for a try."

Since Tomkins was still sliding the tackle is not effected until he stops sliding (not when the ball carrying arm hits the floor), therefore he was allowed to reach out for the line because the tackle wasn't complete so it wasn't a double movement.

Of course it shouldn't have been a try, momentum was irrelevent as he wasn't going to slide over the line, as soon as your ball carrying arm hits the floor and a player has hold of you, thats tackle complete.

You can't decide, oh my ball carrying arm has hit the floor but because I am sliding I will bring it back up and plonk the ball down....

But there again Wigan seem to have their own special set of rules when it comes to a tackle being complete... the amount of holding down they get away with!

My first reaction was that it was a double movement because the ball carrying arm hit the floor and was then stretched to place the ball over the line. My second reaction was that Tomkins deserved the tryand it would be a shame to disallow it.

I had the same feelings over the Obst try - which was of course disallowed.

Has to be held, which means stopped, that is stopped completely. He wasn't which is why the try was given. He is a good un though don't you think????

When you put the L in

with that one [uemicom [/uyou summed up your entire input/ knowledge, insight and rapier like wit. god i wish i could put such a well reasoned arguement accross! what a dingus!

oh afwiw it was a try!

50/50 this one. I'm sure if it had been a Wire player you would have thought it a try.... Whats it like being 3 points behind?

i already stated last night i wouldn't expect it to be given.

Whats it like to be on the verge of a ban from this forum?

Garbage....He wasn't held at all, players were simply hanging onto him, they had not stopped his momentum, thus Tomkins was completely within his rights to stretch his arm out to score.

I was talking about the rules of SL, of course what you state may be correct regarding Wigan... Just out of curiosity, what does it say in the Wigan rule book regarding offside (7 metres back I gather) and holding down (as long as neccesary).

I don't know, I guess they have the same book as we do at Wire??

No in the SL rulebook, if the ball carrying arm hits the deck when you are held by an opponent whether you're moving or not... you can't then decide to bring that arm back up and reach out with it.

Didn't someone quote the rule that a player is tackled when sliding when his slide stops, so until he stops he isn't tackled and can in theory reach for the line. Or did I imagine that?

You'd do better if you could read; I didn't post that or anything else on this thread thus far. Back in your cage.

Fair try, ball carrying arm didn't touch the floor whilst held by the opposition player, reaches out for the try; it happens pretty much every week.

Wigans first try v us in the cup...the ball carrying arm hit the ground after the player and been ankle tap. My first (and still reaction) was its was a try, not because simply the momentum but also that the Warrington players was not in contact. As regards the try later on (the the ref went to the VR for.) Warrington player had his foot when he hit the ground, Warrington player out hand on his back whilst he was in contact with the ground but nobody actually had hold of him down on the ground.

quite simply the rule should say "A player is held when...................................... the ref decides to call it"

SBR site admin wrote this so i'll quote it

Who rattled your cage?
I gave Ron the reply he deserved.
Obviously hes clearly a person who's opinion you rate highly!!

The reply I deserved? if you read Horatio comment, my replies are based on the rules of the game, and are correct.

But then you have shown over recent weeks your knowledge of the game is a little inept to say the least.

So thats based on rules of the game and not bitterness??
Anyway on here 20 mins before kick off hope you made the game!!

omg! read my post, you are truly a muppet, i stated it was a try for a start! 2ndly your stupidity is evident by your misguided belief that another posters use of a silly patronising smiley head patting emicom (that's what they are called btw) not an effing enicomb (which is your user name). your innability to read has been highlighted not mine.... you pie munching idiot!


now i think an apology is in order, what do you think?

yet again you fail to grasp my point, but using a silly emicom (not enicomb, just to ensure a certain pie idiot doesn't get his nickers in a twist again) without actually using any meaningfull dialogue in my opinion lacks a certain class.

as for ron... don't know him, don't want to tbh, have no real opinion either way in regard to his opinion!