Been away and missed the Widnes match just watched the highlights on Wigan TV .Flynn was loosely tackled by 2 Wigan players his ball carrying arm hit the ground but the Wigan players had a hand on him as he hit the ground got up and ran 30 metres to score what's the difference with this ?????

Was very similar, both of them to the letter of the law weren't tries but the frustrating thing with budgies was that if it happens in open play and burgess carries on the ref would likely call play on. Its like in football when a ref doesn't give a penalty for a tackle in side the box but gives a free kick if the same tackle happens outside the box. For me it was smart play from budgie and saints did little or nothing to stop him scoring.

Agree, it's an anomaly in the game. Had that been 10 yards out Burgess gets up and scores, no problem. There is no way he was held in the tackle, Hohaia fell off the initial tackle but another Saints player put his hand on Burgess.

Martyn Saddler commented about it in todays League Express, there is no way that should have been a penalty. If the referee can allow the player to play the ball again when he passes the ball after a held call then Burgess should have been at least allowed to play the ball. I can't remember if it was the last tackle, if it was it should have been a handover

No video ref to go too vs Widnes.
There is two sets of rules, isn't there?

Which if you view it as a "still picture" as opposed to a dynamic event makes it look like a completed tackle. Things like that and double movements need to be viewed at normal speed.

If not then a video ref can always convince themselves there was an infringement in those kinds of situations. And that is what the video ref did and it's why he did it IMO.



I agree. The penalty was bizarre.

Refs get criticised if they apply laws of the game wrong. This time it was applied correctly so should get credit for it. Burgess' ball carrying arm hit the floor when our player had contact on him. It does not matter how much or how little contact there is, as long as there is contact it's a completed tackle. There's nothing bizarre about it, the laws of the game were applied correctly. Even if it was the other way round i'd accept it, the video ref got it correct for me.

You are wrong IMO . A tackle cannot be completed by touching a player. It's not tag rugby but it becomes so if you freeze frame it.

I'm not wrong though because it's the rules of the game. You might view it as wrong but it's not wrong until it changes. Plus, if it did change how much contact would be deemed too little so a tackle is not completed? It would make it difficult for a referee to decide, as refs will have different opinions.

There is a difference between what happens in a split second compared to what happens when a player is tackled and the tackle "carries on".

I thought that if the ball-carrying arm hits the deck whilst the player is being touched by a tackler, it was deemed to be complete. Having said that, it is clearly true that this 'letter of the law' approach isn't necessarily followed anywhere except next to the tryline.

If the ball carrying arm hits the ground, you only need contact with the player whether its a touch or wrap around the player it doesn,t matter.
The problem is that the ruling will be usually 100% applied at televised games, when we saw it from the stand it looked like a try, when we saw the replay Burgess had his feet released from Lance,s attempted tackle but Turner had placed a hand on him. Chief of Video refs said it was an easy decision to make.
Sadler is an attention seeker and always says the opposite these last couple of years.

It can. The rules state as such. Nothing to do with opinion; it's the law of the game.

Wigan have absolutely nothing to be upset about with regards to the decision as it was the correct one.

Doesn't really bother me whether it was a try or not because it's a matter of opinion but what did bother me was the constant offside tactics of saints which were ignored by the ref. in55 years of watching rugby league I have never seen a team more offside.

The decision wasn't correct as the incident happened in the field of play and not the in goal. The player was deemed to have continued to play despite being "held" correct decision would have been for burgess to be pulled back to play the ball.

Incorrect. It was a double movement. The player attempted to score a try after the tackle was complete. The "try" took place in the in-goal area. Check the rules mate, it's there in black and white.

I don't have any great complaints about it as it could have gone either way. If it would have been a Saints player we would have all said it was the correct decision.

The strange thing about how hard and fast a rule interpretation should actually be implemented is usually IMO dictated on which side of the theoretical fence your a*se happens to be on at the time.

It was an illegal movement by Burgess to gain advantage over the try line beyond the rules, hence the penalty. The ruling is not all that difficult to understand, thats why the officials made a quick correct decision.

I think we would have moaned about it but not to the amount of wishful opinion on here. In Wanes World of Wugby it was a try, his fans will clutch onto that for comfort.

Haha there's probably some truth in that mate. But if that was a Saints try that had been disallowed then I genuinely couldn't and wouldn't sit here and moan, simply because it was the right decision at the end of the day.

we lost, saints played better and wanted it more...end of

Watching it live, right in front of me, I'd have given no try. It looked like a blatant double-movement to me.

Was certainly a double-movement, but isn't it the case that the tackle needs to be complete or is it just the carrying arm hitting the ground before the shuffle? If that's the case, what if someone tripped half way up the park then got up & sprinted to the line?
(need to get the rule book out - if I can remember where it is)