Oldham v Celtic Crusaders!

[Mike]

I didn't see the double movement incident, so I won't comment on it specifically. However, in general, my understanding of the double movement rules is much more in line with cpwigan than with jonezy. Surely once a players ball carrying arm hits the deck, whether the players body is moving or not, he is not allowed to then move his arm forwards relative to his body to promote the ball over the line - that is the double movement referred to isn't it? However, he definitely is allowed to keep his body and arm position constant and slide or bounce over the line.

Maybe this is another example of a rule with a level of complexity that the average fan just doesn't appreciate! Perhaps it is only now that referees are full-time they have had time to realise that so many rules have these deep philosophical interpretations that only days of contemplation can reveal. After all, before this season, who knew the subtle intricacies contained within the obstruction rule, only revealed to us after the referee-gurus had had time to meditate upon it sufficiently. The sacred rule-book text on that page must be complex enough to defy even the most pious mind as the sacred interpretation can vary from week to week and sometimes even from half to half!

PS I'm on the side of rob the ref and basic physics with the forward pass rule so I'm not just arguing this one for arguings sake...

[cpwigan]

Mike I think you and I are on the same wavelength re double movements. You can slide etc as far as you possibly can provided your arm with the ball remains in the same position. What you cannot do IMO is promote the position of the ball by repositioning your arm whilst moving.

[robjoenz]

Two points to this:

When is the tackle complete?
If a player is still moving he's not tackled.

Take this scenario - a player slides along the ground, ball carrying arm on the ground, tackler on top of him - then tackler then falls off the tackle before the ball carrier stops sliding - ball carrier then gets up, runs into the in-goal and ground the ball - what is your decision?

What constitutes a double movement?
Making a second movement AFTER THE TACKLE IS COMPLETE.



Conclusion - player still moving - tackle not complete - player entitled to release ball / reach over to score a try.

[Mike]

robjoenz posted:
When is the tackle complete?
If a player is still moving he's not tackled.

Take this scenario - a player slides along the ground, ball carrying arm on the ground, tackler on top of him - then tackler then falls off the tackle before the ball carrier stops sliding - ball carrier then gets up, runs into the in-goal and ground the ball - what is your decision?

Is this really the case? I thought if the ball carrying arm hits the deck and a tackler is still in contact at that point then the tackle is complete regardless if the tackler subsequently falls off. Nothing to do with sliding motion. So for the above situation I (and I think the majority) would rule a complete tackle therefore a penalty for playing on.

Although of course, we all know in practice that a tackle is complete only when a referee decides it is - at that point he may call held, he may call surrender, or dominant, or a number between 0 and 7 ... or in the case of Wigan last season, it isn't even complete when the ref has called held (or something like held disguised as a cough or something...) if the opposition subsequently score and the decision is referred to the VR! The players must absorb the information on the "completness" of the tackle from the cosmic rays, regardless of auditory input from the referee-guru who is definitely not telling us to let go or give away a penalty.

[- psycho -]

the tackle wasn't complete and the player still had momentum. you can see that when his arm hits the deck, it doesn't come to a stop, the movement continues and he simply puts the ball down. if momentum had stopped and the tackle was complete id understand a double movement.

phil clarke was right, and abrry mcdermot,t, he only said,

"thats enver a try in a million years"

because he can only see out of one eye and probably didnt even realsie he'd put the ball down.

[robjoenz]

Mike posted:
Is this really the case? I thought if the ball carrying arm hits the deck and a tackler is still in contact at that point then the tackle is complete regardless if the tackler subsequently falls off. Nothing to do with sliding motion. So for the above situation I (and I think the majority) would rule a complete tackle therefore a penalty for playing on.

So what you're saying is that if a player hits the deck and slides 2 m along the ground into touch that the tackle is complete as soon as his arm hits the ground. In which case you would have to penalise the tackler for causing him to move into touch after the tackle was complete, either that or bring him back to where the arm initially hit the ground.

In the scenario I used it would be play on - player is still moving => tackle not complete.

There are three incidents that spring to mind this season... that one last night... the Quins one I mentioned earlier and one for Catalans where the player hit the deck and as he bounced up off the ground the tackler fell off him and he carried on to score.

Although of course, we all know in practice that a tackle is complete only when a referee decides it is - at that point he may call held, he may call surrender, or dominant, or a number between 0 and 7 ... or in the case of Wigan last season, it isn't even complete when the ref has called held (or something like held disguised as a cough or something...) if the opposition subsequently score and the decision is referred to the VR! The players must absorb the information on the "completness" of the tackle from the cosmic rays, regardless of auditory input from the referee-guru who is definitely not telling us to let go or give away a penalty.

Have you been on something illegal, Mike?

[adele_ww_claire]

turf posted:
Crusaders had a farcical double movement try given before half time.

Gareth Hewer (the official) isn't doing too badly, couple of mistakes but has been consistent (spelling?) on high/grappler tackles.

Does anyone else think he looked like Paul Wellens?
like really baddd.....
OLDHAM SHOU:D HAVE WON!
OLDHAM are ded good (y)

[robjoenz]

adele_ww_claire posted:

turf posted:
Crusaders had a farcical double movement try given before half time.

Gareth Hewer (the official) isn't doing too badly, couple of mistakes but has been consistent (spelling?) on high/grappler tackles.

Does anyone else think he looked like Paul Wellens?
like really baddd.....
OLDHAM SHOU:D HAVE WON!
OLDHAM are ded good (y)

Haha, yeah... my girlfriend's mum said that too. Think it's his hair.

[adele_ww_claire]

And he had nostrils like his too LOL

[robjoenz]

adele_ww_claire posted:
And he had nostrils like his too LOL

Rightttt..! Can't say I notice people's nostrils!