Whilst never losing contact with him until his momentum had stopped. Rules say tackle complete.

Well you're not seeing something that I am,so we'll just agree to disagree!

Toss up for it

The rule does not say tackle complete. The rule is quite specific that the tackled player must be held by the tackler. There's even a note on the broken tackle to deal with the situation where the tackler lose his hold on the ball carrier before the ball carrier is grounded. I didn't see the Lyne incident but your interpretation of the rule sounds to be incorrect.

Well given Taylor was in contract with Lyne when he was first grounded and still was when he made the second move it's tackle complete then. If he had slid off before the second effort then its play on but he didn't, he was still in contact with him. No try, move on.

As I said, I havent seen the incident so you may or may not be correct. However, you keep persisting with this notion that Taylor was in contact with Lyne therefore Lyne was tackled. The rules however require more than just being in contact, they need the tackler to be holding the tackled player. Just pointing out the rule because you don't seem to understand it.

I understand it perfectly thanks, he doesn't have to be holding him, placing a hand on him whilst on the floor constitutes a tackle. And he had a hand on him at all times until after the second movement? That good enough for you cocker?

You are showing your confusion regarding the rules even more now ( to say nothing of your slightly peevish and aggressive nature). You say the tackler doesn't have to be holding Lyne even though the RFL laws of the game clearly state that he does. Obviously you know better than the RFL law makers. The issue of effecting a tackle by touching a player on the ground with the hand is for a quite different situation to the one that sounds to have been the case here. Just having contact with the hand would not normally constitute a tackle. Anyway, I believe the 'try' was disallowed so, as you say, "Move on".

Yep i'm sick of talking about it. It was the correct decision though!

No it wasn't!

:1sxwe4g5

As I said earlier - if Reece had kept his cool and got up and carried the ball over the line, the 'broken' tackle would have been at the forefront of the refs mind and the try would have stood; he created doubt by reaching out, and confirmed that doubt by appearing to ground it short.



I like a good ref rant, but if that had been awarded against us, we'd be having the same argument on here, but from the reverse position.