Firstly its called "ROLLING" and secondly he was on his front, rolled onto his back and then his arm continued outwards to place the ball down. He was on his back when he scored (IIRC). It was the fact that at no point in the whole chain of events did he stop or change direction of imputuss. Hence the BotD decision.

The act of stretching his arm out from the position of been tucked underneath him is where the double movement occurred. Not the roll.

I thought Huddersfield were on the end of some very dubious decisions yesterday, however, the spilt balls were nothing to do with officialdom.



It was interesting hearing Nathan Brown saying the team decided on the way they played the game, I thought that was his job!

momentum has to stop before you can call a double movement doesnt it? if so a try with BoD was the right call!!

BoTD was a ridiculous decision as there was nothing that the video ref could not see, he can see the ball carrying arm down and the subsequent movement, he has to decide whether that was a double movement or not. He could decide Try or No Try and whatever he chose some would disagree, however there was no act that he could not see, so why BoTD.



From my vantage point behind the sticks I thought clear double movement, but I am biased. What was more interesting was Silverwood's actions. Danny Brough was having a moan, pointing at the screen, watching the screen Silverwood was still talking to DB and appeared to agree with him. He then actually moved out of in goal to a position to award a penalty.



Before the decision came up on the screen his hand went to his earpiece and he appeared to be querying the decision. By the look on his face as he was talking I very much got the impression that he did not agree. Again as pointed out by others this was a different interpretation to Ryan Hall's "no try" the previous day.



Fortunately in the long run it did not matter in this match, but the VR decisions need to be less controversial for the health of the game - remeber the Grand Final offside try a couple of years back? It would be better for the game to have Silverwood or whomsoever make a decision as they see it, right or wrong, than delay the game to still often get it wrong (either the Carvell or Hall decision was wrong as they were different interpretations of very similar actions)

if there were video refs at each game, this sort of thing wouldn't happen.......

I blame Robert Hicks.

Who doesn't?

Here's a thought that I "put out there" a while ago. If there is video at each game, why not leave the decision still in the refs hands. During Warrington v Catalan game the ref seemed to decide to consult with his touchjudges after a high shot after watching it on the screen. The ref can see what the VR sees and knows what it is he isnt sure about. Silverwood was clearly heard to ask the VR to "check the grounding" not "to check for a double movement". Did the VR overstep the request made of him ?

The cost of the screen at every ground and every SL game will be very high. Video refs at every game without the screen will be more viable and cost effective.

That is correct.



The rule is that a player who has forward motion is not tackled at the point where his ball carrying arm hits the ground, but at the point where his motion stops.



The laws are not clear cut on this point, and there are two different sections that address the same area. However, firstly, it was definitely NOT the case that he was stopped short, but reached over the line to ground the ball. His movement, i.e. the roll, was what took him over the line.



Once over the line, he is permitted to ground the ball.







The debate should therefore be whether he was stopped short of the line, or whether his momentum got him over the line.



If he had been stopped a foot before the line, and then twisted and reached over to ground, then a definite penalty, but he didn't.



Watched at normal speed there didn't seem to be any obvious stop in his forward motion, and so the decision seems perfectly reasonable, if you take the time to read the actual Laws.

OK fair enough. Slight variation then......"when there is a screen available, let the decision remain with the referee". Or even employ a system similiar to NFL where the ref himself can review a monitor at the side of the pitch.