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)

If somebody tripped up and a defender put a hand/finger/thumb on him [iat the same time as the ball carrying arm was touching the floor[/i then the tackle would be complete.



If Turner hadn't have been touching Burgess then he could have crawled over the line and the ball carrying arm could have touched the floor as many times as he wanted.

Watching it live, I thought it was 50/50. Watching the reply makes me thing more that it was a try because in my view:



1) Burgess' arm hit the floor but neither tackler seems to have contact with him.

2) Burgess moves to dive for the try line, as he is moving forward the contact is made and his arm is still, just touching the floor.

3) This would be tackle complete in my eyes if he hadn't been moving forward in a continual motion.



If contact is made at point 1, it's a double movement. Otherwise, I just don't see it as it's the continuation of a movement without forward momentum being stopped.

According to the rules it wasnt a try, end of

The rest of his body can be doing whatever it likes, but if there is contact from the defender AND the ball carrying arm touching the floor, as you have admitted there is, then NO TRY is the correct decision.



Anyway, people are talking about this as though Wigan would have automatically won had it been given. Every event that takes place on a rugby field is directly affected by that has gone before it.

Therefore had the Burgess try been given, the 2nd Charnley try may not have happened as the Burgess try would have completed altered all that went on after it.

So, in your scenario a player who is tackled 5 meters out and slides with his arm on the floor over the try line is tacked at 5m and it's a penalty.



What's the admission btw? My view is that Burgess was contacted by the tackling player while there was clear forward motion in a single movement - contact happened after the initial grounding and after he had started with the forward momentum.



As for predicting the future movements, you could just as easily say what Wigan would have gone on to score two more. There's no point in making up imagined timelines to support your view, this thread is about a specific try decision.

Not if it was all one movement and his momentum wasn't stopped. However the momentum of Burgess had been stopped, otherwise he wouldn't have had to consciously lift his arm up off the floor and crawl over the line.







It wasn't a single movement though was it? His arm hit the floor and the defender made contact with him before he then made the 2nd movement of lifting the arm up; hence the term double movement.







I'm not making anything up; I'm simply stating that even if the try had been given there is no guarantee Wigan would have won. But I take your point that that is irrelevant to the discussion re. the decision itself.