There is a rules committee that meets several times throughout the off season. They essentially outline how rules will be interpreted and enforced. Whilst i dont agree with most of their decisions of how rules should be interpreted, i don't overly care so long as the outlined interpretation is consistent. The tackled in the air not being a penalty try is consistent with past rulings and in line with the what the rules committee's interpretation.I'm pretty sure that he didn't have control grounding, but if it was acknowledge that he was tackled/interfered with in the air and you could see Kelma's arm being grabbed which caused him to lose control of the ball then surely it should have been a penalty try.
Alternatively if it was a penalty in a try scoring situation is that not a professional foul and 10 in the bin?
Help me Mr Annusley, I am confused.
Basically they felt the need to protect attacking players when in the air but agreed that the defender has little option when beaten in a contest but to attempt to defend the try so we are left with the interpretation that we have seen today.
Another is side-on 'shoulder charges' by cover defenders attempting to bump an attacker over the sideline is a penalty, but not the penalty try or sin-bin that typical shoulder chargers or penalties that stop a try being scored are.