Can anyone explain why our try at the end of the first half was disallowed? As I see it, Joe passed forward and the ball was caught before the ball hit the floor or an opponent therefore it would be a forward pass, and the video ref could not possibly action anything about this under their own rule? Answers please

He gave a knock-on I think, but I stand to be corrected. That thought did cross my mind too though.

Pushing the ball forward with your fingers is not considered a pass in RL, but classed as a knock on!

Good point, and one I missed. In terms of justice it wasn't a try because it was a yard forward off Westy's hand. You're right though - they can't use the video ref for forward passes.

Unless it's a Cas decision and a Wakey ref of course.

No attempt to pass was made, knock on.

Looked like a rush-pass attempt to me. It probably needed a different shirt colour to make it look convincing though.

unless your warrington..

It was the same as the Leeds disallowed try against Bradford at Easter.

It was a knock on. He never had control of the ball at any stage for it to be called a pass. The ball hit his hand and went forward and was caught by another player.

Knock on.

I don't think anyone's saying it should have stood, mate. Natural justice concedes there was an infringement in play which ruled out the try. TBH though, it seems a little oblique to infer that infringement was in fact a 'clear knock on', purely to justify the act of going to the screen. It certainly wasn't clear by any definition, and for Thaler to miss so much else in the game yet pick up on this particular nuance of this particular play seems a tad beyond the credible for me. It strikes me that, ordinarily, a ref would have either called that play as forward on the spot (the 'just' outcome, in this case) or - much more likely - would have let the try stand.

TBH I think in a non TV game they would probably have blown straight away and the fans would hav gone mad.

There was quite a lengthy debate about this after that Leeds game, with some fans claiming the VR couldn't disallow it as it was a pass rather than a knock on, and he can;t rule on a forward pass.

My take on it (and obviously the ref's too) is that the player (in both cases) did not have hold of the ball, so isn't actually passing the ball. If it is deemed the ball has gone forward it is a knock on. IMO in instances like this, unless the player has held the ball at any stage then the VR is well within his rights to call a knock on.

As you stated, the ball clearly went forward (I only watched on TV but called it instantly, and was glad that he got over the line, as had he been stopped short and you scoring on the next tackle, it would have stood).

My point saying it was a clear knock on was not to be dismissive, but when you look at it, it hit's his hand, and travels forward, collected by another player, remove the whole debate about whether this is a pass and that has 100% of the characteristics of a knock on.

The call went to the video ref so Thaler can't be the one to blame. He asked if there was a knock on in the build up and the video ref deemed Westerman did indeed knock the ball forward. As someone said he didn't attempt to pass the ball at all, the ball came off his hand and went forward then Ferres caught it, ruling knock on. Good game for the cameras again, Wire certainly a side on the up, thought you missed Shifty a lot. The way to beat Warrington is by passing the ball out to the fringes, out there their defence is appalling with players hanging back, others shooting in its just a shambles. every time you moved the ball they looked bamboozled. Top game from Owen and if McGoldrick concentrated on the game more instead of the refs calls and stuff he'd be even better than he already is.

...As a forward pass no doubt?


I think you're missing the point. The thread's not about how we choose to debate 'what was'.. the thread's about how the ref could have possibly been sharp enough to call this particular alleged knock on or not. Especially when he's proved himself to be not particularly 'sharp' over he course of any given full 80 this year.

I'm sure that (broadly speaking) Wire fans will be happy to give Thaler the benefit of this particular doubt (while at the same time calling him blind for numerous other incidents) and Cas fans will refuse to believe that anyone could ever be so insightful after proving himself so inept at spotting the run of the mill decisions during the game's other 79.9 minutes.

Still. Sh*t happens....

do you want to explain that?

It is a huge grey area this one for me and I've raised it before, only as it infuriates me how illogical it is.
No-one doubts that the correct decision was made as anyone watching could tell immediately tht the ball went forward from Westy, BUT if a video ref can adjuge that the ball went forward from Westys hand and into Ferres' without touching the floor then surely to God the video ref can make decisions on forward passes.
Also, if it's not a forward pass, but a knock on, is there even such a thing as a forward pass all forward? Surely all forward passes are knock on's. The mind boggles!!

A pass is deliberate and a knock on is accidental.

Is that why your so good

Not strictly true. A knock-on can be deliberate, for example when a player deliberately bats down a ball to stop it reaching an opponent. In these instances the referee should give a penalty for a deliberate knock-on, but when was the last time anyone ever saw that happen?

Back to the original point. I can't see any way in which anyone, except for the most blinkered fan, can claim that Westerman passed or attempted to pass the ball. In order to pass a ball you must first have some form of control over the ball - something Westerman never had. The ball came across him and he put his hand out, it hit his hand and went forward. Knock-on.

Are we trying to say that an accidental knock on should be play on? or have I misread this post

Than most of your passes will be Forward anyway..

I think you missed the point. There is supposedly a difference between an accidental knock-on (resulting in scrum or handover) and a deliberate knock-on (resulting in a penalty). However, although I am sure I have seen many deliberate knock-ons, I have never seen a penalty given for any of them.

Correct. That had no characteristics of a pass. It had 100% of the characteristics of a knock on. (I did have this exact opinion after the Leeds v Bradford game btw, so it isn;t just because it was my team tonight). The fact that this decision has been given twice by the VR in the last 10 weeks or so confims it is correct,as they would have discussed that one in training.

The fact is that Westerman did not pass that ball.

Was that the original point? The OP asked why the decision was given, so it was actually a quite open thread. I have gone into why it was the correct decision (same as the Leeds/Bradford one).

I'm not sure why you are pulling Thaler on this one. He suspected a knock on and asked for it. So he did spot it. You may say he wouldn't have given it had there been no VR, but that is the same for every TV game.

In general I don't bother criticising refs, as it usually balances out, as I thought it did last night. There were plenty of things we were lucky with, but then I could also list things that you were lucky with. It's generally not worth ref bashing (as you have acknowledged on this thread I think).

One last point, I only watched this game on TV (like most Wire fans by the sounds of it) but the commentators didn;t feel it was a controversialone at all, and the decision was pretty clear cut.

No, I haven't either. I had this debate on another board recently, where I was under the impression it was a Union-only rule, but somebody actually quoted from the rule book that an intentional knock on is a penalty offence.

IMO it is wrong that this rule is still in the rulebook but is ignored.

Clear knock on, I called it from 70 yards away, got to agree the ref would have pulled it back if the screen hadn't been there. He was just adding to the drama for Sky in my book

What would he have done if he was tackled just before the line then score on the next play????

Sorry, I don't agree. There's no way Thaler could know what Westerman was thinking - certainly not enough to instantly judge the potential offence as a knock on (rather than a forward pass). A knock on leaves the hand, goes forward and touches the floor, a post or an opposition player. If it leaves the hand, goes forward and is caught by a team member then it's a forward pass. Whatever the rulebook states, it's been interpreted in this pretty clear cut way for as long as I can remember, so all this 'intent' talk just seems a smokescreen to me.

Of course the distinction between the two only really matters because one is video reviewable while the other isn't. In the end it wouldn't have made much difference but I very much doubt another referee would have done anything other than "Sorry Mr Briers, I can't go to the screen for forward passes".