Whilst I am not defending the end result (in my opinion the ball went forward), what are the rules for checking knock ons/flicks/forward passes with the video ref.

My assumption was that passes could not be checked to see if they go forward due the camera angle and flicks are classified as a pass unless the ball hits the floor or an opposing player.

Therefore, should the video ref have been consulted in the first place, and should he have given a decision?

I was debating the call with the old man at the time, so don't know if they discussed it on sky.......either way Stevo will have concluded that he doesn't know his from his elbow.

Oh. I remember this one... makes a change

I don't think he flicked it on, more like he tried to catch it and couldn't, thus knocking it forward, hence it being judged as a knock on.

Perhaps they were trying to nullify the one given at Castleford a few weeks back from the flick pass.

It wasn't a pass, he wasn't tipping it on, he tried to catch it. If he had passed the ball deliberately then the video referee would have been unable to disallow the try, we've seen that happen many a time, like the farcical try you were given at Headingly last year or the year before.

.............but isnt a flick, a knock on, only if it hits the ground or another player?

Well it should come down to the Video Ref's opinion on whether he thought it was an attempted flick pass or knock on. Everybody could see that it wasn't an attempted flick pass so right decision made. Granted they may be a future game sometime when it looks much more of a 50/50 call and depending who the ref is the attack team might get lucky, might not. As with most video decisions it will come down to indivual interpretation.

It wasnt a flick though it was an attempted catch that was knocked on, if a player knocks on and its recovered by the same team its still a knock on.Fair call as far as im concerned.

I am still confused on the rules around video ref intervention. If the flick, irrelevant of what was intended, hit the floor or another player, I could completely understand the video ref being consulted as this would be a knock on.

If the flick doesn't do either of those things then this is not a knock on and must mean it is a pass, and the video ref cannot be consulted.

It's a very minute detail in a woeful performance - I am just un sure on the ruling/regulations on what the video ref can advise on.

you cant go to the video ref for a forward pass because the camera angle can deceive the eye as to when the ball goes forward, if the video ref see a forward movement he will do his best to give a knock on decision

Bottom line is, take a look at the video replay and try to find an excuse to disallow it! That is what the video ref has come to. Bent Ham clearly asked him to "check the grounding" which was fine. We will end up going back 20 plays to disallow a try next

Knock on imo right call.
Saying that RF is right Bentham only asks for the grounding but i'm of the opinion IF we reach the right call then i have no complaints aslong as the incident was within the same play.

It wasn't a knock on, it was a flick pass that went forward. So, for all the wrong reasons the officials got to the right decision. meh.

The Rugby Gods determined that "No Try" was the right decision. The officials made a mockery of the process.

He did actually ask him to check if a knock on when he corrected himself after speaking to linesman.

I still think it was the wrong decision though for the video ref to make, Correct if the ref had made it himself, but not the video ref.

Technically, yes. I think it was one of those occasions where most could see it wasn't a legitimate try but the ref was unsighted; on balance I'd rather the correct decision was reached.

Agreed.

Didn't exactly make a difference anyway.

I think it was the right decision, and the ball so obviously went forward I would have said from the way the ref referred it that he'd have ruled it out without the video ref

Not a chance with that. He was giving it, only to be told by the touch judge about a knock on. His first reaction was to ask the video ref to check the grounding, to which the touch judge then explained himself better then Bentham changed it to knock on in build up.

He saw nothing wrong with the try at real time. Had video ref not been present that would have been given.

i doubt that, as he wouldn't have gone to the VR in the first place. As an aside did anyone else notice Puletua running behind saints players at least once in each half without getting penalised and in each instances the "shepherding" player was very close to the defensive line.

Perhaps without the video referee being on hand Bentham would have given it but he'd have been wrong to do so if he had, IMO.

The touch judge clearly had a question mark over the 'try' but it's equally fair to suggest Bentham may not have been persuaded just as Thaler wasn't persuaded recently in Perpignan - Catalans V Hull KR. It's almost as if the referees have no confidence in their colleagues running the line.

An even clearer example of a knock on than the one ignored by video referee Silverwood at Wheldon Road. Unless Watkins is deemed to be making a deliberate action to tip the ball on to his winger only he (Watkins) can prevent it being ruled a knock on by regaining possession himself - and do so before it hits an opposition player, a team-mate or the ground.

The word "unless" is why it's not a clear example of a knock on.

Because I think a tip on was Watkins intention and because he didn't immediatley rule the try out himself I assume that is what Bentham thought. If a tip on was Watkins intention then the try had to be given by the video ref, even though it went forward, for reasons we all know.

I agree.

The officials have to make a ruling based on their subjective view as to whether they saw Watkin's intend to catch the ball or to tip/flick it on.

Ian Smith with the benefit of replays appeared to rule a knock-on against Watkins so presumably he saw it as the former rather than the latter. I agreed with that interpretation in that instance.

Of course, in instances such as this, nobody bar Watkins really knows so perhaps we're looking for reason's to disallow tries, as an earlier poster said.

In this instance, as I said earlier, they got the right decision for the wrong reasons but it's a slippery slope when we have referee's, many of whom struggle counting to six, interpreting what a player is trying to do when employing certain skills.

It’s a disaster waiting to happen, a loose rule which simply begs for inconsistency.

Whilst everyone feels a little ‘meh’ about it in this situation, now the precedent has been set, in a close game, if a similar thing happens, then whichever decision is made by the VR will be wrong. It is an impossible situation to put our officials in and shouldn’t be, the fact this rule hasn’t been tightened up and the fact that we don’t have a clear and consistent ruling on it is down to one person and their continuing lack of leadership and competence. Mr Cummings.

At least with the Mcguire offload of a few years ago the judgement was consistent and defendable as those are the rules, however wrong it felt to have that try awarded. Now that the VR has shown he can judge a pass to be a knock-on and he can judge on its direction then whenever a similar situation arises the question will be asked as to why he didn’t, and if he did why he couldn’t judge on the direction of a previous forward pass. It is stupid for us to say that the VR can judge on whether or not a pass was intended (something he cant possible, ever, have any way of knowing unless he develops psychic powers) and if it wasn’t then he can judge the direction the ball travelled and if he thinks it was all of a sudden he cant judge which way it travelled.