I can happily accept that the ball went back off Briers, therefore play on, if all such instances are treated like so. IMO 80% of players fumbling the ball slightly backwards are given as knock ons. I don't agree with this, if the ball goes backwards, it shouldn't be a knock on IMO.

Oh, and anyone whinging (Mr McDermott included) needs to remember a couple of things. We were on the right end of 2 officiating howlers in the semi final (for both Zak's tries) and we were so comfortably second best on Saturday it doesn't matter what the officials did.

When I first saw the Briers non-knock-on from the drop out, my reaction was one of "how the <expletive> have you not given that."

Having seen the replay, it became more one of "that would have been wrongly called a knock-on 99 times out of 11, just our luck they pick today to get it right."

Ball travelled backwards prior to the bounce for me. No knock on.

Briers hands are moving both upwards and forwards (ie towards the Leeds line) he makes good contact on the ball, the ball is knocked forward from the hand even though it ended behind the player.

That's basically why referees tend to give knock-ons in these instances .... or so I thought.

I can also accept that explanation (again if applied with consistency). For me the telling reaction was from both Briers (flopping to the ground like a salmon) and Morley (walking over to the ball). They both expected a knock on to be given.

When Bennie westwood 'knocked on' when supporting a break, Ratchford kicked the ball on, picked up and was in the act of scoring when the referee called it back. Im pretty certain that if you drew lines across the pitch like they did with the Briers non-knock-on, that ball would be shown to have landed behind where it hit Westwoods hands. I think if Silverwood had allowed the VR to make the decision it probably would have been a try. However IMO if you lose possession and its anything like a 50/50 call then it should be called a knock on. You have made a mistake and so should be punished. Briers should have been penalised for his loss of possession and I think justice was done in the Westwood, Ratchford play. I think the decisions would be much clearer cut if the rule was about losing possession rather than knocking the ball forward.

Wouldn't it be easier to just rule that it's a knock on if it goes forward and not if it doesn't?

As a ref, in games with no video, you're basically screwed if you have to try and rule on the direction a player's hands are pointing at full speed every time the ball comes loose. Direction of travel of the ball won't always be easy to see from all angles, but it's a lot easier than direction of hands!

Not really screwed as players tend to be moving towards their opponents try line most of the time, any fumble when doing so will likely as not follow in the same direction after contact with said player. It shouldn't be difficult to judge the direction the player was travelling and rule knock-ons consistently on that basis.

especially if TJs are given more responsability and actually 'assist' the ref who is unable to give such decisions because of the speed of play and his positioning etc ?

I think thats for forward passes, rather than knock ons

I don't see anything in that passage that can be applied to forward passes.

There is no movement of a player after contact with the ball that can negate a knock on. If the player is moving towards the opposition line when he touches the ball (without also catching it before it hits the ground or an opposing player) it's almost certain to be a knock on, albeit not certain to be given as one.

In commentary they will often remark 'but it's gone backwards, he's got that one wrong' when in actual fact he's made the correct call as it's the player's forward momentum that has overtaken the ball.

I think you're over analysing it. Surely a knock on is only a knock on if it goes forward. If its about imparting some forward momentum on a ball even if it continues in a backwards direction than any time the ball hits the floor its a knock on, even if it lands 5m behind the 'offending' player

That's how I understand it. From a players touch if that balls moves forward, regardless of previous motion, it's a knock-on. Sounds right to me.

Correct they basically are also potential knock ons. A player moving forward towards the opposition's goal-line upon touching a ball in flight with any part of either arm (from shoulder to finger-tip) are liable to be called a knock on unless they regain the ball before it touches the floor or touches an opposing player - hence the desperate attempt (before he slipped) by Briers on Saturday to try to regain possession) knowing he was liable to be adjudged to have knocked on. Irrespective of which direction the ball was heading - he knew because he was facing the Leeds line and thrusting his hands forward he'd be pinged - except on this occassion, as happens in every game every week and probably to every team every week, he got a slice of good fortune.

Had Briers been turned side on or with his back to the Leeds line (I know that's an unlikely scenario in this particlar instance but just as an example) he wouldn't have looked to have knocked on providing the ball ended as it did closer to the Warrington line and wouldn't have expected to get pinged. In that case he'd have probably calmly retreated, collected the ball or let a closer colleague do so and played on without expecting the referee's whistle.

It would never have been given as a 'knock on' in Union
League is just too pedantic with 'knock ons' and should continue to let more go to speed up the game.

A 20 page thread for a ref's call that was correct and wouldn't have had an effect on the game even if he'd have given it the other way

I'm not so sure. When I had to play Union at school, shudder, if you threw the ball up and caught it again it was deemed to be a knock on. I used to tell them then their game was a fooking joke.

League isn't pedantic enough. Too many forward passes and incorrect play the balls are let go as it is without adding knock-ons to the list. Full-time professional players and officials should be better than that surely?

If you'd read it though mate you'd see a lot of Leeds fans agreeing with you. We're discussing the wider issue now, why are so many of these 'knock ons' that actually go backwards given as knock ons?

Haven't read any of the thread though have you? Might have spoiled your fun if you'd done that.

20 pages and you only read the subject title, well done you.

I can accept the correct decision been awarded regarding the Briers' knock on but what i can't tolerate is the fact that the self same incident or similar will occur at a ground this season but that the decision will be the complete opposite and that it will be deemed as going forward

Rugby League fans throughout the game are frustrated due to the simple fact that there is a complete lack of consistency shown each week in the referees decision making, is it me or has this frustration got worse under Stuart Cummings?

And this is why so many Leeds supporters got frustrated over this particular incident - we see the exact same thing happen week in, week out and 95% of those incidents are given as a knock-on.

95%?

100% yes

Interesting that Bentham chose to ignore this apparent new advice and revert back to the old interpretation tonight for the catalans no try. Ie. calling Wigan te defending team even though cats never actually took possession.

Was he wrong tonight then?

If not then surely he must have been wrong at the cup final?

I noticed that a couple of 'knock ons' by either side tonight which went slightly behind (ala Briers at Wembley) were given as play on. As long as there is consistency that's fine by me.