If you knocked it forward in the process of attempting to take the ball, then later took the ball, it would not be a knock on.

If however, you decided to slap the ball forward over an opposition player's head, and then then ran onto it to gain possession, it would be a knock on.

My post and those of others have already detailed why this was a legitimate try (where speculation doesn't come into it, like those of the opposite opinion), yet we're still going on about it? Dear, oh dear.

It would be nice to know what interpretations the refs are working to instead of trying to guess from their decisions. At one point Thecko was working with a ref who posts on here to try and get permission from the RFL to publish the various edicts sent to refs regarding interpretations.
The RFL said no.

it would be interesting as to mr cummings thoughts on the try, why he thought it was good( if he did etc) just to clarify a dubious decision, i thought i was a good try myself but most people can see both sides of the coin

I'll only comment on the Inglis try which was a shocking VR decision but, considering who the VR was, not surprising.

Maybe the rules need amending like they were when someone headed the ball over the line from a play the ball and scored many years ago. I think the rule was changed as it was seen as unfair to the defending team.

Did Slater gain an unfair advantage by knocking the ball forward over the defenders head. If the answer is yes, whether it was deliberate or not should be irrelevant.