Deserves its own thread I think.

Slater clearly intentionally knocked the ball forward for himself.

Now we all know that a knock on does not need to touch the opposition or the ground, so surely an intentional knock on like this should not have been allowed?

It's akin to a player throwing the ball fowards over the defender's heads only to then run onto it and receive it.

Changed the game too it did.

The knock on push against Sam Tomkins changed the game but I think that try you refer to was good quick thinking. An England player would never dream of thinking that quick.

I'm not sure if it should be classed as a knock on, I'm one who thinks a knock on should be deemed by the ball touching the ground.

I dont care if people are waxing lyrical about it being the best try of the 4 Nations or whatever.

Get back to the days when you had to ground the ball properly (with downward pressure and control).

Was never a try.

Yeah that try was more contentious.

The best team won, can't argue with that. But they don't need any help walking up the pitch. Sam Tomkins got hammered by Slater and pushed over later on whilst playing the ball. Both times it went against him. Add to that a couple of dubious tries and you almost despair. The game was gone after all that.

good try imo.

But he clearly intentionally knocked it miles forward!

Can't agree more, that was basketball not rugby league.

Ridiculous.

And given the comment from Stevo about ball travelling forward etc etc. shouldn't have been given.

However.....................

Not sure about intentional - I think he made a mess of trying to catch it in the first instance. However in doing so he clearly knocked the ball forward and didn't subsequently regain or kick it so that's a knock on.

I suppose his intentions are irrelevent.

He clearly knocked on and never regained the ball, so you're right. It was a knock on!

And the Aussies were only six up when this happened.

Agreed I find the "modern try" as frustrating as the fact football is a non contact sport anymore. Whatever happened to grounding the ball with your hands, as opposed to flying through the air like a fighter jet and bouncing it in goal ?

No Try..

As far as i'm aware the ball has to make contact with something or someone other than youself for it to be a knock on. Players fumble and regather all the time.

I must agree with this fingertip control rubbish. Whatever happened to CONTROLLED downward movement over the line. I've seen a shed load of trys this year which IMO were never grounded with any sort of control of the ball but the video ref always gives them. It seems all you need is to touch the ball with the edge of you little finger nail for it to count.

So what about when players mishandle the ball and kick it before it hits the floor? never given as a knock on - deemed a legit kick.

nothing wrong with it IMO, just great determination and more than a bit of skill.

If we'd have done that there would have been nowt said, apart from what a great piece of play it was!

We do? That's not a rule i can remember clearly.

Well, to clarify:



A knock-on happens when the ball is knocked forward regardless of what happens after that.
This is slightly confused by the fact that play may continue [iafter[/i a knock-on if the player who knocked on regains or kicks the ball:



Slater knocked on. He didn't then regain or kick the ball. It should have been a 20 metre restart.

I think it was a great try that showed inventiveness and quick thinking at a time when our players looked out on their feet.

I don't agree that a player shouldn't be able to recover a potential 'knock-on' before the ball hits another object. It removes a very interesting aspect of the game for me, whether it be luck or skill.

Thank god i wasn't on my own in thinking it should never have been allowed. The video ref hardly even looked at it and it was a totally blatent knock on.

As for the Inglis try

I've never been as stunned at a decision but since i've got home and seen it on the tv I could see why he looked at it so many times(i still don't think it was a try though. It would never have been given a couple of years back).

What about the Inglis non-try ?

He had no control whatsoever of the ball !

well i think the hayne 'observing' may have had something to do with that one

It's stupid that trys like that are being given on a regular basis at the moment. He simply didn't ground the ball properly but you don't have to anymore for some reason.

It gets my back up that every single dropped ball in open play seems to be called a knock on nowadays even if it's gone back yet they're allowing trys like that.

It needs looking at.

One could argue that he did "regain" it as he was able to knock it back, so he was in "control" of the ball before it hit the deck or another player. I don't think it was a knock-on.

Are you guys serious? That was a try and I didn't think there could be any question about it. The only thing that could possibly make it a no-try is if Slater deliberately knocked it forward. First and foremost, it didn't look like he did it intentionally at all, and secondly, why the hell would he? It's like saying Inglis purposely knocked it over the dead ball line during last year's Centenary Test just so he could make the highlights for the next century.

That's T-R-Y, my friends.

that was no try,when are the VR gunna get it right.

He juggled it trying to get control. Once he did, he realised he was going to go dead and tossed the ball back in field. 100% legitimate, 100% try.

The Inglis one I thought looked dodgy, but surely if the video ref has to look that often it's benefit-of-the-doubt.