All this whingeing about referee decisions … have we all suddenly become Australian?

Well he is that good

It does seem somewhat unlikely, doesn't it?

Both tries, the Slater one definitely as no rule was broken, the Inglis one less obvious but there was no reason to disallow it.

Ok, so someone throws you a pass. It's a poor pass and you can't take it cleanly, but you can just about reach it. You stick an arm out and bat the ball up and forward with your outstretched hand, catching it cleanly a moment later as you run onto it.

Knock on?

Even though the game kicked off at 7.30pm in the dark

Not if you knocked it on accidently (i.e. whilst trying to catch it).

If you did it on purpose however....

You HAVE knocked it forward deliberately - in order to catch it. It's like juggling the ball before you gather it - you're deliberately keeping the ball close so you can eventually gather it.

I've never seen a penalty given for someone not catching cleanly, juggling the ball so it leaves his hand and moves forward before gathering it.

A deliberate knock-on is different to accidentally knocking on when trying to catch the ball. If a player deliberately knocked on instead of trying to catch the ball he would be penalised. I've too have never seen a penalty for this but then I've never seen a player deliberately knock-on.

Only if the ball has been accidentally knocked on can play continue if the player regains or kicks the ball. Or, apparently, if the player slaps the ball backwards in a new interpretation of the rules (one I've never seen before and that I suspect we wont see next season).

If you bobble the ball from a pass off your chest and both your hands and then catch it and score - is it a try? - Yes.

Oh, and his second play at the ball was also a knock-on:



So he played at the ball two times. Both times he knocked the ball [itowards the opponents' dead ball line[/i. Two knock-ons and he definitely didn't regain or kick the ball after the second knock-on...

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.

You mean like what Kerion O'Laughlin did in the 1984 CC final for Widnes' first try?


Which was given.

Knock it forward on purpose? Well yes, I reckon he did. Unless he had size 40 velcro'd hands he couldn't have caught it. One thing he certainly didn't try to do is 'palm it back', that much is plain from the fact that that's not the action his hand and arm did. It is bleedin' obvious if someone has tried to palm a ball backwards. Isn't it?

But I don't [iknow[/i if he definitely did it on purpose, it is just how it plainly looked to me, and I should have thought anyone.



You need to turn your sarcasm dial down, it's at 11.

I don't think you're far off, though, I reckon he intended to bat it on a short way (as he couldn't obviously catch it first time) and then catch it and drop for a try. But ended up batting it too far, so then decided to palm it back.

You maintain that the first contact was just in fact no more than a fsck-up, then?


I do wish it were possible to have threads where there is a bona fide discussion of rules and decisions without it being called "whingeing". It seems to be discussing decisions about key moments for its own sake on on their won merits, to me. Nobody is saying we lost because of tehse decisions for example. Why can't we discuss laws rules and rulings without being ludicrously and inexplicably accused of "whingeing"?

^Everything, and I mean absolutely everything, he said.

5 pages on and it happened 2 days ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's finished, its done, it will not return and IT WILL NOT CHANGE!!!

GET A LIFE people

Reaches to contest the ball.

Ball ricochets off of Slaters hand in the direction of the dead ball line. Currently under Slater's posession "loose" he is not in full control, similar to a fumble, allowed to be recollected unless in contact with a foreign object (Slater does not count

), whih would be a knock on if Slater did not collect.

Slater regathers the ball whilst technically still within the pitch (last contact with ground was on the floor within the pitch).

He is now in posession of the ball just within the pitch, and has enough control to propell it backwards relative to the position of his foot when he jumped, constituting a pass.

Smith collects and scores.

Very good try, and whomever commented about basketball, running off the side of the pitch without touching the ground outside of the pitch, then passing it before you touch the ground is fully legit, and may I add awesome, and is a great tactic if pulled off. I commend that little !$£@*^& Slater

Which is a knock-on.



Until it hits a foreign object play can continue [iafter[/i the knock-on if he regains possession. He doesn't regather, he knocks the ball, for a second time, towards the dead ball line (he and the ball are past the dead ball line but still in play at this point).

Mind you, you're bound to find some argumentative enough to tell you that "regaining possession" doesn't actually mean that, and knocking the ball a second time equals regaining possession!

There was a time when occasionally our refereeing supremos would be brave enough to stick their heads over the parapet and explain these highly contentious rulings, for the benefit and elucidation of us great unwashed, and not least to clarify the rules - I mean to put it at the very least, these decisions have been controversial, and the arguments continue. Are the rules supposed to be a mystery for the paying speccies?

And if they agree fsck-ups were made, then it would be nice of them to say so.

If they say the stuff was legal and why, then we can all know for future reference.

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.