exactly. hence my sarcasm regarding the 'drop goal attempt' defence

A half volley kick is a skill, well done. And it takes considerably more skill to do and control it than a kick straight from the boot. So what is the bloody point when it is quicker and easier to go straight from the boot? Answer is that there is no point, and no player intentionally drops the ball before kicking it unless it's for a goal or a restart.

As for the comment a poster made about 50% of tributes probably hit the floor first, that is absolute rubbish of the highest order and the poster clearly doesn't watch RL very often or closely.

He didn't drop kick it, he dropped it and kicked it.

Correct decision by Stevie G!

If you believe that he dropped it inadvertently and then kicked it then I agree it's a knock on because he didn't kick it before it hit the ground, as required by the rules in those circumstances.

My view was that he dropped it deliberately with an intent to kick it and then executed a legal drop kick as described by the laws of the game. Whether he improvised that drop kick as opposed to a punt because his timing was disrupted by the tackler is an irrelevance.

The question asked by Alibert of Ganson was the wrong one - he should have asked if the ball was knocked on, not whether it had hit the ground before being kicked.

Your view is total bollox , he knocked on , it doesn't matter what you assume he was intending to do

He knocked on

Explain to me your understanding of why his actions constituted a knock on.

and went in for the 'try'.

If any player loses control of the football in a forward motion and it touches the floor or another player it is automatically deemed a knock on. McGuire had no control of that football, and it was only by chance he managed to get his foot to it.

Nobody is saying he wasn't intending to kick it, Your argument is both inane and ridiculous at the same time.

Answer me this, had the ball bounced six inches in the air and them McGuire kicked it, would it still have been a try, in your eyes?

Yes it does matter. If the VR thought McGuire had been attempting a drop kick then he would have given play on as (as Steve Fox has pointed out) it would have qualified as a drop kick. Since McGuire was obviously attempting a grubber or some other type of kick and was disrupted by Tomkins effort then it was rightly given as a knock-on. In this case, like in several rules in RL, McGuire's intentions were vital to the correct decision being reached.

I also think that if this were a non-VR game that the try would have been given.

I also don't see any Leeds fans hoping Sam Tomkins career is over. But hey, most rugby league fans can keep things in perspective.

His intentions are irrelevant , he knocked on , the touch judge saw that he knocked on and asked Mr Alibert to check with the VR , if it had not been a televised game there would have been an in goal touch judge , he most likely would have seen it as well , even in real time I said he knocked on

He dropped the ball

The Leeds players walking forward before the decision was shown is enough proof for me that it was a knock on.

In which case every drop kick is also a knock on by that logic.

In theory yes , something I have pointed out on here before

There is no other use of a a drop kick in open play other than to go for goal. I can't find where I've seen it, but I was told about this when I did a referee's course. Any other time is a knock on.

It's not difficult to police. Similar rules are used without controversy in the game. A charge down isn't a knock on, but if he tries to catch in and then drops it it is.
A penalty kick from a tee has to be an attempt at goal, they can't kick for the corner.

So a combination of the two. A drop kick in open play is a knock on unless they are going for goal.
I have never seen one intentional incident where someone has used a drop kick in open play that wasn't a goal attempt.

I agree, so it comes down to what McGuire's intentions & what he was attempting to do. I was responding to Starbug's assertion that McGuire's intentions were irrelevant when in fact what McGuire was attempting to do is the crux of the matter.

Due to the situation, position on the field, scoreline etc he obviously wasnt going for a drop goal he was attempting a grubber and due to pressure from Tomkins didn't get it right. So knock on was the correct call IMO.

It was irrelivant because he didnt do a drop kick , he wasnt intending to do a drop kick , he dropped the ball and then kicked it

That's exactly how I see it, and I'm sure I've also been told this in the past.

I'm not sure why certain people are still convinced they're somehow more insightful than the match officials, players, commentators, the media and indeed most fans (neutral or otherwise - even on here).

He dropped it. It hit the floor and bounced. That immediately constitutes a knock-on. That his foot then connected is irrelevant. Trying to claim some form of accidental drop-kick is frankly laughable.

Which is what a drop kick is - a kick on the half volley.

He never intended to do a drop kick though. He clearly wasn't going for goal. So it was a knock on.

He did actually do a drop kick, because he wasn't intending to do a drop kick is why it was a knock on.

It is McGuire's intentions that caused it to be a knock on not his physical actions.

No he dropped it , then kicked it , it was nowhere near being a ' drop kick '

Anyway , you lost end of

Good lord you're as bad as Smokey!


McGuire's physical actions, taking the situation he was in out of the equation, adequately fulfill the criteria for a drop kick. It was his intentions, the fact he intended to grubber rather drop kick, that made it a knock on. In the same way that a defender making a play to stop an attacker passing is judged to have knocked on yet another defender making exactly the same physical actions can make a tackle and in doing so stop an attacker passing but not be judges to have knocked on. Both players knocked the ball forward, both players actions were exactly the same, it is the players' diferring intentions not their physical actions which leads to the different decisions.


No I didn't. I didn't play in that game.
The club I support lost to a very good team, I'll deal with it, it is only a game after all.
Plus, as a Leeds fan, I have plenty of experience to draw on when losing to Wigan.

This has happened in both games for Hull against St Helens and in both games the rule has been overlooked, much to the fury of the Hull fans. It wouldn't annoy me so much if both weren't so blatantly obvious, and one actually ended up setting Saints up in a good position which they capitalised on.

Ah well. Win some, lose some (and in the first case... draw some!).

Yep well we're then into the issue of how the officials uphold the rules! I think most people are agreed on that the TJ's need to give the ref more/better help.

There also seems to be a habit at the moment of refs giving another set of 6 everytime a kick hits an opposition player, when in many cases they havent played at the ball. It seems the default position seems to be to give an extra set. Which comes back to old Uncle Stu, our friendly Match Officials Director, recently relocated to the south of France.

Making a movement towards the ball (even before it is in the air off the kicker's foot) is now treated as "playing" at it IIRC.

So if you take a few steps forward out of the defensive line to close the kicker down in case he chooses to run it and he then subsequently smacks the ball straight at you, the attacking team gets another set of six if they can recover it.

A ludicrous interpretation IMO, which sees players who are virtually stood still with their back to the kicker being classed as having made a charge down.

Someone needs to get Starbug to sit down and watch some drop goal attempts frame by frame. I'm guessing that in the majority you'll find at least one frame (so that's what - 1/32 of a second?) where the ball is on the floor and not in contact with the kicker's foot. Presumably in his world those are all knock-ons?