Read it [url=http://leeds.rlfans.com/readarticle.php?article_id=1766here[/url....

The hood try did look short but the only angle they showed it from was probably the worst view in the ground

That wasn't mentioned on SSN when I got in, but they stated that one of Hall's try followed a knock on from Hardaker. No 'possible' as a prefix.

Whilst I agree it was a 50/50 call, they should not have been quite so definite.

Anyway, a win's a win. Hope Hardaker has got the bad game out of his system.

Fair call on Hardaker, and I also think that Webb is just as likely to be dangerous to us as being dangerous to the opposition.

Couldn't see the screen for most of the game due to inconsiderate fans in the way, and I've never been surrounded by so many plebs in my memory

You should have been at the pub we were prior to the game. The repeated chants of 'Who Let The Jews Out' were [ihilarious[/i. Well, if you're an ignorant moron.

Amazing!they dont alter do they?I remember a semifinal in the 70s at Headingley and Cas were playing,I and some mates were in the Southstand and heard this slashing sound and my mate turned round and shouted F off you dirty sos and so it was a drunken Cas fan too drunk to go the Loo did it right there behind us.It was a case of who let the pigs out that day

In rugby league that was a knock on, 100% of the time IMO. No need for any commentators to sit on the fence if they share that view. Richard Silverwood has in the past two week's sent a player off in dubious circumstances and allowed a try that should have been ruled out.

By contrast James Child, I thought, had a very good game overall.

_________

I agree with others that the Hood score looked short but these things can alter dramatically sometimes when viewed from alternative angles - strangely Sky chose not to show any that I can recall.

That said Hood did appear to feel the need to promote the ball. Read into that what you like.

I am sorry that some of our so-called supporters have stooped to that disgraceful level. I was hoping that I would not ever hear any of that anti-semitic crap being sung at Leeds fans. Sadly I am wrong.

Never feel the need to apologise for a moronic minority who attach themselves to the same club you follow, DMW. You're a credit to your club and have nothing to apologise for.

I was in the Leeds end, we all have "our" vocal minorities

Except last night was a Rugby League match and it was NOT ruled a knock on by the match officials.

Had the ball gone to Hall's hand cleanly without touching the floor would it have been any different to Dureau's tip on to Millard for last week's match winning try?

Thats ok people are people ,no matter what community they come from .best wishes

If the ball hadn't hit the floor, it couldn't have been referred to the video ref though.

Having seen so many replays just as Hardaker makes contact with his fingertips his foot hits the line yet the ball lands behind the line THEN bobbles forward.
It's one that won't always get a knock on call and on friday we got the benefit of that.

Agreed. Did the VR allow it because although the ball did finally bounce forward it was taken by Hall before it touched the ground again?

The ref's interpret that knock-on in different ways ways. If the ball goes backwards then bounces forwards, but still behind the passer, it did not used to count as a forward pass but it now usually does. This seems wrong IMO.

For example a player is standing on the half way line and throws the ball directly backwards towards his full back standing on the 20m line, but the ball bounces on front of the FB and bounces forward a little before the FB gathers it - Is this a forward pass?

As I said it was a knock on in my opinion 100% of the time so I'm not altogether sure why you have introduced match officials in your reply to my specific comment.

Do you think it was a knock on?



Yes it would for the following reason. Dureau's tip on appeared to be a deliberate act and as the ball was propelled backwards by Dureau there was no suggestion of it being a knock on, not even in the eyes of Steve Ganson.

Hardaker did not appear to make a similar neccessary action to turn a touch on into a pass. His appeared to be an attempt to catch the ball so an entirely different interpretation needs to be applied.

In order for a knock on to be ruled the ball only has to move forward from the point of contact and as Hardaker was travelling towards the Castleford tryline it is invariably almost impossible for the ball not to be moved in that same direction.

__________



IMO Hardaker's touch was not intended as a pass, which is why I'm judging it to be a knock on. It has always been the case that you have to view the two (forward pass and knock on) quite seperately.



Referees will make mistakes. I'm less understanding when it's a video referee that makes them.

It was more the "In Rugby league that is a knock on 100%" aspect. Friday was Rugby League and many disagree with your opinion, inluding the match officials. Child shouted "that's OK" (so why even go to the VR) and the VR agreed with Child.

Yes.

For the sake of consistency, you would hope a knock on is ruled every time.

However, once the game embraces the millimetre precision of the video referee you are going to get rulings like that one. The ball was passed from one side of the white line, travelled backwards, and landed the other side of the white line before bouncing forwards. We know bouncing forwards is irrelevant according to the laws, and that suggests it wasn't knocked forwards enough to offset the original trajectory.

On that evidence Silverwood is going to have great difficulty ruling that the ball was propelled towards the opponents try line whilst on its journey.

Do you think Hardaker knocked on?



That precision was off in this particular ruling. Hardaker's direction of travel at the point of contact was towards the Castleford line. The ball clearly deflects forward off Hardaker's hand. That is the relevant part when deciding whether it was a knock on.



The ball from Webb was a legal pass travelling at a greater velocity than Hardaker was able to impart on it so although the ball went backwards overall it still travelled forward after contacting Hardaker's hand.

It was a bread and butter decision that I'd expect Silverwood (or any other video referee) to make correctly. There are many knock ons ruled where the ball travels backwards in relation to a players movement.

Cummings explanation (should there be on) will be interesting.

You can add John Kear to the match officials who thought it was not a knock on.

I think for the sake of consistency it should have been given as a knock on. Was the ball actually propelled forward? Possibly, and that it a judgement call that was no way as clear cut as was being made out by Waldorf & Statler, as well as others.

I have explained why I think both match officials ruled it legal, what do you think was the basis of their ruling?

While I agree it was a judgement call as far as they go I felt it was an easy one to make. The opinions expressed by any pundit has no bearing on my view of the incident.



If Child ruled it legal he didn't do so with any conviction otherwise he'd have awarded the try rather than hand the decision on. Had Leeds not scored from the play then I assume it would have been play on but Child obviously felt he may have made a mistake and wisely took the option of seeking a second opinion.

I'm struggling to understand Silverwood's ruling. He was asked to rule on a possible knock on and if the direction of the ball wasn't towards the Castleford line from Hardaker's touch then it's perhaps time to re-write the laws of physics. If that wasn't a knock on I'm also left wondering why Mick Withers was called back for one in the 1999 Grand Final.

Cue the Bradford chairman asking for the trophy back from St Helens in the morning.

Personally I looked at the video several times and couldn't find a conclusive angle. Hardakers feet were well behind where the ball bounced so it looks a blatent knoco on. However, his arms were pretty much at full stretch when he touched the ball, which adds about a metre. With no overhead angle you can't really judge if it goes forward, so I would say Try BOD, which wasn't shown by the VR

I totally agree.
Unlike tvoc I don't think it was a clear knock on, certainly not from any of the angles we were shown on tv.
Do I think it was a knock on? Probably.
Would I have been disappointed had that been given against us? Yes.
What happened to Withers in 1999 is utterly irrelevant, it simply proves tvoc's powers of recall.
FWIW I thought Child's officiated the game well. The PTBs were much tidier than those in the Bulls vs Wolves game.
He picked up most of the high shots & seems to be developing more of a rapport with the players.
I hope he continues to develop & I see comparisons with Kirkpatrick.
He started off in similar fashion, incurring the wrath of players & fans alike but became one of the best referees before he felt compelled to give it up due to work commitments.

I can quite easily see why many are saying knock on. But set in the context of what regularly gets judged flat or backwards when the ball is passed cleanly no-one should be surprised that the try was given.