I'm confused.

It isn't broken. Don't need fixing.

I don't think that there is anything with the law as written and agree that many fans don't really fully understand the law (I have lost count of the number of people who don't understand that the ball does not have to hit the floor to be knocked-on) as well the bald-headed bloke who does talk out of his bottom.

I know all laws rely on a certain amount on the ref's 'opinion and how he see's it at the time, but along with fowarded passes (which is most passes made by the visiting side to Stains

) I think these are the most disputted of laws.

If you remove the most subjective elment of this law, does this make the game better or worse?

That is the best reason for not changing anything, and agree with you and TVOC that it is not broken but I could argue that I am not fixing it but improving an existing law. Also, it could be making things worse... still not sure!

Maybe my ramblings and argument about making a law easier for ref's to use/implement is the wrong one and what we need are more consistant refs... but how long have we talke about that!

Don't referees call everything a knock on anyway? Unless the ball is propelled 5 yards backwards (and even then I've seen knock-ons given). They also give knock ons when a player "drops" the ball on the ground as he plays it. This is clearly allowed in the rules and is not a knock on (the rules make no mention of which direction you are entitled to drop the ball - so one assumes it doesn't matter). There was one such decision in last nights game which was ruled a knock on. It isn't.

We neeed to educate fans more about the game and take their focus away from referees.

That would be like leading a horse to water and trying to make it drink.

We should start with the resident Sky team who have a compulsion to highlight and exaggerate marginal calls by the referee in the build up to virtually every score, rather than good attacking play or poor defence. Unless one of the guest experts is on hand to do this Eddie and Stevo are incapable.

They are responsible for a lot of the confusion on the terraces and message boards.

A ball that is touched in flight will invariably tend to travel in the same direction as the player that touched it is moving, As most players are moving towards their opponents try line most of these touches result in knock ons when the ball touches an opponent or goes to ground. However listening to Eddie and Stevo if the ball ends up behind the player (because that player is moving forward) it usually results in the 'but the ball's gone backwards' exclamation even though it hasn't in relation to the ground which is what counts.

In that sense the knock on interpretation is quite different to the one for forward passes and that appears too complicated for some to get their bald head around.

I was thinking of that example the other day (these things go through your head on a 12 hour flight) - like the try from the Leeds -Quins game. There was also one in the playoff game a year or two ago Bulls/Wigan which McBanana went balistic about when it was (correctly) ruled out. It is complicated to actually explain in detail (talking about momentum of a player carrying the football and passing compared to where effectively the ball bounces off a moving player and travels forward) but fairly simple to rule on and as you have described it, easy to understand.

Easy for some, seemingly almost impossible for others.

Forward passes - just look at the position of the passer's hands. Usually the best indicator - thanks to Greg McCallum for that one. Not always good enough but in most cases it gets the job done.

A high kick being flicked "back" by Tadulala IIRC which was clearly propelled towards the opponents line but behind the player.

Flicked to Nero who had the score ruled out by the video referee. Was the flick deliberate or had he tried to catch the ball and the flick was unintentional. If the former it was a tight call if the latter it didn't need more than a couple of replays.

For me it was a clear knock on but to the Sky commentary team (including the usually reliable John Kear that night - or was he summariser on the SLS version?) it should have been a try.

This is what got me thinking about it, often some ref's in some games do seem to call everything a knock-on anyway. I often thinks this happens when early on a ref call a dubious, was it or wasn't it a knock-on call, as a knock-on. He has then pretty much set out his stall, so any ball, unless very clearly batted backwards gets pulled up as knock-on. If this does not happen early, this is when fans do get upset when a dubious one is eventually called by the ref either way, upsetting home/away fans (and coaches) respectively.

On the subject of dropping the ball at the play-the-ball I agree that, according to the laws, it is not clear if this is a knock-on, but at least 99% do get called that way, and in my opinion correctly so. The other one is when a player loses the ball backwards, after the tackle has been called completed but prior to him starting to get to his feet for the play-the-ball. They get called as knock-on's but the rules are silent on this, but feel that the ref does not have much option and is correct to call a knock-on even though the ball travelled back.

Ok, so rather than amend or create any new rules, if Stuart C was to VERY clearly issue an edict (starting from the beginning of 'a' season say), if a loose ball is not gathered cleanly, is dropped from an intended pass or not taken cleanly from a kick, unless a player clearly intended and then does actively propel the ball backwards the ball would be deemed to be a knocked-on no matter which way the ball travelled! Do you not then think we will have a much clearer interpretation of the law for even the most bl**dy minded of fans and bald members of the Sky commentary team?

I actually think that this is what we are starting to see in the majority of games anyway, so should we stop the pretence and make it clear do you think?

I don't like the 'fumble' rule, I like it the way it is. When a fullback deliberately turns towards his own goal posts in case he drops it, that is smart play and shouldn't be penalised. However IMO, any touch to the ball that propells the ball in a forward direction, even if it goes behind the player touching it, should be called a knock on.

I zoned out about halfway down... is it worth a try?

You make enough wrong calls already lad!

Not for nearly 4 months I havent

Good point about full backs, but you will have seen a ref call a knock on when this does happen...

Let's watch the Hull (Sky) game and see if there are any dodgy knock on calls.

You could then perhaps apply your 'fumble' rule with specific reviewable examples to see if it might be an improvement.

That is a great idea. I think actually, it might be worth applying it to both this weekend's Sky SL games. (Who is on on Friday?)

I suspect that many posters will think I am being a bit boring and anal about this, but I think it is worth talking about IF it leads to an improved game spectacle.

I have no doubt (in my own mind anyway

) that it will make the game easier to ref and easier for 'some' fans to get their heads round but it could lead to more stoppages (which I think it inevitably will) but will it make the game more or less exciting??? This bit I genuinely don't know.

I get the pen paper out for Friday on Sky and talk one with me to the KC on Saturday... ok, this is a little anal but I don't care!

Wigan V Harlequins.




Talking to one's bit of paper is indeed a bit anal. Cut out the talking and it's fine though.

Ok, I will cut out talking to the paper and just make notes on it and talk to my friend Harvey during the game instead!

[size=200FUMBLE!!!!!!!!![/size

Maybe you should be educated on the NRL, I mean lets face it, despite having, in your own admittance, no idea about it you choose to comment on a player who has played exclusively in the NRL?

PS

"I dont think Bailey should ever get near a Leeds shirt again this season" - who said that? Erm yeah, thats right my little fruit, YOU!!

My notebook's called Harvey. What are the chances of that.