That was the Cup final? Usually its in London on a Saturday isnt it? im gutted i didnt go, i like going to Wembley.

Wigan will be back to mediocrity next season when Maguire goes and takes his underhand tactics with him.

There was less than a frame between it hitting the floor and him kicking it. It was a 'best guess' from Ganson. Now im pragmatic enough to understand most of what Refs do is a best guess scenario, but when you are taking 2 minutes to decide, it is clear, that in real time, it was close enough.

as a Ref, would you have disallowed it as a successful drop goal?

Id judge on intent. If it was a response to dropping the ball, then the burden rests on the kicker, if it was a kick, then the benefit lies with the kicker.

I cant see what the game gains by that split second difference being important.

Isn't the difference in the definition of knock on - which in the RFL's own words requires the ball to be "knocked" towards the line...when you make an intentional play for a kick you don't knock the ball anywhere you intentionally drop it towards your foot.

Ah sorry I forgot you knew me!!!

High opinion of yourself.

I think according to the letter of the rules you'd be correct - a knock on does appear to be by definition unintentional (otherwise we wouldn't need a distinct forward pass rule would we?)

OK, but you're simply moving from referees deciding whether there was enough time between knock-on and drop kick, to deciding whether a kicker meant to kick it. It's still a matter of discretion which is wide open to criticism.

EDIT - I meant to quote Smokey.

You're not wrong - but isn't that a fairer measure and one which is the same regardless of the presence of a video ref?

(not to mention one with actually has basis in the written rules of the game...as a lawyer that's sort of important to me

)

I was giving the reason as to why I interpreted mcdermotts comment the way I did. I am sorry, enlighten me to your knowledge and experience? I can only judge on what you type.

It does lead us to the very important question of whether a drop kick should only be permitted for a bona fide attempt at goal - perhaps then it would make it easier to judge whether it was intentional or not?

Though let's not kid ourselves that McGuire's wasn't simply a less than perfect grubber.

I think the question of whether a player is set for a kick or responding a dropped ball is a fairly obvious answer.

I often see players responding to a dropped ball by desperately hacking at it before it hits the ground. How would you judge those scenarios?

Agreed. I thought generally, it was an excellent team performance, and one I was personally not expecting.

A player who responds to dropping a ball by desperately hacking at it before it hits the ground has clearly kicked the ball before it hits the ground. Play on.

As i said the difference I would make is where the benefit of doubt lies, if a player is making a deliberate attempt at kicking the ball the benefit lies on his side, ala Mcguire, If a player is responding to a deliberate hacking of the ball, the responsibility to make sure that the ball is kicked before it hits the ground.

Can you tell me how you would differentiate between drop-kicks and poorly executed grubbers?

More importantly - why did all you guys not turn up to support your team tonight? Have faith Leeds will come good and were unlucky not to win that tonight.

I think the difference between a player setting themselves for a kick and responding to a dropped ball is much clearer than whether a ball hit the ground before, after or at the same time as a player kicks it. Especially when we have a rule that a ball must be kicked at the same time, not before or after.

If there is doubt of the kickers intention, the BoD rests with the attacking play.

Id certainly be more comfortable with Mcguires try being given and we are debating whether or not he meant to kick, than it not being given and us sat here debating whether less than a frame of film constitutes too much time between it hitting the floor and him kicking it to counts as simultaneous.

My answer is in my sig - the 2nd installment of my front row due any day.

A trip to deepest darkest Lancashire is a major no-no.

You were doing so well.....right up to [i"I thought he spoke well as he often does, "[/i



I'd quit before someone mentions his infamous half time speeches....

Like I have said though, what is the difference between a drop-kick and a poorly executed grubber (induced by Tomkins' tackle)?

Nothing, which is why both should obviously be play on.

Im not sure how poorly executed Mcguires grubber was, I think he did pretty much what he aimed to do.

Imo, both Alibert (and touch judge) and Ganson were misdirected by Tomkins involvement. Had Tomkins not being close, Mcguire would have kicked the ball the same way, but nobody would be talking about it, it would be a try every time.

So a poor grubber has the insurance of being considered a drop-kick and thus play on?

It looked like McGuire may Have gone for an intentional kick, though tomkins tackle saw him lose control of the flight of the ball, the ball touch the floor a millisecond before his boot therefore a knock on. A drop kick is simultaneous contact with the floor and the boot, obviously had the cameras not been there it would have been awarded. Had the incident happened the other way and the try awarded to Wigan, the Leeds fans would not have been happy.

Why wouldnt it be?

And why was Mcguires grubber poor? Im pretty sure it did exactly what he wanted it to do. It was executed exactly as he wanted it to be.

No. I doubt it was how he wanted it to be, he was being tackled whilst doing it for a start.