You should, then remember the Brothers McGregor explaining things perfectly with the 'chip paper out the sunroof' .....

Car going 30 mph passing pedestrian walking in the same direction at 4 mph ..... driver, having eaten his chips, throws his scrunched up chip paper out of cars sunroof and sees it clearly in his mirror travelling backwards towards the pavement ..... but the bloke walking along the pavement clearly feels the chip paper hit him on the back of the head as it travels forwards at over 20 mph ..... and they are both right! Just depends where you're positioned and what speed you're travelling at!

Do you not think they may have been told they got it wrong in first instance, so change their interpretation for the next game? Doesn't help with 'consistency' but at least they're trying to adapt to criticism.

..... just read that back and it scarily looks like I'm supporting officials ..... I must be getting old!

If so then why not admit the mistakes and stick to how the call "Should" be made??
Its different week in week out though for E.G how they police the ptb imo IF you are going to penalise the ptb just once then it has to be the same for both teams for the full 80 across the board and i dont think its unreasonable for Teams to see the Ref before a game and expect him to run the game the same as the week before where applicable!
There's far too much scope for them to wriggle out of poor calls and again no repurcussions when it turns into a farce call ala Bentham with BOD.

The example I like is in the old black and white newsreel footage looking down through the bomb bay of a WWII bomber as the bombs are released.
As the bombs fall away from the 'plane you can still see them framed by the bomb-bay doors, not overtaking and not disappearing behind the plane.
The 'plane hasn't suddenly slowed or become stationary in the air, so the bombs must still be travelling forward at the same speed as the 'plane.

This continuance of forward motion after release is commonly, but erroneously, described as being due to momentum.
It is actually due to inertia.

Inertia is what keeps the object moving forward until some other force is applied to that object.
Inertia is also what keeps a stationary object stationary until some other force is applied to that object.
The chip paper and the bomb both continue forward due to inertia.

Momentum is mass x velocity and is a measurement of the amount and direction of force that is required to slow/stop/change direction the moving object.
The chip paper (travelling slower and having less mass than the bomb) will have less momentum and therefore require less force to stop/slow/change its direction.
Which is why the pedestrian will be unharmed by the chip paper hitting the back of his head but would get a substantially greater clout from a bomb.

I hope that's clear and, if so, I may forward this to Stevo.

Must be rough 'round your neck of the woods if people are chucking bombs at the back of your head

T'would indeed.
But, round here, people don't throw chip paper out of the sunroof either.

Sunroof? In Calderdale? ... now there's a laugh.

Benefit of the doubt clearly doesn't extend to grounding the ball with the forearm, obviously.

Nope.

Haven't seen replays since the game, but to me I can't see what the difference was between the try awarded to Watkins & the McGuire no try.

There was seperation between mcguires hands and the ball. Watkins kept fingertips on the ball untill it was grounded.

Mcguire grounded the ball with his forearm after clear seperation with his hands.

Watkins grounded the ball with his hand, McGuire didnt. According to Cummings on sky commentary forearm isn't sufficient, it has to be downward pressure with the hand not arm

Actually what he said was, and I never knew this rule, was that if the ball leaves the hand it has to be regained in the hand to constitute control. Of course from a kick a try can be scored with downward pressure of the forearm.

I assume Cummins explanation is correct as per the rules because I always thought you could ground it with the forearm

So if you have possession, lose it from the hand and don't regain it you cant score by simultaneously grounding the ball with your forearm like last night where as if you never lost the ball, from a kick for example, downward pressure with the forearm is sufficient?

I suppose in reality there was little control last night when McGuire 'scored' but then, if chasing a kick and grounding with a forearm, how much control do you really have?

Anyway glad thats cleared up :p

Loves a big 10 does Phil Bentham

Or if you knock the ball forward but then fortuitously kick it before it reaches the ground like Lomax then it's not a knock on.

it should be

Except the laws say it isn't.

"If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a
goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed."

Without watching it back frame-by-frame, I'm not sure the ball didn't make contact with the ground before/at the same time as Lomax kicked it though.

Much like the McGuire one at the DW a couple of years ago, where he knocked on then kicked through for someone to score, only for the VR to chalk it off.

The try that Hall scored in the GF I think it was 2008 the one where he kicked through looked like it his wrist.Must take a look

As I said above from what Cummins said, downward pressure is fine with other parts of the body, but if the ball has dropped from the hand it has to be regained by the hand before anything else in order to not be a knock on in the act of scoring.

he did but he kicked it ahead and never lost it as mcguire did

As opposed to knocking on deliberately?

Just be glad RL doesn't have 'kick n clap' rules - YET....... The players this year are scared to try and intercept anything - if they don't quite make it, they end up with a 10 minute sin bin for a deliberate knock-on ..... killed off breakaway tries in one fell swoop, that rule has.

The McGuire no try was similar to the Menzies no try at the KC Stadium the week before and both were correctly ruled out by the video referees involved (Smith and Thaler) for the same reason. Good consistent work from the officials.


People hold up the NRL system on video decisions as the way forward but it also has a built in deficency, IMO. A referee calls a try and the video referee will be forced to call a try without a significant error is detected. So last week in the Manly game a try by the Manly winger had to stand because there was insufficient evidence to overturn the decision. Had the on field referee ruled no try the video referee would have had no problem confirming the decision. The try in that instance had to be awarded but probably shouldn't and wouldn't have been under the SL way of calling decisions.

If I don't see an almost identical try (to the McGuire one) given by the video ref next year I'll be amazed. That's what's annoying, on another day it'll probably be given.