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.

That would be a fair comparison to make if Hardaker was passing the ball. I don't believe he was and I'm not sure anyone else has so far in the discussion although there is still time.

If a referee/video referee cannot distinguish between a pass and a knock on then I think the game has a serious issue to address.
__________



I could have come up with any number of examples but settled for the Wither's one as it is probably the most infamous knock on call of the SL Era - one that arguably altered the course of a Grand Final. IIRC that 'no try' decision by video referee Dave Campbell (ex St Helens was he?) centred on whether the flight of the ball was altered by the slightest of touches - I believe Withers still claims he didn't touch it by the way.

Hardaker was moving towards the Castleford try line. The pass from Webb was legal, it was travelling backwards, unlike the Wither's example the trajectory of the ball was significantly altered by Hardaker's intervention. From that moment the only thing that could prevent it becoming a knock on was for Hardaker to catch the ball cleanly before it hit the ground. Even had the ball gone directly to Hall who caught it on the full (without Hardaker's touch being classified as a pass - is anyone seriously suggesting this) it would still be classified as a knock on by Hardaker.

If people don't like that interpretation then they will be pulling what's left of their hair out most weeks as these type of scenarios are invariable and correctly called back for knock ons and I have to say have been as far as I recall throughout my time watching the sport.



I could be wrong but I don't think Kirkpatrick gave up refereeing because of work commitments as such, rather it was because the RFL were then insisting on referees becoming full-time to the exclusion of their career outside the sport. Ironically they now allow/allowed Child to continue a career outside the game when they found recruitment and progression was being stifled by the strict adherance to a full-time only policy.

I hope Hardaker is awarded with the assist.

Surely the 'knock on v not knock on' should be put to one side, and the -poor tackling attempts of Slim Griff and Orr (IIRC) should be heavily considered as the reason why that try was allowed to be scored.

He did so with plenty of conviction. he shouted, clearly audible on the commentary, "that's OK", twice. The try had no business being scored once in Hall's hands but the defence was lousy and Hall is the "WBW".

There was plenty of conviction. Sending it upstairs to have his conviction confirmed is just good common sense when the technology is there.


So, we cannot interpret the intention of players dropping on opponents with elbows but we can interpret the intentions of players propelling the ball towards team mates? Interesting how your powers of interpretation fade in and out depending upon what you're arguing. Want a job?

Surely only if the ball goes forwards. I didn't see a camera angle that sufficiently answered that question

There were angles that showed the ball deviate from Hardaker's outstretched hand in the same direction as he was moving ie towards the Castleford line.

The ball only need go forward from the contact with Hardaker for it to be ruled a knock on. Often the ball will continue on it's overall backward path, fall to ground behind the player making contact (who has moved ahead of it) and still quite correctly be ruled a knock on.

In this respect knock ons are quite different from forward passes where the momentum of a player has a role to play.

Re-read my post. I never claimed he was trying to pass it. The point I made was that refs frequently let forward passes go. Why expect different for a ball that's knocked forward by a much smaller margin?

Would you also say the opposite is true then? a player touches the ball legally travelling forward imparting a lesser force than already acting on the ball resulting the ball travelling forward isnt a knock on?

I know you didn't. I said no-one has yet introduced that as a possible explanation, it's the only explanation I could think of for justifying the try be allowed to stand. I don't think referee's let forward passes go but I agree they miss quite a few although not as many as fans seem to perceive.

Where I am particularly disappointed over this instance is the decision coming from a video referee with multiply replays from multiply angles at his disposal.
In live play it could have been missed or allowed to go as a 50/50 call these things happen but I thought the video referee got it wrong and I'm less forgiving in those circumstances.

_____



No. That still sounds like a knock on. The relevant part is the direction the ball takes from the point the player touches it. If that direction is towards the opponents try line then it's a knock on.

__________

While discussing hypotheticals, if on Friday the ball had brushed Hardaker's fingertips without any discernible change of direction or flight it would not have been a knock-on.

Ah,with you now. Agree 100%. Video refs coming up with errors is pretty unforgiveable.

but as you said, the ball went backwards just less backwards than it would otherwise have gone.

It has to be an either/or situation, either the knock on is judged on the direction the ball travels regardless of the force imparted on it by the player or it is judged on the direction of the force imparted on it regardless of the direction it travels.

Correct, less backwards than it otherwise would have done without Hardaker knocking it forwards. I believe it's all there in the quote you've highlighted.

__________

The ball went forwards from Hardaker's touch in relation to the point the contact was made. The initial point of contact had Hardaker roughly 21 metres from the Castleford try-line as he travelled towards it. The ball after the deflection landed closer to the 20 metre line than the point Hardaker touched it.

The ball went forwards off Hardaker's hand, it was a knock on.

I cant agree, i think the force imparted on the ball by Hardaker was forwards, i think the ball was travelling backwards, i think after Hardaker touched it it continued to travel backwards though only marginally, and the force of hardaker's touch caused the ball to then bounce forwards.

I dont think, and it certainly isnt clear, that the ball moving backwards reversed direction completely after Hardakers touch.

The bounce is irrelevant and I've attached no significance to it.

Have you checked where Hardaker was as he made contact with the ball and where the ball landed after said contact?

It appears quite clear to me that a ball that was previously heading away from the Castleford try line at speed after it left Webb's hands, was then knocked forwards towards the Castleford try line after Hardaker's involvement.

I'm afraid I cannot accept your statement that the ball continued to travel backwards after Hardaker's touch.

From what I saw Hardakers feet were 21m from the line, not his hands which were outstretched. Without a side on or overhead angle you can't really tell for definite which way the ball went. That is why IMO the try was given