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

And the petty debate continues.......

It's all moot.

If Orr and Griff had done their job properly in downing Hall.......

This.

The flight of the ball was altered but I agree entirely the decision rests on whether the ball goes forward from Hardaker's touch or not.

I think it does and for the following reason, Hardaker is moving towards the Castleford try-line and without his touch is light (I don't think it was as the ball deflects markedly) or he can impart a backward motion on the ball (which I don't believe he did) it pretty much follows that the ball has to be effected in the same direction as Hardaker is moving.

An awful lot of debate here about the knock-on. In times of doubt, I often ask myself "if that had been given against Leeds, how would I have felt?"

In this case, I'd have felt we'd been hard done by. There was enough doubt for the video ref, but I thought it was a knock-on at first viewing, and no number of replays have done anything to change my mind.

As others have alluded to, there should still be credit to the effort of Ryan Hall, and derision to the feeble tackles of the Cas players. I think, if memory serves, Danny Orr was swatted aside with alarming ease by both Hall and Watkins on their way to the tryline.

I thought Hood grounded the ball on the line. Again, Cas' coaches will probably want to turn their attention to the lazy defending rather than the decision.

I give credit to Hall and critisize the defensive effort of Orr and Griffin but I'd also temper both those comments with the possibility that having seen at close quarters what presumably appeared to them to be a bog standard knock on their intensity/concentration may have relaxed.

Fair play to Hall for not being distracted and playing to the whistle, a lot of players would have hesitated or lost focus at that moment.

If they did so, they swap one poor piece of technique with an error (not playing to the whistle) that professional players should not be guilty of. I'll grant you it does happen, but since I was being shouted at by coaches not to stop without a whistle when I was 7, I'm not sure I can excuse it.

You can't excuse not playing to the whistle but there doesn't even have to be a whistle or a garbled referee call to cause a momentary loss of focus. How often does a ball simply going to ground appear to have a disrupting effect on a defence.

Well then, that's a lesson they can learn from.

They both seemed to track the ball throughout the move, so they should have defused the situation. They were there to make the tackle, they just failed to execute.

I heard the ref shout "that's OK" from the telly. There was no loss of focus. Just tackling and great finishing by the WBW.

What you heard came via the ref's microphone. Not all calls from the referee out on the pitch are heard (or so player's claim) and they will also be hearing other calls from other player's and spectators alike.

I'm not saying whether they did or didn't hear the ref's call just saying it's common to see player's ease off in these type of situations.

Are you sure? I had the windows open.