Knock ons are only given by video refs now?

Everyone in our household, and every other outside of Leeds, shouted knock on as soon as JJB touched it. The ref would have chalked it off anyway.

That probably says more about who your household were supporting (there's no such thing as a neutral when you support a team in the same division)

The ref obviously saw it as he specifically asked the VR to check for a knock on.

It was a clear knock on and would have been disallowed anyway.

if the ref saw the knock on why didnt he stop play when it happened why play on

As our friends on here pointed out after Kleingate at MM...

Because you don't have to when there's a VR - you can let play go on and have another look at it if you see fit.

Are you saying he didn't see a knock on, then decided to ask the VR to check for a knock on for the sake of it?

To let the VR get a better look than he was able to have himself.

your saying he difinatly saw one so would have chalked it off even if they wasnt a VF. im saying if he definatly thought it was a knock on why go up to the VF

Would we have won at Craven Park earlier in the year had it not been on Sky? I very much doubt the very slight Hull KR knock on would have been picked up without the video referee referaral.

Very good point

The interesting thing about last night is that in both cases last night the touch judges took up positions to say that they thought that there was something wrong with the tries (i.e. they stood approx 2 meteres away from the corner flag.) So in effect Smith went to the VR to confirm what had already been spotted.

Well that time when Webb "diffused" the ball, we would have probably been given benefit of doubt. Whats done is done, it was on sky so get over it.

What if after the "knock-on" a Leeds player had been tackled? The ref had allowed to play to continue, if a Leeds player was then tackled and we scored off the next PTB the VR wouldnt be able to go back and look at it. The ref and TJ's made their decision, IMO, by not stopping play at that point.

Here is a question for the referees on this forum.

Hanley was "offside" many times in his career according to yesterdays ruling.

He would play the ball after being tackled and rather than retire would immediately move down field to wards the opponents tryline.

The attack would break the line and he would then be in a position to recieve the ball and score.

AFAIAA he was NEVER penalised for this but according to this recent ruling on the Webb incident Hanley was always OFFSIDE or rather not elegible to recieve the ball.

So whats your question/point?

BTW Webb never played the ball in the build up to the try, he was stood in Bradfords defensive line.

Barrow had a try disallowed v Wigan in the cup for the same reason as Leeds nut no video ref. Go figure? Why oh why do Leeds fans not take the loss on the chin. All this whining is making you look bad.

If the player had been tackled, the ref could have blown and gone back to the knock on. If it looks likely a try will be scored, far better to let play continue and use the VR and if the try isn't scored then call the offence he felt occurred.

The question is this...

Hanley never retired behind the ball but immediately after playing the ball would advance down the field in front of the attack and would then be in a position to take advantage of any break through.

I saw him do this many times both at leeds and Wigan and IIRC scored once from this tactic for Wigan at Wembley.

So why wasnt he judged "offside" ?????

And the answer is that Hanley would be perfectly at liberty to do so if that was his wish. The player playing the ball cannot be offside on that individual play.

Only if he stands still after the PTB and allowed to ball carrier to advance in front of him.

He wouldnt but would IMMEDIATELY set off down the field in advance of the ball until it eventually caught up with him so at no time was he onside in my book until he recieved the ball.

and thats my point the ref having allowed the play to cotinue Burrow puts Webb onside by advancing the ball in front of him.

lets get this right we werent great last night

it isnt moaning or crying - but burrows try should have been given end off

everyone knows that wouldnt happen, the ref was scared to make a decision and went to the VR
he is a bad referee and any ref that does the same is a bad ref, unfortunately there are many who would do it, ashley klein did it in the world cup final!

Everytime we've lost this season we've been on tv.

I think there should be a point in there somewhere but its just probably down to us playing absolutely dire most weeks!

He was onside at the play the ball though so he doesn't need to remain behind the ball carrier from that point forward on that individual play. However for as long as he stays ahead of the ball carrier he is out of the play being unable to receive a pass or gain possession directly from a kick unless or until the ball carrier has advanced in front of him. At no point has he done anything illegal unless he interferes with the defending side.

In brief, if a player decides to advance ahead of the ball he is perfectly entitled to do so as long as he was onside at the play the ball.

Another example could be a dummy runner going through the defensive line from a play the ball, the ball is passed in front (or behind) his run and he interferes with no-one as he advances twenty metres in front of the ball carrier. The ball carrier makes a break on the outside, draws and commits the full back and offloads to the original dummy runner with a legitimate pass. Result? Try. No problem.

The score would have been 10-10 or 12-10 to Leeds as the last try would have been allowed. The Webb try wouldnt as it was the TJ who spotted it.

I also dont think that Sky brings an unfair advantage. It helps make the right decisions. Maybe all games should now have a video ref of some form like the 1 they trialled at Hull KR last year.