Yes, a shocking decision. The fact that the ref referred suggested he felt there was a problem. Having viewed it he was correct. How anyone could give a try (as good a run as it was from Carvell) mystifies me.

Apart from the fact that Carvell was facing the Saints line throughout? Silverwood had seen it but wanted to double check. I'm convinced Ganson just stumbled onto the wrong button in a drunken lunge at the girl delivering him a beef sandwich.

Nice, now I have to mop up a mouthfull of Hoegaarden from my laptop keyboard.

PMSL - allegedly

Or a taxi!

More cringeworthy than him thinking Kings white hand belonged to the black player Eastmond?

So we are to just ignore the rules now then?

Only on 'moral' grounds, mind.

Can we reverse the result of previous Grand Finals to correct moral imperfections in the outcomes?

Personally i think the knock on rule should only apply if the ball touches the floor.
If it's pinballing between 2 players like it did leave it alone.
Where was Wellens the Wizz though ?

You got away with enough forward passes and hold-downs tonight so dont start.

and 100% of the players and coaches!

Only fans know the rules 100% but will not get out on the field and prove it.

As many different post on these forums "prove" one incident is interpreted so many ways, I mean the one about touch is ridiculous and yet keeps growing so what chance a set of match officials?

If the video ref hadn't beeen there or even on the box would a try have been scored? Would someone have broken wind 0.0030 seconds after the touchdown and would it have mattered anyway?

It's all supposition.

What happened , happened and that's that.

NEXT!!!

That was bizarre!

Only if it makes for an exciting game.

Absolutely, was great to see him score a try like that, don't worry about the 2 knock ons prior to him gathering the ball.

He made me whizz myself laughing at him at that point

Carvell has been referred to the PFU.

I'd expect him to be fronting the judiciary.

I'm not convinced it was a knock on.

They both battled for the ball. Carvell had it, Roby reefs it back it hits his head, Carvell regains it, and runs on.

Good battle for a ball, that had a winner and a loser. Christ if that video ref had have had any doubt he certainly wouldn't have gone against Saints of all teams.

Close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and a sing a happy song, and all will be well in the world of officiating.

Give over. It's like taking a crisp digital image and brushing over it with watercolours to blur the lines of truth in order to produce a more romantic image. He knocked on at least twice and didn't have control over it until he'd left Roby behind.

I've slowed it down and there are two very clear knocks on by both players plus the one from Roby which lead to it. I'm all for benefit of the doubt, but when it's as clear cut as that it gets ridiculous. The acid test for me was the dejected reaction of the Wire fans in the room watching it with me. When they saw the replay they were convinced it was NO-TRY.

No one but you has actually suggested it wasn't a knock on. The Sky team and everyone on here in support of the try has used the 'moral outcome ruling', which I reckon could take hold like the famed momentum rule.

I'm sorry but your use of the word "reef" in that context automatically voids your opinion.

Too right they gave it a try! Some of the technicalities these days are ridiculous, it didn't hit the floor, so it should be play on anyway! he's probably never scored a try over 10 metres anyway give him a break. You probably won't see a prop score like that all year you miserable sods.

You've no idea what constitutes a knock-on have you?




I can only assume that Ganson rules either a) Carvell regathered the ball before it touched Roby (which would require some 'interesting' eyesight) or that Roby knocked on first and advantage was played.

That has so much merit









I may just try it