his head hit tomkins' shin.

As he was diving to the ground in a voluntary tackle.

What I don't understand is... in the Grand Final against Bradford, I think it was 2003/2004? Brian Carney was on the receiving end of a high tackle from Karl Pryce. Carney lost the ball whilst flat out, it was deemed a knock on, and Karl Pryce went on to score a try. Why was this not the case on Saturday?

I have said for years that if a player is Knocked out be it a high tackle or just an accident as Saturdays was it should not be given as a knock on. How on earth can a player keep hold of the ball when he is out for the count. If this is a new RFL directive then at last they have got something right. If it was Mr Ganson's decision alone then well done Steve you have show the RFL what is the right thing to do

The only reason the knock on wasn't given was because nobody saw it. The touchjudges view was blocked and Ganson wasn't looking either.

It was a knock on pure and simple wheather the lad had got knocked to the head or not and it should have been given but these things happen.

It would be easy to say "because that was a try against Wigan, and on Saturday it could have led to a try for Wigan".

That would be paranoid nonsense, but it does highlight the sort of refereeing inconsistency that torments RL fans every week in this country.

The same as they didn't seem to be watching with Roberts forward pass to Tompkins for his try....which got Wigan on a roll!.

I agree it was a knock on....but swings and roundabouts comes to mind.

I always thought it was Leon. Please tell me I'm right as I have hated him with a passion since - not that it matters cos he's at saints now so falls in to that category anyway

Not saying it was a game breaker......far from it but just pointing out a nailed on fact that it was a missed knock on by the officials.

A forward pass from Roberts to Tomkins was a matter of opinion. I agree it was borderline by the way.

The overall gamebreaking moment was the missed intercept by Pat Richards. It was 14-0 if he'd have taken it as only Mathers was anywhere near and isn't as fast but there you go.

We lost because Wire outplayed us and you deserve to be at Wembley.

Ganson was asked this by the wigan players before play restarted and he tells gleeson(i think) that the tackle was complete before he lost the ball.

Just checked, it was

Yes, Leon.

That is what is wrong with the refs.

How they can be constant i dont know when one week they work with radio links and video ref next just radio link and the next back to the old fashioned way no radio links just flags.

It cannot be easy for them the RFL need to get on top of this and maybe just have 3 that work with video and the rest work with radio its not hard to take a portable radio linking set up to grounds that dont have the facility.

Yeah it was Leon, typo

Karl getting the blame for the floods, earthquakes and storms in Asia next

Don't be silly! That's Roberts' fault.

My only concern with this is that it may give a player who has lost the ball in a massive hit the scope to pretend to be knocked out, in order to not concede the knock on.

I am not for a second saying that RL is a game full of cheats or divers, but I would hate to see opportunistic people taking advantage of this.

Perhaps the best way to counteract this is to limit the rule to only include knock ons that have occurred purely after accidental (or indeed deliberant) contact with the head?. I must admit though that as I type this it is apparent that it would be a nightmare to officiate this rule. Perhaps it shoud be restricted to high tackle related knockouts ?.

I do think however that a knock on should be given if a player is knocked out after a "legal" hit and knocks on. This is reward to the defending team for ferocious tackling.

Are you sure, I thought it was Mathers

you can tell when someone is out before they hit the ground and if there is doubt then it should be a knock on.

Yeah, well done to Big Tomkins, his first concern was Riley, rather than the ball.

At least he could walk of the pitch with his brother on Saturday with the consolation of having lost to the team they both supported as young lads.

You may want to try some better bait than that.

That is true, my point is that if the knockout is caused by a legal hit (like Bailey on Mauren) then the knock-on should stand. This gives the attacking player no other choice than to kling on to the ball for dear life (like Tickle after he got smashed of vinnie anderson).

The decision after Riley got clobbered was the correct one (however at the time i was screaming for a knock on) and with hindsight i agree that the rule should perhaps be changed slightly.

Spot on, it was a knock on pure and simple, and was missed, just like a few other things in the game.

Just a couple of things though that have been brought up on the thread.

Firstly, it was not a voluntary tackle. It is entirely legal to dive back into the field of play when close to your own line. If no Wigan player had touched him, the ref would have had to shout to him to get up, but this was irellevant as he was out cold. This is one of the reasons the 'surrender' call was introduced.

Secondly, there was no chance for Tomkins to get the ball, as Riley actually landed on the ball, and it was tucked under his stomach. I think that's why the knock on was missed, as the ball didn't exactly bounce around, it just slid out of his hands and stayed trapped under the ball. Obviously we saw about 20 replays of it which highlighted it.