you just contradictaed yourself there

What? In that Calderwood "reacted"?

That's not a contradiction. Players react to pick up the ball and make a break after a knock on all the time, but its still taken back for the first knock on if there is no clear advantage.

If Calders would have cleaned up and put the ball down, would you have bben happy if the ref pulled it back for a KR knock on ?

Ok, Hull KR player knocked on in the second half and Briscoe had a half chance to put it down and in fact knocked on in the process - but the ref ruled that it was a double knock on that time - should that have been Hull KR's ball as well?

If you score, its clearly advantage. But a reaction like Calderwoods were he never actually had any control of the ball, certainly should not be called as advantage.

It was quite simply the wrong call from the ref imo.

Spot on, absolutely no advantage gained by Calderwood due to the fact he didn't recover the ball.

The real debate should be why calderwood didn't just fall on the ball for a certain try instead of trying to pick the ball up and he was diving on the floor

because he would have been 2 yards short

But he didn't make the advantage line with the ball in hand so an incorrect decision. Should have been a scrum to Hull.

Having said that, thought the officials had a really good game tonight and allowed us to watch a game of rugby for a change... although I'm pretty sure I saw one or two incorrect play-the-balls

Did,nt he give a 20metre re-start as well, when he knocked on ,short of line, but a 10 metre scrum to defence when Tickle knocked on???

What happened when berro caught fox?

Did our player, whiting?, think he took him in touch and just booted it instead of dropping on it?

Fox threw it back inside before he was in touch and Tom Briscoe kicked it in to touch, I don't think he had time to do anything else.

Looked that way to me too. Tom had to do what he did as there was a Rovers player inside him who could have taken the ball.

Not on my Sky+ it never !

Correct - it was a knock on. Said on Sky that he had played the advantage.

I'd get it checked out then

Does your's show Hodgson outplaying Houghton?

50/50 call IMO. Without my FC glasses on I would say it went backwards.

I meant that the ref said it was a knock on and he had played the advantage.

I'll have to watch it again as I didn't hear the ref say that on Sky last night.

the ref doesn't say it but it is implied by Hemmings - they are often tipped the wink by the officials.

To take advantage, you have to have possession of the ball, which calderwood never did. It was the wrong decision.

Someone suggested that it went backwards. It didn't!

One which did go backwards was one which Tansey spilled whilst facing his own line yet that was pinged as a knock on???????

Wrong.

It went forward off his right hand.

You dont mate, you either have to cross the gain line or make a play that could result in advantage which he tried for

like i said, would people have been happy with a no try decision if he had of grounded it

By that definition any player who collected the ball from an opposition knock on is making a play which could result in advantage. I haven't looked at the official rules, but I would have thought common sense would state for advantage to be taken you have to have possession of the ball.

If he had grounded the ball, he would have had possession / not knocked it on. Why would it have resulted in a No Try decision?