Fair enough

How about when the ball is knocked on and a player kicks on to try and dive on the ball over the Try line? If they subsequently knock-on or the ball goes dead the play never gets brought back for the first knock-on does it?

Taken from the rules: "ADVANTAGE allowing the advantage means allowing play to proceed if it is to the advantage of the team which has not committed an offence or infringement."

How precisely did Hull gain an advantage from this? Rather than a scrum 10 metres from the line we faced a 20 metre restart taken by the team which had committed an infringement.

I can't believe I'm even concerned with any of this. The number of decisions like this are too numerous to mention and, regardless of if the ref was right or wrong, he had a very good game overall and allowed both teams to put on a real show for us and the impartials.

Thought the ref got that wrong to be honest, Briscoe and Latus made a right mess of it and then Calderwood went to get the ball but never had control of it so there was never an advantage, should of been a Hull scrum.

Just to play devils advocate then.

Your given a choice of either

a) a scrum on the opposition 10 meter line

or

b) your winger having an unchallenged run onto a ball trickling over the try line

Which do you choose as its more "advantageous"?

I repeat...

"ADVANTAGE allowing the advantage means allowing play to proceed if it is to the advantage of the team which has not committed an offence or infringement."

And I repeat....

Which situation gives us more of an advantage?

a) stopping play and giving us a scrum on the 10 meter line

or

b) "allowing play to proceed" and allowing our winger the change to simply pick up a ball bouncing over the try line and score completely unopposed

Scoring the try would have been an advantage - having a 20 metre restart against us was not an advantage. I think it's pretty straightforward really.

We never had control of the ball so we never had an advantage, but yes I'd rather have B, but we should of got a 10 meter scrum.

The 20 meter restart came as a result of us knocking on and not as a result of the original "offence". The choice isn't between a try or a 20 meter restart. The choice is between a scrum or allowing play to continue.

As per the quoted rule - "ADVANTAGE allowing the advantage means allowing play to proceed if it is to the advantage of the team which has not committed an offence or infringement."

So which was more to the advantage of Hull FC

a) stopping play and forming a scrum

or

b) "allowing play to continue" in the form of giving a winger a 99 times in a 100 chance of scoring.

Hey Robbo - I don't know if you've noticed, but I reckon we're not going to agree on this. I think it's time we should both move on.

I'm not necessarily saying thats my point of view, just that it is another point of view that has its merits. It doesn't say anywhere in the rules that you have to have control of the ball to gain the advantage

It's a good job it's not Rugby Union - we could still be waiting for the ref to call advantage over.

Anyone remember Tanseys try earlier in the season after he knock on, then reefed it .

Catalan Away.

fair point - had they regained the advantage line before he stole it? I can't remember.

If they did it wasn't by much, in fact I don't think they had.

don't let's get started...

Two knock ons. No advantage. Scrum head and feed to Hull 10 metres out. Bread and butter decision.

Kicking it forward go gain ground would be deemed to have been in possession of the ball, even if only for a split second.

A first touch being a knock on means you were never in possession of the ball.

Clearly A gives us the advantage because we actually will get possession of the ball 100% of the time (the scrum half has it in his hands therefore possession/advantage is gained), whereas b you have no guarantee of anything despite your guessing at 99/100.
Sorry mate but you are wrong & the referee call was incorrect.
No actual advantage was gained, attempted to gain yes, but no actual advantage was.

The one that puzzled me was Danny Tickle under Rovers Sticks I know he knock the ball up but he had a chance to catch it ..But he was pushed in the back Briscoe played the man and not the ball..not saying it was a try but it should have been a penalty

Was a close call. Calders should have scored there and there wouldnt be a debate.

Are you seriously suggesting option A would have been to our advantage? If Bentham had of instantly stopped play you and everyone else would have gone mad because there was a clear advantage to us in letting play continue. The fact Calderwood completely messed it up doesn't negate the fact it was to our advantage for play to continue.

Nowhere in the rules does it say you have to have control of the ball or be over this imaginary advantage line. The rule is very much open to the interpretation of the official as it is ultimately the ref who makes the decision as to whether an advantage was gained by allowing play to continue or not. The fact Calderwood missed the equivalent of an open goal in football suggests to me we definately got an advantage from allowing play to continue.

Regardless of which I'm not convinced it was a knock-on anway.

deffo not a knock on. briscoe jumps about 2 metres in front of the line (10 metre line i think), he fumbles the ball and it lands 1 metre in front of line and bounces backwards. like the rest of the hull fans at the time i thought it should have been no advantage and scrum to hull, but after watching it on vid a few times, the ref got it spot on that it was no knock on and play on.