Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:58 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

:lol:

I refer you back to my previous post.

I understand your determination to rile people on here but stupidity is poor trolling IMO.

HTH.

I'll tell you again.

If a player reaches for the ball and knocks it forward and its collected by another player it is a knock on.

If a player flicks the ball intentionally to another player and it goes forward that is a forward pass.

If a player passes the ball forward to a player its a forward pass.

In this instance Jones went to catch it and knocked it forward. There was no intention to make a pass out of it. Before it hit the ground it was collected by Sinfield.

Knock on.

HTH

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:00 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

i think the point he is making it that it was a flicked pass rather than a knock

It wasnt a flicked pass. He went to catch it and didnt. Had he attempted to flick it to Sinfield then yes it would have been a forward pass. He didnt though, he attempted to catch it and knocked it forward.

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:02 pm  

rpw wrote:

Thank you my friend. we certainley were. Now we were pretty poor - think the saints loss took its toll but that was scandallous tonight.. 2 possibly 3 tries were wrongly ruled out against us, the worst one was the last try... how they judged that to be a knock on i'll never know as long as i live. I am absoloutley furious. dreadful game though. We also need to get our cheque book out sharpish cos we aint good at all at the moment.

Because it was knocked forward possibly?

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:03 pm  

i don't have a problem with it being chalked off,just how smith went about it by telling halibut what to give. that was bang out of order.

i still think the webb one was a joke though

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:03 pm  

King Monkey wrote:

I'll tell you again.

If a player reaches for the ball and knocks it forward and its collected by another player it is a knock on.

If a player flicks the ball intentionally to another player and it goes forward that is a forward pass.

If a player passes the ball forward to a player its a forward pass.

In this instance Jones went to catch it and knocked it forward. There was no intention to make a pass out of it. Before it hit the ground it was collected by Sinfield.

Knock on.

HTH

Jones transfered the ball to another Leeds player. The ball did not touch the floor or another player or a post. It was passed on to the video referee who determined this transfer to go forwards, something he is not entitled to do.

HTH.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:04 pm  

King Monkey wrote:

It wasnt a flicked pass. He went to catch it and didnt. Had he attempted to flick it to Sinfield then yes it would have been a forward pass. He didnt though, he attempted to catch it and knocked it forward.

The ball flicked off his hands. It was a flicked pass.

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:05 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Jones transfered the ball to another Leeds player. The ball did not touch the floor or another player or a post. It was passed on to the video referee who determined this transfer to go forwards, something he is not entitled to do.

HTH.

What if the ball had hit the floor and been picked up by a Leeds player. It would still have been "transferred". Knock on or forward pass?

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:06 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Jones transfered the ball to another Leeds player. The ball did not touch the floor or another player or a post. It was passed on to the video referee who determined this transfer to go forwards, something he is not entitled to do.

HTH.

Yes. He ruled knock on because it was.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:07 pm  

King Monkey wrote:

Leeds were NOT robbed.

THe decisions were correct.

Get over it FFS.

Instead of trying to be controversial and wind people up, why don't you go pull your pants down for the neighbours?


You get on everyone's nips round here.

Thanks.

Re: From a neutrals point of view... : Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:08 pm  

King Monkey wrote:

Yes. He ruled knock on because it was.

Compelling argument.

Night.