All this fuss over whether it was a pass or knock on only arises because of the rule that forward passes cannot be refered to the VR. But was Alibert any better able to decide whether the ball went forward because he first ruled it to be a knock on than if he had deemed it to be a pass? Why was he capable of ruling that this "knock on" went forward when he is deemed to be incapable of determining whether Leeds' try came from a forward pass?

It has already been mentioned that refs rule on forward passes, largely on the basis of direction of the passers hands. Why cant VR's make rulings on the same basis, with the existing caveat of benefit of the doubt in favour of the attacking team?

surely your avatar should read wanted dead [iand[/i alive

There is no legitimate fuss over whether it was a pass or a knock-on. It cannot have been a pass, because it was not "thrown".

And as has already been pointed out, for a knock-on decision, only movement relative to the ground needs to be decided, whereas for a forward pass, movement of the ball relative to the ground is irrelevant. Chalk and cheese.

Only if you consider the present laws to be sacrosanct. I was trying to suggest, obviously not very well, that shouldnt always be the case.

In the case of the forward pass, the de facto rule is the way that refs interpret it. As Cummins said "we look at the direction of the hands". The refs havent decided to ignore the literal rule set out by the lawmakers out of spite, they've done so because they cannot practically apply it in a match situation. If "we look at the direction of the hands" is accepted to be the forward pass rule then the objections to using the VR to adjudicate no longer hold water.

do you have the ruling or rfl dictat that says that is the case? I ask because your explanation of the "momentum rule" with regards to passing is a little lacking and in the standard explanation of a "knock on" what cibaman has put is entirely correct!

There could also be legitimate fuss over what constitutes a "pass" because being "thrown" because that is a very strange definition of a "pass" which can range from discounting a large amount of offloads and what we would describe as a pass to including almost anytype of action

Similarly it doesn't follow that simply not falling into the definition of a "pass" means it automatically applies as a "knock on"

It's also worth noting that a knock on requires that the ball be propelled forward, I don't think it would be controversial to argue jib didn't propelled the ball forward but backwards and it was simply the force already applied on the ball which caused it to go forward, in which case both giving and denying could be justified under the existing rules

I don't think there would be anything to lose by tightening up these rules, I have seen decisions go both ways and people argue both sides

Similarly we wouldn't lose anything by making the rules regarding the Webb incident a little clearer especially with regards to defining when Webb would become inside again

According to Robbie Paul (not the greatest source admittedly) on the SLS this is a new law this season. A player who is out of play at the play the ball is only brought back into play at the next play the ball. This is certainly much clearer than the highly subjective idea of being in play after they have lost any advantaged gained.

I personally don't care about the laws or the rules, only how the referees interpret them.

Over forty years of watching rugby league tells me that regrettably (as a Leeds fan) Jones-Buchanan 'knocked on' the offload from Watkins.

Can I assume you were a player/coach at one time

Coach Justin Morgan slammed referee Ben Thaler for his part in the defeat, saying: "There is no excuse for our errors and I am not saying we deserved to win but there is a very common denominator every time there is a poor game of rugby league and that is Mr Thaler."

He went on to say that if he was a player he'd be dropped until he got upto the standard required.

With only a small pool of referees is it currently possible to punish a referee for poor performances? It seems there's no incentive for referees to be 'on the ball' every single week.

(Link: www.sporthull.co.uk/rugby_league ... p?ID=12206)

(Link: www.sporthull.co.uk/rugby_league ... p?ID=12206)

bitter, twisted man. I thought better of him.

Becoming a common occurrence is this isn't it...