Not strictly true. A knock-on can be deliberate, for example when a player deliberately bats down a ball to stop it reaching an opponent. In these instances the referee should give a penalty for a deliberate knock-on, but when was the last time anyone ever saw that happen?

Back to the original point. I can't see any way in which anyone, except for the most blinkered fan, can claim that Westerman passed or attempted to pass the ball. In order to pass a ball you must first have some form of control over the ball - something Westerman never had. The ball came across him and he put his hand out, it hit his hand and went forward. Knock-on.

Are we trying to say that an accidental knock on should be play on? or have I misread this post

I think you missed the point. There is supposedly a difference between an accidental knock-on (resulting in scrum or handover) and a deliberate knock-on (resulting in a penalty). However, although I am sure I have seen many deliberate knock-ons, I have never seen a penalty given for any of them.

Correct. That had no characteristics of a pass. It had 100% of the characteristics of a knock on. (I did have this exact opinion after the Leeds v Bradford game btw, so it isn;t just because it was my team tonight). The fact that this decision has been given twice by the VR in the last 10 weeks or so confims it is correct,as they would have discussed that one in training.

The fact is that Westerman did not pass that ball.

Was that the original point? The OP asked why the decision was given, so it was actually a quite open thread. I have gone into why it was the correct decision (same as the Leeds/Bradford one).

I'm not sure why you are pulling Thaler on this one. He suspected a knock on and asked for it. So he did spot it. You may say he wouldn't have given it had there been no VR, but that is the same for every TV game.

In general I don't bother criticising refs, as it usually balances out, as I thought it did last night. There were plenty of things we were lucky with, but then I could also list things that you were lucky with. It's generally not worth ref bashing (as you have acknowledged on this thread I think).

One last point, I only watched this game on TV (like most Wire fans by the sounds of it) but the commentators didn;t feel it was a controversialone at all, and the decision was pretty clear cut.

No, I haven't either. I had this debate on another board recently, where I was under the impression it was a Union-only rule, but somebody actually quoted from the rule book that an intentional knock on is a penalty offence.

IMO it is wrong that this rule is still in the rulebook but is ignored.

Clear knock on, I called it from 70 yards away, got to agree the ref would have pulled it back if the screen hadn't been there. He was just adding to the drama for Sky in my book

Sorry, I don't agree. There's no way Thaler could know what Westerman was thinking - certainly not enough to instantly judge the potential offence as a knock on (rather than a forward pass). A knock on leaves the hand, goes forward and touches the floor, a post or an opposition player. If it leaves the hand, goes forward and is caught by a team member then it's a forward pass. Whatever the rulebook states, it's been interpreted in this pretty clear cut way for as long as I can remember, so all this 'intent' talk just seems a smokescreen to me.

Of course the distinction between the two only really matters because one is video reviewable while the other isn't. In the end it wouldn't have made much difference but I very much doubt another referee would have done anything other than "Sorry Mr Briers, I can't go to the screen for forward passes".

He'd have called the knock on if we hadn't of scored on that play. Come on it was an obvious knock on

Aye ok..20 years of my eyes deceiving me.

Apologies for being dismissive in my previous post, I have managed to find the rulebook on the RFL website (not an easy task).

The rulebook states a knock on is [i'to knock the ball towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball'[/i.

It then goes on to state that ifafter knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed. Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball.[/i It is clear that Westerman knocked the ball forwards. Now your quote that it is only a knock on if it touches the ground, an opposition player or a post looks right, however the important bit here is that the player who knocks it forward must regain the ball, and he didn't, therefor knock on.

Now this is where you may state that it is covered by the forward pass rule (as per your previous post), however a pass is defined asa throw of the ball from one player to another[/i. It is pretty clear that Westerman did not throw the ball, so it cannot be classed as a pass.

This was my original point when stating that it had all the characteristics of a knock on (a knock towards the opposition line, and not regained by this player), and no characteristics of a forward pass (a throw of the ball).

What puzzles me though, is if a ref can spot something as a knock on in that instance, (which wasn't the easiest thing in the world to spot) can they not see a fecking forward pass that goes forward over 5 meters? (As seems to happen in every single game of RL).