You're a Cas fan for 30 years who has a Bradford avatar and spends all their time on the Bradford board? ooooookaaaaaaay...

Just seen it for the first time, apart from live at the game.
I thought a player had to be in full control of the ball to score a try.
Watts just stuck his hand out and hoped for the best. he just clipped the ball....if thats full control then god help us.
If that had been in the field of play it would be classed as a knock on.

Missionary work.

There are times like this one when recollecting the ball isn't appropriate or even possible. In that sense I think the argument for the try being awarded is that he got his hand onto the ball and as such got as much control as he could possibly get.

Another issue I have always had with knock-ons is the whole "did it go backwards?" argument. I think we have been quite fortunate with a few incidents where we've dropped the ball but it has been deemed to have gone backwards. Sherwin dropping the ball before Shenny's full lengther against Leeds immediately springs to mind as does another incident in that game where Scott Moore dropped the ball from a Guttenbeil offload which led to Westerman's try.

Rules are supposed to be clear and the knock on rule is far from clear for many reasons. Would it be easier to award a knock on for a clear loss of ball control in which cases all 3 incidents mentioned before would be given as knock ons? The downside of this is more stoppages which nobody wants.

I suppose the benefit we have with this particularly incident is that a precedent has now been set for awarding a try if it occurs again. We can argue that it ultimately cost us the game but I'm of the inclination that we didn't win on Saturday because we failed to put the game to bed. Sure, it was unfortunate that it had to go against us but these things happen.

I think thats slightly harsh on the player.

However, I agree on the last part, if it happened in the middle of the field it would have been a knock on for sure. The confusion.

Spot on.

AFAIK you don't need to be in full control - just downward pressure. In effect you could run full pelt past a still ball & just tap down on it with your little finger. No way are you controlling the ball but it would be a try.

Like it or not, to the letter of the law Liam Watts did score a try.

SECTION 6
SCORING – TRIES AND GOALS
Value 1. A try shall count four points.
Try and Goal A conversion goal or a penalty goal shall count two
points. A drop goal during play shall count one point.

Deciding winners 2.

(a) The game shall be won by the team scoring the
greater number of points. If both teams score an
equal number of points, or if both teams fail to
score, then the game shall be drawn.

Try – How scored 3. A try is scored when(a) a player first grounds the ball in his opponents’
in-goal, provided that he is not in touch or touch
in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

(b) opposing players simultaneously ground the ball
in the in-goal area provided that the attacking
player is not in touch or touch in-goal or on or
over the dead ball line.

Sliding try (c) a tackled player’s momentum carries him into the
opponents’ in-goal where he grounds the ball
even if the ball has first touched the ground in the
field of play but provided that when the ball
crosses the goal line the player is not in touch or
touch in-goal or on or over the dead ball line.

I notice you didn't quote the part of the rule book regarding knock ons?

Agreed. IMO it's no different in the in-goal area in terms of offence, the only difference being the restart.

Certainly, HKR got all the crucial decisions and I thought the video ref was bizzare in awarding the try where it seemed like an obvious know on.
Matterson makes the point that the same movement etc at a play the ball situation would definately be a knock on so why wasn't that is a fair point.

Thought cas were unlucky and had the game in your pocket.

It doesn't help if the ref seems to be reffing to new rules that allow constant lying on as Warrington found out again the pie eaters and as leeds found out against the storm last night.
The common theme is that Wigoon, Storm and HKR all took advantage of it; some may say they were just playing to the whistle (that never came) and others like me just call it cheating.
It deffo needs sorting out.

So we rule out any try when a player just 'touches' the ball do we, after all how can they be in 'full control' if the opposition fumble it over the line and the attacker just puts his hand on it.

It clearly has caused disagreement amongst all fans, I suppose it was a 50-50 call and they usually go to the attacking side. I felt at the time it was no try because of the players reaction as where we were (on the halfway on the bottom step) it was impossible to see, but when they replayed it on the screen I said to the missus 'nothing wrong with that' as did a few cas fans stood nearby. Having since seen it several times, i am still of the opinion it was a good call.

So why wasn't the Ainscough try awarded in the first half with the 'benefit of the doubt' to the attacking side? I know they were different, but for me 1 can't be awarded and the other not :\