.............but isnt a flick, a knock on, only if it hits the ground or another player?

The notion that VRs are invariably incapable of judging whether a ball's travelled forwards is questionable. There are many instances where replays confirm the ball's direction, as interpreted by the ref and the crowd. I'd suggest that scenario occurs far more frequently than instances where the footage misleads.

No precedent was set on Sunday. Ian Smith applied the existing interpretation and did so in an entirely consistent manner once he'd decided Watkins wasn't tipping the ball on to his winger. That then requires him to rule on whether Watkins knocked the ball on and that decision appeared fairly straight-forward.

A forward pass and a knock on are two quite seperate infringements and it's probably best if we don't confuse the two. Unlike forward passes, knock-ons are relatively easy to rule on. No matter how frequently we find ourselves returning to discuss the latest contentious (for some) call that basic truth will remain a constant.

I entirely appreciate some will argue that Watkins was tipping the ball on to his winger and even if the touch was forward that then falls outside the video referee's jurisdiction. All I'll say there is if that had been the case the video referee would have likely come to a different conclusion.

The precedent has been set that the VR can judge a knock to be a knock on rather than a forward pass even when it isnt clear, he can second guess whether a touch was a flick on or an attempted grab. I have no doubt it went forward, i have no idea whether Watkins was trying to flick the ball on, catch it, flick the ball up.

I dont see how Ian Smith can either. Especially considering Watkins did flick the ball on and it did end up being a pass

There was no precedent set on Sunday.

I assume Ian Smith will have ruled Watkins to have knocked the ball on just as there will have been many other tries ruled out for knock-ons over the past seventeen seasons in similar circumstances.

By a quick calculation Sky must be on or around the 1,000th televised domestic game at SL level. I don't accept Sunday was the first such interpretation.

I'd like to change my opinion. I checked the glossary to the RFL operational rules. A Knock on is defined as



Based upon that definition the VR was entitled to rule it a knock on without deciding what Watkins intention was, IMO.