When Bennie westwood 'knocked on' when supporting a break, Ratchford kicked the ball on, picked up and was in the act of scoring when the referee called it back. Im pretty certain that if you drew lines across the pitch like they did with the Briers non-knock-on, that ball would be shown to have landed behind where it hit Westwoods hands. I think if Silverwood had allowed the VR to make the decision it probably would have been a try. However IMO if you lose possession and its anything like a 50/50 call then it should be called a knock on. You have made a mistake and so should be punished. Briers should have been penalised for his loss of possession and I think justice was done in the Westwood, Ratchford play. I think the decisions would be much clearer cut if the rule was about losing possession rather than knocking the ball forward.

I can accept the correct decision been awarded regarding the Briers' knock on but what i can't tolerate is the fact that the self same incident or similar will occur at a ground this season but that the decision will be the complete opposite and that it will be deemed as going forward

Rugby League fans throughout the game are frustrated due to the simple fact that there is a complete lack of consistency shown each week in the referees decision making, is it me or has this frustration got worse under Stuart Cummings?

And this is why so many Leeds supporters got frustrated over this particular incident - we see the exact same thing happen week in, week out and 95% of those incidents are given as a knock-on.

95%?

100% yes

Interesting that Bentham chose to ignore this apparent new advice and revert back to the old interpretation tonight for the catalans no try. Ie. calling Wigan te defending team even though cats never actually took possession.

Was he wrong tonight then?

If not then surely he must have been wrong at the cup final?

I noticed that a couple of 'knock ons' by either side tonight which went slightly behind (ala Briers at Wembley) were given as play on. As long as there is consistency that's fine by me.