Nothing, which is why both should obviously be play on.

Im not sure how poorly executed Mcguires grubber was, I think he did pretty much what he aimed to do.

Imo, both Alibert (and touch judge) and Ganson were misdirected by Tomkins involvement. Had Tomkins not being close, Mcguire would have kicked the ball the same way, but nobody would be talking about it, it would be a try every time.

So a poor grubber has the insurance of being considered a drop-kick and thus play on?

It looked like McGuire may Have gone for an intentional kick, though tomkins tackle saw him lose control of the flight of the ball, the ball touch the floor a millisecond before his boot therefore a knock on. A drop kick is simultaneous contact with the floor and the boot, obviously had the cameras not been there it would have been awarded. Had the incident happened the other way and the try awarded to Wigan, the Leeds fans would not have been happy.

Why wouldnt it be?

And why was Mcguires grubber poor? Im pretty sure it did exactly what he wanted it to do. It was executed exactly as he wanted it to be.

No. I doubt it was how he wanted it to be, he was being tackled whilst doing it for a start.

Yet he managed to measure it to travel to exactly where he wanted it to go. It was clearly a very deliberate action.

But poorly executed. I think that's where we disagree.

You were robbed.

And wasnt it great

I dont think its important whether you think it was well or poorly executed. It being well or poorly executed doesnt affect its legality.

No, it isn't. A drop kick is where the ball bounces back up for the player to kick it. It is pretty much impossible to simultaneously kick the ball as it bounces.

If a player now goes for a drop goal and misses, is it a knock on? If a player SCORES a drop goal, but the ball bounces and the player doesn't 'simultaneously' kick it, could it be deemed as a knock on? That's what seems to have been decided tonight for McGuire's disallowed try!

Just because Maguire is off doesn't mean were going to stop cheating. Wane will continue with the underhand tactics, and Sam Tomkins will continue to annoy the average players who fall into his penalty trap.

I'm not sure you are correct saying it would have been awarded without the cameras being there. I watched it at the game ( not seen the replay yet) but the touch judge stood back at the time which tells us that he had some doubt and wanted to speak to the ref before the try was given. Alibert then went to the video ref. So even if the cameras hadn't been there Alibert might have listened to the touch judge and ruled it out anyway.

If he had connected before the ball hit the ground, its play on.

Unfortunately Phil Clarke made sure it hit the deck first and then its classed as a knock on.

Theres no 2 ways about it mate