Technically, yes. I think it was one of those occasions where most could see it wasn't a legitimate try but the ref was unsighted; on balance I'd rather the correct decision was reached.

Agreed.

Didn't exactly make a difference anyway.

I think it was the right decision, and the ball so obviously went forward I would have said from the way the ref referred it that he'd have ruled it out without the video ref

Not a chance with that. He was giving it, only to be told by the touch judge about a knock on. His first reaction was to ask the video ref to check the grounding, to which the touch judge then explained himself better then Bentham changed it to knock on in build up.

He saw nothing wrong with the try at real time. Had video ref not been present that would have been given.

i doubt that, as he wouldn't have gone to the VR in the first place. As an aside did anyone else notice Puletua running behind saints players at least once in each half without getting penalised and in each instances the "shepherding" player was very close to the defensive line.

Perhaps without the video referee being on hand Bentham would have given it but he'd have been wrong to do so if he had, IMO.

The touch judge clearly had a question mark over the 'try' but it's equally fair to suggest Bentham may not have been persuaded just as Thaler wasn't persuaded recently in Perpignan - Catalans V Hull KR. It's almost as if the referees have no confidence in their colleagues running the line.

An even clearer example of a knock on than the one ignored by video referee Silverwood at Wheldon Road. Unless Watkins is deemed to be making a deliberate action to tip the ball on to his winger only he (Watkins) can prevent it being ruled a knock on by regaining possession himself - and do so before it hits an opposition player, a team-mate or the ground.

The word "unless" is why it's not a clear example of a knock on.

Because I think a tip on was Watkins intention and because he didn't immediatley rule the try out himself I assume that is what Bentham thought. If a tip on was Watkins intention then the try had to be given by the video ref, even though it went forward, for reasons we all know.

I agree.

The officials have to make a ruling based on their subjective view as to whether they saw Watkin's intend to catch the ball or to tip/flick it on.

Ian Smith with the benefit of replays appeared to rule a knock-on against Watkins so presumably he saw it as the former rather than the latter. I agreed with that interpretation in that instance.

Of course, in instances such as this, nobody bar Watkins really knows so perhaps we're looking for reason's to disallow tries, as an earlier poster said.

In this instance, as I said earlier, they got the right decision for the wrong reasons but it's a slippery slope when we have referee's, many of whom struggle counting to six, interpreting what a player is trying to do when employing certain skills.

It’s a disaster waiting to happen, a loose rule which simply begs for inconsistency.

Whilst everyone feels a little ‘meh’ about it in this situation, now the precedent has been set, in a close game, if a similar thing happens, then whichever decision is made by the VR will be wrong. It is an impossible situation to put our officials in and shouldn’t be, the fact this rule hasn’t been tightened up and the fact that we don’t have a clear and consistent ruling on it is down to one person and their continuing lack of leadership and competence. Mr Cummings.

At least with the Mcguire offload of a few years ago the judgement was consistent and defendable as those are the rules, however wrong it felt to have that try awarded. Now that the VR has shown he can judge a pass to be a knock-on and he can judge on its direction then whenever a similar situation arises the question will be asked as to why he didn’t, and if he did why he couldn’t judge on the direction of a previous forward pass. It is stupid for us to say that the VR can judge on whether or not a pass was intended (something he cant possible, ever, have any way of knowing unless he develops psychic powers) and if it wasn’t then he can judge the direction the ball travelled and if he thinks it was all of a sudden he cant judge which way it travelled.

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.