Really? I think it's fairly clear that Briers' feet when he hits the ball are in line with where the ball lands. Considering his feet are well behind his hands are, it's definitely gone backwards.

Ok

True. I was just going off the BBC graphic after the game. At the time I thought it was as clear a knock on as you will ever see.

It must have been a call from the TJ to give backwards, as there's no way Silverwood could have known it was backwards from where he was. Very brave decision, but apparently correct.

Bentham is from Leigh, NOT Warrington.

As regards the Briers "knock-on", watch the post match commentary after the game and the BBC graphic which shows the ball went backwards of Briers and then bounced forward when it hit the ground [size(how many of those, 2 feet above the ground are given as a knock on, week-in week-out though)[/size

It doesn't even matter. It seemed key at the time but even if Leeds had got the ball theyd have done nowt with it.

Bolton lad actually, supports Leigh and is a mamber of Warrington Referee society.

Not only a great fan but considered by some to be the father of the modern game. His Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) established the theory of gravitation. Before this the concept of the 40 -20, for example, was unknown since the player couldn’t be sure that the ball would return to earth.

have you, by any chance suffered a blow to the head recently by a very large apple ?

A Bramley!

Which direction were Briers hands moving before he contacted the ball, ie towards the Leeds tryline or away from the Leeds tryline?

If towards the Leeds tryline (and I'd be surprised if anyone would doubt that they were) and considering he made firm contact (and again that seems to be the case) then the liklihood of the ball being knocked forwards (in RL terms, if not in Sir Isaac Newton terms) appears high.

I'd be surprised if referees rely on line markings for knock on decisions anymore than they rely on them for forward passes. There more likely to look at the direction of travel at contact and rule on that basis. On many occassions knock ons are given when the ball hits the ground clearly behind the player deemed to have knocked on and on many other occassions they don't. They're often 50/50 calls where sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. I imagine Briers expected a knock on call just as he will have done on another missed knock on in the first half with the scores tied at 6 all.

It was his day, next time could be different.



Are you saying the specific decision in the Leeds - Hull game I highlighted lead to a discussion about the on-screen terminology used by video referees?

I would find that an odd thing to do as the way it was used in the Leeds - Hull game didn't appear to cause any confusion among the officals, the players, the Sky commentary team or any noticeable disquiet amongst the fans. And why would it when everyone appeared to understood and expect the ruling.

The reason there's discussion about the Wembley ruling now is because virtually nobody understood it at the time and that's because Bentham either made the wrong re-start call or pressed the wrong button. It confused the on-field referee, the players, BBC commentary team and even the Leeds coach judging by his after-match comments. Silverwood is heard having to explain to the players that the graphic was wrong.



I suppose it depends on your understanding of the game but anything that can make it clearer to the casual viewer (even those in oh I don't know somewhere like ..... Barnsley) is a change I would welcome.



There's only been one that I felt tried to engage the supporters, explain what the purpose of the referees are and was willing to discuss their failings publically and that was Greg McCallum.

très drôle !

No.
Agreed.
Agreed.

Will you stop talking Sense

We've now been given two, as near as makes no difference, identicle examples where one flashed up (Leeds - Hull game 6th July 2012) No Try, Scrum Attack and the other (Leeds V Warrington 25th August 2012) went with No Try, Scrum Defence

One caused no apparent consternation on or off the field while the other caused plenty both on and off the field including a part of this thread.

So which video referee got it right - Ian Smith or Phil Bentham