Very true..
Maybe we should get rid of the VR have 2 refs and let them make the decision at the time as they see it?
If we could say that 100% of VR decisions are correct then keep it.
But clearly mistakes are made by the VR some very obvious ( see steve ganson) that maybe we doin`t need them afterall.

Like almost everyone else, I thought it was a try because of the downward pressure by the forearm.
But then, the argument about having lost it from the hand sounded right, so I watched it again.

Now, I think that Lomax dislodged it (illegally as there were two men in the tackle), which rolled it back along the underside of the forearm.

But, as you say, some you win, some you lose.

Genuine question:

Is what Cummins explained in the commentary an actual rule from the laws of the game, or an interpretation that has been agreed in recent years in the Professional referees classroom sessions?

Well, it has to be one of the two.

What makes me curious is that everyone seems to be accepting the explanation, but why is it that no one across all the club forums appears have heard of this "rule" until it was explained on Friday night? The laws of the game possibly haven't been rewritten, in respect of a knock on, in the last 50 years?

I would have thought McGuire knew the rules and was trying it on.
It`s what he does these days trying to con the ref.
If he gets away with it then good luck to him.
Cheating is only cheating when you get caught.
Yes I was calling for him to be dropped as he did nothing in his last game.
However we don`t appear to have anyone yet who the coach thinks can fill that void.
I doubt very much he will get any better next year and with him and Sinfield on the park we probably have the slowest half back pairing in RL.
I am sure he will play next Friday and I for one hope he has a stormer.
As far as my comment about the Wigan fans go it was said with a wink or had you missed that for the purpose of your argument?

If there is seperation between the ball carrier and the ball he has to regain possession before it hits the ground (or an opponent) to prevent a knock-on. Was the interpretation for the Iro no try mentioned above from the mid 90's and was still the interpretation for the Menzies and McGuire no tries over the opening two rounds of the Play-Offs.

No doubt plenty get missed but it's also nice to see a few correct calls now and again.

Nice one, "the ball itself being on the ground", being the key bit when combined with the adjudged knock on, as he would therefore have ruled that the ball came out of the hand forward (i.e. separation) so therefore wasn't "in possession" by just being in contact with the forearm.

(I assume there was separation at some point, I can't remember)

And therein probably lies the root of my question. I bet it wouldn't take long with access to the sky archives to find errors on this basis. The inconsistency therefore occurring away from Friday night.

(Before you ask, I cant think of any off hand ..... )

Item c) would apply IF I was correct about Lomax having dislodged the ball.

Yeah, that is how I interpreted it though if El Barbudo is right about Lomax then C) could, as he says, apply.

Of course it's individual judgement but I assume the VR had no duobts as, if he did, surely he would've given us the benefit of them!

Lomax is definitely trying to prevent the ball being grounded but I think he loses contact with the ball before McGuire reaches for the line. Irrespective of the rules I would expect any defender to do what Lomax did & it should be incumbent on the attacker to retain control. I'll invent a new rule & allow ball stealing within 5m of the line. I think the game is far better technically now than when I started watching & playing over 30 years ago but do not remember so much lost ball when stealing in the tackle was allowed.

Back to the opening topic

Did Ablett say something to Briers?, a wire fan on the wigan board is assuming some not so nice things were said.

rlhttps://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f