Wouldn't disagree with most of that (although I'd be happy for Wood not to get banned, not a lot in that one). I don't think there's much wrong with debating decisions though. It isn't the same as debating their influence on the outcome. Wire certainly made more of their chances when they came. They also made more for themselves.

My only problem with your line of argument is that if you follow it to it's logical conclusion it rather absolves referees of responsibility for making the right decisions. Which doesn't seem right.

Cheers. Definitely the right call then.

As with the 2010 one, it didn't really turn out to matter too much in terms of the overall outcome anyway!

I can happily accept that the ball went back off Briers, therefore play on, if all such instances are treated like so. IMO 80% of players fumbling the ball slightly backwards are given as knock ons. I don't agree with this, if the ball goes backwards, it shouldn't be a knock on IMO.

Oh, and anyone whinging (Mr McDermott included) needs to remember a couple of things. We were on the right end of 2 officiating howlers in the semi final (for both Zak's tries) and we were so comfortably second best on Saturday it doesn't matter what the officials did.

When I first saw the Briers non-knock-on from the drop out, my reaction was one of "how the <expletive> have you not given that."

Having seen the replay, it became more one of "that would have been wrongly called a knock-on 99 times out of 11, just our luck they pick today to get it right."

Ball travelled backwards prior to the bounce for me. No knock on.

Briers hands are moving both upwards and forwards (ie towards the Leeds line) he makes good contact on the ball, the ball is knocked forward from the hand even though it ended behind the player.

That's basically why referees tend to give knock-ons in these instances .... or so I thought.

I can also accept that explanation (again if applied with consistency). For me the telling reaction was from both Briers (flopping to the ground like a salmon) and Morley (walking over to the ball). They both expected a knock on to be given.

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.

Wouldn't it be easier to just rule that it's a knock on if it goes forward and not if it doesn't?

As a ref, in games with no video, you're basically screwed if you have to try and rule on the direction a player's hands are pointing at full speed every time the ball comes loose. Direction of travel of the ball won't always be easy to see from all angles, but it's a lot easier than direction of hands!

Not really screwed as players tend to be moving towards their opponents try line most of the time, any fumble when doing so will likely as not follow in the same direction after contact with said player. It shouldn't be difficult to judge the direction the player was travelling and rule knock-ons consistently on that basis.

especially if TJs are given more responsability and actually 'assist' the ref who is unable to give such decisions because of the speed of play and his positioning etc ?

I think thats for forward passes, rather than knock ons

I don't see anything in that passage that can be applied to forward passes.

There is no movement of a player after contact with the ball that can negate a knock on. If the player is moving towards the opposition line when he touches the ball (without also catching it before it hits the ground or an opposing player) it's almost certain to be a knock on, albeit not certain to be given as one.

In commentary they will often remark 'but it's gone backwards, he's got that one wrong' when in actual fact he's made the correct call as it's the player's forward momentum that has overtaken the ball.

I think you're over analysing it. Surely a knock on is only a knock on if it goes forward. If its about imparting some forward momentum on a ball even if it continues in a backwards direction than any time the ball hits the floor its a knock on, even if it lands 5m behind the 'offending' player

That's how I understand it. From a players touch if that balls moves forward, regardless of previous motion, it's a knock-on. Sounds right to me.