I cant agree, i think the force imparted on the ball by Hardaker was forwards, i think the ball was travelling backwards, i think after Hardaker touched it it continued to travel backwards though only marginally, and the force of hardaker's touch caused the ball to then bounce forwards.

I dont think, and it certainly isnt clear, that the ball moving backwards reversed direction completely after Hardakers touch.

The bounce is irrelevant and I've attached no significance to it.

Have you checked where Hardaker was as he made contact with the ball and where the ball landed after said contact?

It appears quite clear to me that a ball that was previously heading away from the Castleford try line at speed after it left Webb's hands, was then knocked forwards towards the Castleford try line after Hardaker's involvement.

I'm afraid I cannot accept your statement that the ball continued to travel backwards after Hardaker's touch.

From what I saw Hardakers feet were 21m from the line, not his hands which were outstretched. Without a side on or overhead angle you can't really tell for definite which way the ball went. That is why IMO the try was given

And the petty debate continues.......

It's all moot.

If Orr and Griff had done their job properly in downing Hall.......

This.

The flight of the ball was altered but I agree entirely the decision rests on whether the ball goes forward from Hardaker's touch or not.

I think it does and for the following reason, Hardaker is moving towards the Castleford try-line and without his touch is light (I don't think it was as the ball deflects markedly) or he can impart a backward motion on the ball (which I don't believe he did) it pretty much follows that the ball has to be effected in the same direction as Hardaker is moving.

An awful lot of debate here about the knock-on. In times of doubt, I often ask myself "if that had been given against Leeds, how would I have felt?"

In this case, I'd have felt we'd been hard done by. There was enough doubt for the video ref, but I thought it was a knock-on at first viewing, and no number of replays have done anything to change my mind.

As others have alluded to, there should still be credit to the effort of Ryan Hall, and derision to the feeble tackles of the Cas players. I think, if memory serves, Danny Orr was swatted aside with alarming ease by both Hall and Watkins on their way to the tryline.

I thought Hood grounded the ball on the line. Again, Cas' coaches will probably want to turn their attention to the lazy defending rather than the decision.

I give credit to Hall and critisize the defensive effort of Orr and Griffin but I'd also temper both those comments with the possibility that having seen at close quarters what presumably appeared to them to be a bog standard knock on their intensity/concentration may have relaxed.

Fair play to Hall for not being distracted and playing to the whistle, a lot of players would have hesitated or lost focus at that moment.

If they did so, they swap one poor piece of technique with an error (not playing to the whistle) that professional players should not be guilty of. I'll grant you it does happen, but since I was being shouted at by coaches not to stop without a whistle when I was 7, I'm not sure I can excuse it.

You can't excuse not playing to the whistle but there doesn't even have to be a whistle or a garbled referee call to cause a momentary loss of focus. How often does a ball simply going to ground appear to have a disrupting effect on a defence.

Well then, that's a lesson they can learn from.

They both seemed to track the ball throughout the move, so they should have defused the situation. They were there to make the tackle, they just failed to execute.

I heard the ref shout "that's OK" from the telly. There was no loss of focus. Just tackling and great finishing by the WBW.