I feel it is you who exhibited less of an understanding of the basic laws of the game. Funny how the play is never 'dead' when a player is pushing towards the line and the would be hooker lends weight and pushes the player over the line even if they are generally held up in the process. The play is only called held when the players momentum is going backwards rather than forwards and an attacking teams player lends weight.

It was O level in my day mate.

And you never needed one to play Rugby League. If a pass ends up 5 yards further up the pitch - it's forward.
I did get O level Maths!!

It is strange how so many rugby league fans struggle with momentum (not helped by Stevo on sky)

Videos like this help rlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v

No it's not

Physics Fail

Was it in the Calderwood miracle defence game?

Battling Leeds edge home
26th September 2008

Leeds Rhinos 18 Wigan Warriors 14 Engage Super LeagueAfter the way they've performed this year, there's no doubt Leeds Rhinos deserve their Grand Final place – but they had to work incredibly hard to get there. Wigan Warriors were flattered by their four-point margin of defeat in a tense final eliminator at an enthralled Headingley Carnegie. Rhinos were on top for most of the game and dominated the third quarter, but – inspired by some incredible defensive heroics from ex-Leeds winger Mark Calderwood – Wigan hung in and for a long time it looked like it might be their night as the hosts saw chance after chance go begging. Leeds weren't at their best, but they created a host of opportunities, defended strongly and showed great character when things failed to go their way after the break. Rhinos were denied by video referee Ian Smith three times and also had every right to feel aggrieved at the performance of referee Steve Ganson. Two of Smith's decisions were clear cut, but the third was a travesty. After 20 minutes of solid pressure following half-time, Leeds looked to have made the breakthrough when Jamie Peacock powered over. It looked a try at normal speed, but Smith took a few seconds over five minutes – a new world record – to decide the England skipper had been held up, in Liam Colbon's tackle. Surely, after that length of time, the attacking team should have been given the benefit of the doubt? [/i

Rob Burrow also had one of these chalked off in a game at the DW Stadium where not being able to see the ball absolutely grounded appeared enough to chalk it off.

When Sky asked the best player in Super League after the game - he was in agreement with me (and thousands of others) - it was forward!!!!!

There should be no need for the 'BOTD' ruling in the vast majority of cases. It exists purely because we have a flawed protocol when it comes to using the VR.

In most cases, the on-field referee will simply say "check the onside and grounding" in a completely non-committal way. It gives the VR nothing to work with and as a result, the person in the booth has to run on the principle that if his evidence is inconclusive, he has to award a try on the pretense of 'BOTD'.

Compare with the NRL, where the on-field referee makes his call and it is then down to the VR to disprove that call. If he can't, he has to go with the on-field call. Rugby Union, I believe, has a similar system with field referees asking "is there any reason I can't / can award a try?" and in the NFL, the protocol is that the video evidence has to disprove the on-field call.

Not only does it give the VR more to work with, it makes it much clearer for all involved. If Child had indicated that from his angle, he thought it was a try, I'd have probably found it easier to stomach. Instead, we had a situation where two people (four if you count the TJs that stood their ground) couldn't decide between themselves so had to resort to a flawed protocol.

The NRL system also increases the level of accountability for the on-field referees. At the end of a month / season, Red Hall can look at the stats, see which referee has had the most calls overturned, and draw their own conclusions.

Sam Tomkins - that renowned physicist.

No - that reknowned Rugby League player.

If even your best players don't understand the rules then you've got to question the validity of the rule.

If you need GCSE Physics to play/referee Rugby League I think we'll be in a spot of bother - don't you agree?

very probably. my mistake

In this country it will probably be the referee who gets the most Sky games so I'll have a shilling on Silverwood.

All you need to be able to do is see what direction the ball is going, relative to the ground, at the time it leaves the passer's hands.

Where it ends up is irrelevant. Where the passer ends up relative to the ball or the receiving player is irrelevant.

Sam Tomkins being too thick to understand that simple rule is more an indictment of Sam Tomkins that it is of the rule itself.

The ball left both Watkins and BJB's hands in a backward direction. Where it ends up matters not one iota. A bit like Sam Tomkins opinion.

It's not a rule of rugby league, pretty the same as gravity also isn't

Is the answer to nothing I have said on this thread!!!