Whilst I am not defending the end result (in my opinion the ball went forward), what are the rules for checking knock ons/flicks/forward passes with the video ref.

My assumption was that passes could not be checked to see if they go forward due the camera angle and flicks are classified as a pass unless the ball hits the floor or an opposing player.

Therefore, should the video ref have been consulted in the first place, and should he have given a decision?

I was debating the call with the old man at the time, so don't know if they discussed it on sky.......either way Stevo will have concluded that he doesn't know his from his elbow.

Oh. I remember this one... makes a change

I don't think he flicked it on, more like he tried to catch it and couldn't, thus knocking it forward, hence it being judged as a knock on.

Perhaps they were trying to nullify the one given at Castleford a few weeks back from the flick pass.

It wasn't a pass, he wasn't tipping it on, he tried to catch it. If he had passed the ball deliberately then the video referee would have been unable to disallow the try, we've seen that happen many a time, like the farcical try you were given at Headingly last year or the year before.

.............but isnt a flick, a knock on, only if it hits the ground or another player?

Well it should come down to the Video Ref's opinion on whether he thought it was an attempted flick pass or knock on. Everybody could see that it wasn't an attempted flick pass so right decision made. Granted they may be a future game sometime when it looks much more of a 50/50 call and depending who the ref is the attack team might get lucky, might not. As with most video decisions it will come down to indivual interpretation.

It wasnt a flick though it was an attempted catch that was knocked on, if a player knocks on and its recovered by the same team its still a knock on.Fair call as far as im concerned.

I am still confused on the rules around video ref intervention. If the flick, irrelevant of what was intended, hit the floor or another player, I could completely understand the video ref being consulted as this would be a knock on.

If the flick doesn't do either of those things then this is not a knock on and must mean it is a pass, and the video ref cannot be consulted.

It's a very minute detail in a woeful performance - I am just un sure on the ruling/regulations on what the video ref can advise on.

you cant go to the video ref for a forward pass because the camera angle can deceive the eye as to when the ball goes forward, if the video ref see a forward movement he will do his best to give a knock on decision

Bottom line is, take a look at the video replay and try to find an excuse to disallow it! That is what the video ref has come to. Bent Ham clearly asked him to "check the grounding" which was fine. We will end up going back 20 plays to disallow a try next

Knock on imo right call.
Saying that RF is right Bentham only asks for the grounding but i'm of the opinion IF we reach the right call then i have no complaints aslong as the incident was within the same play.

It wasn't a knock on, it was a flick pass that went forward. So, for all the wrong reasons the officials got to the right decision. meh.

The Rugby Gods determined that "No Try" was the right decision. The officials made a mockery of the process.

He did actually ask him to check if a knock on when he corrected himself after speaking to linesman.

I still think it was the wrong decision though for the video ref to make, Correct if the ref had made it himself, but not the video ref.