Obviously the only person in charge of the game for such matters dissagrees with you or he would have awarded a penalty to The Bulls.

Im embarrassed too. But not for the Bulls.

The Deacs no try was dodgy when you kick a drop goal it bounces before you kick it so why can't you do that with a grubber, for me it was touch and go.

Did his boot hit the ball at the same time the ball hit the deck? If not it's a knock on.

Correct, and the ball hit the floor first.

In all honesty, while watching the game, I thought it was a knock-on right from the start, before they'd even gone to any replay. That convinced me enough that it was the right decision. To me (and I appreciate others can't go from this), that said there must have been more to it than a normal kick.

It helped to prove you don't know the rule!



I agree with you that the [iinterpretation[/i which (presumably) the refs have directed is to wait if necessary forever while the player lies there. But under the rules as printed, it ought to have been a penalty to Bradford.

The ref called a pen as he reckoned the player was tackled as soon as Platt laid a hand on him. Which he was, but if the ref was playing by the rule as written, he would already have given Bradford the pen for the player having voluntarily allowed that situation to occur.

The scenario ("shall not remain on the ground" CLEARLY means that it should be a pen if you do remain on the ground waiting to be tackled, in fact if you then after 5 minutes get up before the ref blows his whistle, then he can no longer penalise you for a VT, it's too late. (Unless you're dumb enough to do a PTB, of course)