which sounds great but that isn't what happened. There is always, shall we say, a modicum of man-handling in a tackle. It's a contact sport of course, and various parts of a tackled player will be handled in the tackle. Doesn't mean he had his arm twisted up behind his back, does it? In fact, are you suggesting the the referee should have awarded a penalty for a chicken wing tackle or perhaps something else as dangeorus?

The players weren't twisting his arm behind his back, in the sense they were deliberately trying to do that, or trying to dislodge the ball by doing so - any contact and movement was just part of a normal tackle. ergo if he cant keep hold in a normal tackle, its a loose carry and he deserves to lose it.

I dont see a lot of broken arms or shoulders as a result of this - tells me it doesnt happen the way you seem to think it does very often. A halfway competent player would be able to keep possession, even in contact, without worrying about if his arm was going to be twisted up behind his back. Something to do with having it in the right position to start with....?

It's funny that some players seem to very rarely lose the ball, no matter how much contact, whereas others drop it almost at the sight of a defender. Holding onto the ball in a tackle is a basic skill which some players seem never to master completely.

This a major bugbear of mine, if they're going to give a knock-on even when the ball goes backwards they may as well just introduce some sort of a "fumble" rule, at least that way we won't get regular half-baked decisions where balls that clearly go backwards are pulled up, whilst every now and again balls that are genuine knock-ons get a play on.

we gotta be careful we dont get what we wish for here!

atm the VR is only for Tries and for 40/20 decisions not for any other decision throughout the game. I think if they were to introduce something like this it'd be the thin end of the wedge - it wouldn't be long and they'd be checking for all kinds of errors and indiscretions. The game would never flow, and itd end up liek Gridiron!

leave it as it is I say!

I think the answer is much more simple than that - at the moment they are quite strict on a knock-on decision; I'd say just be less strict. If it looks like it went back or there is some conjecture or doubt, play on. I'm not saying ignore knock-ons but if it goes back or there is a strong suggestion it went back or if there is genuine doubt, etc etc, call it a knock-on. Then allow play to continue.

I dont think it'd mean many changes, maybe only one in every four would be a play on call as a result but I think thats about right. this way there are no rue chages but the refs are just a little more lenient. I'm not sure if there is an edict from RFL match officials dept which contradicts that but surely its worth a thought, especially when we all want to see the ball in play more. It would lower the number of stoppages as well I think.

its a bugbear of mine too. surely a knock on mean knocked onwards/forwards. when i was at bradford for the crusaders win there was a shocker of a call, knock on given if memory serves me correctly from a kick guy jumps up fluffs the catch and the ball goes easily 3 yds backwards but a knock on was still given