in political speak - we're moving to a consensus there!

every case should be judged on its own merit of course and there could always be a case for a penalty anytime the defender makes contact as the player is getting up.

But on the flip side, what could we realistically expect the defender to do? He has to get out of the way, but he cant physically move away faster than normal movement would allow and if he doesn't deliberately play at the ball, or in the referees opinion, there was no intent to play at the ball, then surely it should be play on, or rather, knock on? I mean he can't move away at the speed of light or sommit, there is going to be some kind of contact from time to time, they are in very close proximity after all and both are moving as fast as they can.

I'd say, if he knocks the ball out deliberately, penalty. But if a carry is loose enough for normal body movement to dislodge a ball, then I don't think we can penalise a defender when really the attacker is at fault. But, yes, I agree, any interference should be penalised straight away.

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