like your style mate, short and sweet and spot on.

In your opinion, however the referees "leader" sees it different, who I would suggest is more "savvy" on this issue.

Although this is the same referee that allowed a goal that didn't go between the posts, and employs James Child every week!

He is the leader of the referees, yes. And that gives him a lot more credibility than you or I, I agree. But that doesn't mean he's 100% right. He didn't write all the rules, did he? And all leaders can be wrong from time to time. There are a lot of experienced referees that would completely disagree with him on this one (I haven't seen him quoted saying this yet anyway, by the way).

Guess it all comes down to that word "interpretation".

In my interpretation, he knocks the ball on, then kicks it. He hasn't gone for a drop kick (he didn't drop it to the floor intentionally, he mistimed his kick). Therefore knock on. It's the same as looking at the difference between someone knocking the ball down intentionally for a charge down (not a knock on) and someone sticking a hand out and the ball hitting it (a knock on). The latter could be claimed as a charge down "technically", but it isn't.

Love the way a few internet know it alls think they know more about the rules of the game than the person responsible for monitoring how the laws of the game are applied

you gotta love the internet.

Except it doesnt. The interpretation of the rules comes from him, it doesnt come down to the individual referee. He will tell the referees what constitutes a drop kick, a tackle, laying on, touching the ball down etc etc etc and it is the referees job to implement those interpretations on the field of play. Therefore it is very obvious that a referees implementation of those interpretations can and will be wrong. Thats why we have a Match Officials director and match commissioners, to check the referees are implementing the agreed upon interpretations correctly. In this case Ganson didnt.

That maybe how you wish the rules to be, it might even be how you thought the rules were. We know however that you are wrong. We know this because the man who interprets how referees implement the rules has told us that this implementation would be an incorrect interpretation.

Similarly he has told us that the correct implementation would have been to award a try as per his interpretation of the rules which is the only interpretation of the rules which actually counts in whether or not a referee's implementation of the rules was correct.