Well, to clarifyKNOCK-ON means to knock the ball towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball.'"

I think it was a great try that showed inventiveness and quick thinking at a time when our players looked out on their feet.

I don't agree that a player shouldn't be able to recover a potential 'knock-on' before the ball hits another object. It removes a very interesting aspect of the game for me, whether it be luck or skill.

Thank god i wasn't on my own in thinking it should never have been allowed. The video ref hardly even looked at it and it was a totally blatent knock on.

As for the Inglis try I've never been as stunned at a decision but since i've got home and seen it on the tv I could see why he looked at it so many times(i still don't think it was a try though. It would never have been given a couple of years back).

What about the Inglis non-try ?

He had no control whatsoever of the ball !

well i think the hayne 'observing' may have had something to do with that one

It's stupid that trys like that are being given on a regular basis at the moment. He simply didn't ground the ball properly but you don't have to anymore for some reason.

It gets my back up that every single dropped ball in open play seems to be called a knock on nowadays even if it's gone back yet they're allowing trys like that.

It needs looking at.

Are you guys serious? That was a try and I didn't think there could be any question about it. The only thing that could possibly make it a no-try is if Slater deliberately knocked it forward. First and foremost, it didn't look like he did it intentionally at all, and secondly, why the hell would he? It's like saying Inglis purposely knocked it over the dead ball line during last year's Centenary Test just so he could make the highlights for the next century.

That's T-R-Y, my friends.

that was no try,when are the VR gunna get it right.

He juggled it trying to get control. Once he did, he realised he was going to go dead and tossed the ball back in field. 100% legitimate, 100% try.

The Inglis one I thought looked dodgy, but surely if the video ref has to look that often it's benefit-of-the-doubt.

Yep. Why on Earth anyone would think he deliberately touched it over the dead ball line is beyond me. I just watched the replay of that try and he had one arm, fully stretched and only just got to it. He clearly had very little control over the ball's direction and judging by the motion of his arm, hand and fingers, he was actually trying to stop the ball from going over dead. You can't argue otherwise after viewing the replays.

As for any interpretation over "regaining possession after accidentally knocking on", his bat back in goal was evidentally controlled. It was his intention and it came off = control. Control over the ball has to constitute possession. What else is it?

Take another example. When a ball is being passed rapidly from player to player, and one player taps the ball onto the next without actually holding it, we don't just pretend it never happened and that player was never there. That player earnt possession. As did Slater.

Try.

Think this is hair-splitting TBH. Slater regained [icontrol[/i of the ball when he flicked it back in field. IMO that constituted regaining possession.

Knock-on

I'd agree with this. Good piece of play. The Inglis one isn't the sort of try I like to see awarded, but I've seen so many like it awarded recently that that one had to be given.

Slaters wasa try. He regained control by passing it back.

Inglis by the rules was no try. However in modern interpratation and as seen throughout the season it was 100% consistent with previous decisions. Therefore it was a TRY.


We got ass whooped today. The Aussies are far superior to us. End of story.