Well, to clarify:



A knock-on happens when the ball is knocked forward regardless of what happens after that.
This is slightly confused by the fact that play may continue [iafter[/i a knock-on if the player who knocked on regains or kicks the ball:



Slater knocked on. He didn't then regain or kick the ball. It should have been a 20 metre restart.

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.

One could argue that he did "regain" it as he was able to knock it back, so he was in "control" of the ball before it hit the deck or another player. I don't think it was a knock-on.

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.

Great try. If fielding a kick at the other end, he had fumbled it and then knocked it backwards before it hit the deck (to behind where he was stood) it would have been play on. Same scenario imo.

They were both tries: and how do I know that? Because the only people with the authority to make the call awarded them. End of.

I blame Waldorf and Stadtler.

So we're saying all you have to do after a knocking on is to slap the ball backwards and it's play on?

If it doesn't hit another player or the ground and the ref deems you to still have 'control' then yes.

that inglis one was never a try, one of the angles clearly shown it was a knock on. didnt think we got the rub of the green with the decisions last night. there was a few real dodgy calls by the ref. would of prefered the french dude

There is a lot of confusion about Slater's juggling effort, but whether what he did [ishould[/i be allowed isn't the point.

Some seem to be confused as to what a knock-on actually is. I know why. It is because they equate "knock on" with an infringement. The rules (as has been pointed out) mean that when a player has knocked on, then the ref needs to wait to see if the player regians or kicks the ball before it touches anything else. If he does, then it is play on. And yes, ithat is a "knock on" (as defined by the rules) and no, it is not a "knock on" in the sense of an infringement. If you do knock on, ACCIDENTALLY, therefore, you can neutralise it in the way prescribed:



So far, so good.

But then the referee also must judge the player's INTENTIONS.



The reason for this distinction lies in section 5 of the laws:



Now, that quote very clearly is referring to deliberate actions, and not accidental contacts. And states unequiviocally that you cannot knock the ball towards your opponents' dead ball line.

And so all you need to know is whether Slater deliberately knocked it forward, or whether it was a pure accident, i.e. he didn't mean to do it, it was a pure accident.

It seems blatantly obvious that his actions were intentional, and that the referee (or given the chance, the VR) should have stopped play.

The Inglis try was yet another in a long, infamous catalogue of horrible VR mistakes. If we had not had the benefit of the "shot from behind", then it would for me just about be a "benefit of the doubt" try - given the modern interpretations of grounding the ball. But as soon as you saw the "shot from behind" then it is 100% clear that the arm knocks the ball, and ball and arm part company, so a blatant no-try. The neverending capacity of our VRs to get obvious decisions regularly wrong remains a blot on the RL landscape.

Not if you knocked it forward deliberately.

I've heard that before. Would have been a few years ago when Wellens knocked on and then managed to slap the ball backwards (Slater-esque) and was pulled back for the knock-on (unlike Slater). As the scrum was being formed, and Wellens was whining to the ref (surprising but true), Steveo came out with that particular delightful nugget of nonsense.

When the ball eventually hit the ground it was in front of where he had originally touched it.......Knock on.

You took the words right out of my... keyboard...!!