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.