You sure, whats your reasoning?



says the rules

Precedent? Whilst I'll happily be corrected I don't recall a similar incident ever not being interpreted as a knock on.

In a non-televised game there is no way that would have been given IMO.

I like the video ref idea but what I dislike is that certain area's of televised games are reffed very differently to non-televised games. Its frustrating to have a try disallowed because (for example) if you slow the camera down to a crawl you can see the ball leaves his fingers an inch from the ground. If that scenario was a potentially match winning try then it would be disallowed if it is the sky match but would be awarded in every other match over the weekend.

Basically (And I realise this could have been explained a LOT better

) its massively frustrating to know your result would have been different if it had/hadn't been on sky. And yes I realise theres always the other side who were rewarded by being/not being on TV.

I am sure.



What was it changed to? So I was right? Make your mind up.

Can't see why it is not a knock on, afterall, you can score a try with downward pressure from your chest.

Can you?

According to the boffs on Sky anything from the waist upwards isn't it?

Off his peck, clearly a try when slowed down and observed by the VR. I don't understand the fuss about it?

farcical. The whole point of a knock on is that you don't have control of the ball. How can you have control if the ball is bouncing of your chest. Makes the game look risiculous. Simple anything above the waist is a knock on if it hits you and goes forward. You can only score a try with your hand. How hard is it ffs to make simple rules than require no "interpretation!"