No, you fundamentally misunderstand the rule.

That is 100% certainly what he did.

Notesays NOTHING about the ball having to hit the ground, or an opponent. As soon as the ball is played forward, it has been knocked on.

What you are confusing is that a knock on does not always stop play. You CAN knock on, but then retrieve the situation, so that play continues THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU DIDN'T KNOCK ON, but it means the knock on will not lead to play being stopped.

If you accidentally knock on, but the regather, then it WAS still a knock on, but the rules let you off, and so it is play on. If you drop the ball forwards, but then kick it before it hits the ground, that was still a knock on, but you the rules say this allows play to go on.

Most people misunderstand this rule. They think that for it to be a knock on,the ball has to hit the ground or an opponent. But this is wrong. Hitting the ground or an opponent is what will stop play. If you manage to avoid that by catching or kicking the ball, play will be allowed to continue, but it was still a knock on. Most people in conversation will say if you (for example, knock it forward but regather it), that "it wasn't a knock on". But it WAS. What they actually mean is, the knock on was cancelled out by managing to regather the ball.

Normally the distinction isn't important, but in this case it is crucial, because there are only 2 ways to negate the knock on, that would be to catch it, or kick it. He did neither. And therefore it remained a knock on which should have stopped play.

As a neutral can I just say that St. Helens thoroughly deserved their win. Leeds seemed to be lacking any real spark whereas Saints were their usual inventive selves.

The pick up, under pressure, for the match-winning try was nothing short of incredible. If he tries to do it again in training he would probably fumble it 9 times out of 10.

I think you're right and if the Ref had blown for it, no one would argue. However, the fact that he waves play on and vocally confirmed that he though it was OK is what got my goat.
In the following play, we ended up over the line and hoping for a penalty try, only to be denied by the video ref going all the way back, past the contentious foul on the try line, past checking the offside for the kick, to a decision that the ref had already firmly given. Not only had Silverwood already given it, but there's still a big question mark in many people's minds of the decision, as it did go backwards off the leg.

Yes, but this is Ganson, desperate to prove to the whole world that he is not biased towards the Saints. For what its worth I don't believe he is but I think he's prepared to sh*t on them if it proves his point.

I agree with your point, I would have been peev'd if it was my team on the end of that decision but the ruling is there that you can go to the screen as long as it is within that one play, which it was.

Maybe the rules need tweaking on the back of this. that if the ref verbally ok's something during the play it cannot be reversed? or something along those lines.

Silverwood asked Ganson to go back and look at the alleged knock on. In regard to the knock on, just because it went back off his leg doesn't mean it wasn't a knock on. It went forward onto his leg, and because he didn't make any attempt to kick the ball, then it's classed as a knock on. This was quite clearly explained further up the thread.

As a Leeds fan I can't say I really disagree with you, but a Hull fan claiming to be a neutral when Leeds are playing is a wind up!

Agree with that.
Silverwood has already made his decision on that instance and play has continued on. The stupid thing is if Saints had been tackled then got a quick play the ball and scored it would have been given. Saints were effectively punished for scoring in one play instead of two.
Leeds were on the end of a similar one last year v Wigan at the Magic Weekend. Where around the halfway line a Leeds player ran around the back of another Leeds player and then we broke downfield and scored. The ref then went to the VR to check for obstruction and it was disallowed. IIRC it was Silverwood that day too.
Again, if Leeds had been tackled downfield and then scored it would have been given.
Teams are in the strange situation where it might be better to wait and get tackled rather than score a try!

On the contrary, all I want to see is a good game of rugby. I only want you to lose when you play against us.

I'll admit I am still slightly confused.

If you bobble a ball in your hands, but the final momentum is backwards. Then it's not a knock on (I know FA did the whole it's a knock on but permitted, but can we just assume a knock on is the non-permitted type).

If you juggle the ball and kick it forwards it's not a knock on.

If you drop a ball and kick it as it hits the floor it's not a knock on - drop goal.

If you knock a ball backwards accidentally, then it's not a knock on.

But if you drop a ball forwards and it goes back off a part of your body, you have to prove it was intentional for it to not be a knock on????

You see what I mean, you can fubble a ball backwards and it not be a knock on ie facing your own line.

But if you fubble a ball forwards, then fubble it backwards with the hands it's not a knock on.

But fubble a ball forwards and then fubble it backwards with any other part of the body and intent is called into question.

Seems a bit inconsistent.

I would have thought it would be a fumble forwards, then hitting another player or ground that was the deciding factor, not whether it hits yourself??

well sort of, he obviously wasn't certain and suspected a knock on MAY have occurred, else he wouldn't have asked about it.

You ignore that he KNOWS the referral rule. So if there is a tackle, and play stops, no immediate great dmage is necessarily doen; whereas if there is no tackle and the next thing is a try, it can be checked. And was.

This is not perfect, but i think we all agree that it is far better than when the VR could go back further than the last PTB. The rule has to have a dividing line somewhere and there will always be an artguable consequence, and always hard cases.


So for the reasons stated it was not "stupid", no solution is perfect. I understand your point but would respond that had the try stood, it would have been an injustice. Answer that!


You say so, and indeed you are right. So as the players knew what seemed to have happened, as much as any ref, that option was theirs to take, and they chose not to take it. Is that the ref's fault too?

Same thing happened to Leeds last season at magic.

Leeds can't really ever complain about Magic again, though