Maybe he should.

Ryan Hall by plenty.

That's ok apparently if you are injured in the tackle knock the ball on you get the ball back anyway.

Walsh was tackled. The ball is dead. He subsequently loses the ball due to injury, but the ball is dead. Hence, Walsh should of played the ball on the first (I confess I have no idea why is was a scrum)

Similarly, makinson is tackled (his hand hits the ground) Leeds continue the tackle to drag him into touch (which btw, is a penalty to saints) desperately tries to offload it (and does successfully) yet it's a knock on.

I fully expect a 40 page thread on the errors silverwood made today, and completely ignoring the fact Leeds deserved their win,

Makinson didn't need to offload though, he wouldn't have been in touch had he been tackled.

I,m assuming you are new to Rugby League, referee questions if the tackle is complete the video ref confirms yes, if the player is injured play is stopped........easy decision really.

Indeed so. It was panic and a foolish thing to do. Doesn't change the rules though. Should of been play the ball.

Agree with that. Can't understand how it's a scrum to Saints.
There's only 3 possible decisions for the Walsh situation as far as I can see. It's either:

- a Saints penalty for Leeds interfering at the ptb
- a Leeds scrum for a Saints knock-on at the ptb
-or a Saints play the ball as Walsh was injured.

The fairest decision would have been a Saints play the ball.
Not that it made that much difference, but if it had been on Saints 5th tackle (and thereby giving them another set) rather than 1st then obviously it would have been a big thing.

I [ithink[/i it's something to do with the referee stopping play, similar to it being a scrum head and feed to the attack if the ball hits the ref (from which the ball is also dead) - it's a very outdated rule though, and I'm only in conjecture territory for why it was a the decision.

I'm not sure that's correct. Players can and do knock on after the tackle is completed (such as when regaining their feet) and the ball being dead does not affect this.

By the letter of the law, it is correct. The evil "interpretation" is where the knock ons come from. For example, walmsleys knock on on the turn over vs castleford, by the letter of the law, wasn't a knock on (the ball wasn't in play) - but interpretation/ logic/ common sense says he shouldn't be rewarded for stupidity.

In this instance, the ball was dead, the player was injured. It was interpreted the injury affected the play (aka was the reason the knock on happened) and thus should just be a play the ball (just like players having to return to the point a tackle is completed now)

I think he's a decent winger. The one handed thing is good to watch, but how long will it be before the ball gets dislodged before he gets the ball down in a big game?. The diving over the line with both feet off the ground is a good tactic I think. If his legs are pushed toward touch they're well out of the way of the touch line.

Well it was to be expected. The thread was set up for yesterday's game.

Roby hardly played a blinder either. But there was no thread pre-game about Roby. Had there been I'm sure we would all be saying Roby is average when compared to Burrow.

Not a great game from any of the Saints lads. I'd fine it hard to pick a top 3 MOM for Saints yesterday. Amor I suppose being the exception.