5 pages on and it happened 2 days ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's finished, its done, it will not return and IT WILL NOT CHANGE!!!

GET A LIFE people

Reaches to contest the ball.

Ball ricochets off of Slaters hand in the direction of the dead ball line. Currently under Slater's posession "loose" he is not in full control, similar to a fumble, allowed to be recollected unless in contact with a foreign object (Slater does not count

), whih would be a knock on if Slater did not collect.

Slater regathers the ball whilst technically still within the pitch (last contact with ground was on the floor within the pitch).

He is now in posession of the ball just within the pitch, and has enough control to propell it backwards relative to the position of his foot when he jumped, constituting a pass.

Smith collects and scores.

Very good try, and whomever commented about basketball, running off the side of the pitch without touching the ground outside of the pitch, then passing it before you touch the ground is fully legit, and may I add awesome, and is a great tactic if pulled off. I commend that little !$£@*^& Slater

Which is a knock-on.



Until it hits a foreign object play can continue [iafter[/i the knock-on if he regains possession. He doesn't regather, he knocks the ball, for a second time, towards the dead ball line (he and the ball are past the dead ball line but still in play at this point).

Mind you, you're bound to find some argumentative enough to tell you that "regaining possession" doesn't actually mean that, and knocking the ball a second time equals regaining possession!

There was a time when occasionally our refereeing supremos would be brave enough to stick their heads over the parapet and explain these highly contentious rulings, for the benefit and elucidation of us great unwashed, and not least to clarify the rules - I mean to put it at the very least, these decisions have been controversial, and the arguments continue. Are the rules supposed to be a mystery for the paying speccies?

And if they agree fsck-ups were made, then it would be nice of them to say so.

If they say the stuff was legal and why, then we can all know for future reference.

My post and those of others have already detailed why this was a legitimate try (where speculation doesn't come into it, like those of the opposite opinion), yet we're still going on about it? Dear, oh dear.

It would be nice to know what interpretations the refs are working to instead of trying to guess from their decisions. At one point Thecko was working with a ref who posts on here to try and get permission from the RFL to publish the various edicts sent to refs regarding interpretations.
The RFL said no.

it would be interesting as to mr cummings thoughts on the try, why he thought it was good( if he did etc) just to clarify a dubious decision, i thought i was a good try myself but most people can see both sides of the coin

I'll only comment on the Inglis try which was a shocking VR decision but, considering who the VR was, not surprising.

Maybe the rules need amending like they were when someone headed the ball over the line from a play the ball and scored many years ago. I think the rule was changed as it was seen as unfair to the defending team.

Did Slater gain an unfair advantage by knocking the ball forward over the defenders head. If the answer is yes, whether it was deliberate or not should be irrelevant.