I think you missed a comma

In the English language, that is a synonym for 'cheating'. Which should be removed from the game.

Are you using the word in some other way?

Or is it just, like 'knock on', another word you don't know the meaning of?

Hey … I'm just saying that I can only see two possible rulings that would allow the try to be given. Not making any comment on the validity of those rulings

Similar to how NFL style forward passes are ignored, or offsides at alsmot every play the ball.

Bizarre.

Saints fans are just ed cause a prop dicked all of your team for speed.

I can't imagine how vexed we would be if we had beaten a team only once in 30 odds meetings then.

Don't go claiming any records, Carvell's achievement was hardly a shock for us. Wayne McDonald once went on a 60 metre gallop with our pacy backline chasing slowly behind.

Rather than us being 'vexed' (I guess all the neutrals are just jealous of the Wire too?) is it not that you are slightly bitter about once more falling short in a should-win game against Saints? Forward passes killed us Nothing to do with a diminutive teenager tearing holes in your defense then or the fact your players once more gave up after 70 minutes?

100% knock on, video confirmed it time N time again, saints players walked out form behind the line in readiness to play on, no idea how they got a TRY for it... sure was a great try though, you could hear the "go on, go on, go on, go onnnnnn2 belowing out the southstand... I just stood there and thought "dont worry ade gardner is so fast he will nail him"...

Ganson needs arresting !

Well, quite clearly not; otherwise how do you explain the existence of this thread and countless others debating video ref rulings?

I've actually just seen it again on Boots n all online, only time since too.
I think what the VR is implying is sort of how the momentum rule is implemented in forward passes. Carvell and Roby's motion is forwards when he touches the ball, they probably cover 3 yards during those couple of frames. I think it's been deemed he's touched the ball backwards while travelling in a forward motion, then hitting roby's head before regathering.
I've seen it twice and that's the only logical explanation I can gather for the VR decision.
In fact, I think it was the correct one.

Watched it as well- but not 100% sure of the law. I thought it was only a knock on if the ball hit the ground as it hits Roby's head but Carvell gathers it before it hits the ground. Roby surely didn't play at it and it can't be a forward pass as no warrington palyer touched it

It's a knock on if (roughly) the player propels the ball towards the opposition try line and it strikes either the ground or another player before he is able to regather it.

IMO the only arguments that would make it a valid try are

a) Carvell propelled the ball backwards, or

b) It was a ball steal by Roby which Carvell subsequently recovered and the VR played the advantage.

Having not seen it since the numerous replays on Saturday I'm not convinced by either argument.

That's definately the one he's going for having seen it again last night, in fact, i don't see where all this debates come from

its really not going to make a difference now is it arguing over it saints beat us fair and square in the end by more than a try