Clearly he was attempting a drop goal, from two meters of the try line out towards the left touchline. because thats not an impossible angle at all KNOCK ON.

exactly. hence my sarcasm regarding the 'drop goal attempt' defence

A half volley kick is a skill, well done. And it takes considerably more skill to do and control it than a kick straight from the boot. So what is the bloody point when it is quicker and easier to go straight from the boot? Answer is that there is no point, and no player intentionally drops the ball before kicking it unless it's for a goal or a restart.

As for the comment a poster made about 50% of tributes probably hit the floor first, that is absolute rubbish of the highest order and the poster clearly doesn't watch RL very often or closely.

He didn't drop kick it, he dropped it and kicked it.

Correct decision by Stevie G!

If you believe that he dropped it inadvertently and then kicked it then I agree it's a knock on because he didn't kick it before it hit the ground, as required by the rules in those circumstances.

My view was that he dropped it deliberately with an intent to kick it and then executed a legal drop kick as described by the laws of the game. Whether he improvised that drop kick as opposed to a punt because his timing was disrupted by the tackler is an irrelevance.

The question asked by Alibert of Ganson was the wrong one - he should have asked if the ball was knocked on, not whether it had hit the ground before being kicked.

Your view is total bollox , he knocked on , it doesn't matter what you assume he was intending to do

He knocked on

Explain to me your understanding of why his actions constituted a knock on.

He lost control of the football. He went to kick it, Tomkins drew his arm back forcing him to lose control of the ball, as a last ditch attempt he took a wild swing at the ball, by some fluke he managed to kick it [After the ball had touched the floor] and went in for the 'try'.

If any player loses control of the football in a forward motion and it touches the floor or another player it is automatically deemed a knock on. McGuire had no control of that football, and it was only by chance he managed to get his foot to it.

Nobody is saying he wasn't intending to kick it, Your argument is both inane and ridiculous at the same time.

Answer me this, had the ball bounced six inches in the air and them McGuire kicked it, would it still have been a try, in your eyes?

Yes it does matter. If the VR thought McGuire had been attempting a drop kick then he would have given play on as (as Steve Fox has pointed out) it would have qualified as a drop kick. Since McGuire was obviously attempting a grubber or some other type of kick and was disrupted by Tomkins effort then it was rightly given as a knock-on. In this case, like in several rules in RL, McGuire's intentions were vital to the correct decision being reached.

I also think that if this were a non-VR game that the try would have been given.

I also don't see any Leeds fans hoping Sam Tomkins career is over. But hey, most rugby league fans can keep things in perspective.

His intentions are irrelevant , he knocked on , the touch judge saw that he knocked on and asked Mr Alibert to check with the VR , if it had not been a televised game there would have been an in goal touch judge , he most likely would have seen it as well , even in real time I said he knocked on

He dropped the ball

The Leeds players walking forward before the decision was shown is enough proof for me that it was a knock on.

In which case every drop kick is also a knock on by that logic.