At that early stage I received a text message which said you can see how this game's going in reference to the fact he was going to give the try no matter what.

This is the reason for the Marwan comment

Indeed Cas played very well given their injury situation and were denied what should've been a try in the first half when Child wrongly called them back for a knock on. However, whilst I'm sure Cas fans would be annoyed at that decision, I think most would understand how difficult it is to make those decisions in real time with often obstructed sight. The VR decision didn't have those restrictions and should have reached an easy verdict.

Was that the milner length of the field 'knock on' ?

i watched the game on delay as i was at stalybridge and had heard about the contentious VR decisions and was looking out for these.

Immediately on the milner one, i called a knock on, it hit milner's hand, and then we have the replays that show it did hit milner's hand but he was in the process of tackling. Now this brings me to another bug bear of mine, THAT ruling, where its not a knock on if they haven't played at it/if its in the process of completing the tackle.

I don't think i've ever seen this given in favour of the attacking side, its a totally bull pointless rule, "oh he was playing at the ball as his arm was outstretched" thats the standard sky commentary when the ball hits a tacklers arm, when they are just coming to wrap someone up around the body.

Its a stupid rule that only works one way, the wrong way.

Personally i think there's too many ways to make decisions on loose balls/strips/offloads after held, it needs tidying up.

Yep agree with all that. Like you I thought it was a knock on in real time, which is why I don't blame Child or the touch judge for calling it as such. But the rule is daft. It's not a knock on either way in my opinion. The tackle knocked the ball out and so it should be play on.
They only changed the rule to make it easier to adjudicate on, if you remember back a few years there were a few incidents re this situation (of course the controversy was needlessly heightened and exacerbated by the Sky team) and shortly after they changed the rule to the current one. In the same way as they did with obstruction.

Under the previous VR rules do you reckons Silverwood would have awarded a "benefit of doubt " try , noting that the decision went with the attacking side ?

Who cares, Cas would have beat us anyway. We move on, hope we go for mcshane in the off season and good luck against the pies

You're right

The mods should close all match related threads as soon as the score is in as no amount of debate will change the result

Just as my first and only comment and this has been a great thread to read as it seems most if not everyone is in agreement that Silverwood made a balls up of the highest order,did anyone else notice that after Solomona rolled over and lost control of the ball (it rolled up the outside of his forearm before flying away) that Silverwood actually said something along the lines of "he's still got control, I am happy with that"

Is it me or was the ball clearly lost at that stage and he was talking absolute bull crap?

And Cas were brilliant and battered us off the pitch. Well done and with McShane looking a natural as a seven as well.

To be honest, I at least think that the current system is better than this more spurious "benefit of the doubt" element that we had previously. I know people find plenty of examples where the process is flawed, but this incident really shouldn't have been one of them. The ball did not hit the ground and it was there for all to see.

You can't write-off a process as flawed if the biggest flaw is the people following it .