I dislike Westwood as much as the next man but that was never a red.

The common theme is that every single professional referee who looked at the so-called knock on agreed that a try should be given.

I'd agree they're almost always given by on-field refs who, rightly or wrongly, tend to give the benefit of any doubt to the defending side. However, I'm less sure the VRs do, given as they are several replays upon which to base their decisions.

I dislike the whole VR thing full stop. But if we must have it, then there are real weaknesses surrounding the on-field decisions of try/no try. I suspect Thaler went to the VR for McGuire's try under the illusion that TV evidence would confirm or refute his on-field decision. The fact that it did neither meant that his decision stood. There's a nagging suspicion in the back of my mind that Thaler had no clear idea whatsoever as to whether a knock-on had actually taken place.

It would be interesting too know how the video refs saw it. Was is 2 yes's or 1 yes and 1 no? Why wasn't Ganson video ref when we needed him
In the end the try stood, but after having conversations with some Saints and Wire fans all said no try. I believe a former Leeds player was watching the game in a bar in Billinge and he thought it was no try.

It was clearly no try and never has been a try until they changed the way decisions are sent upstairs.

That would have been turned down in any of the other 17 grand finals without any shadow of a doubt.

Wouldn't have been surprised to have seen it chalked off. I'm not even sure of the rules though. If losing the ball forward without it hitting the ground is a knock-on regardless of what happens next, then it was. Or is losing it momentarily forwards viewed as the same as a fumble, i.e. ok so long as you either regain the ball or the propel it backwards or sideways? If the latter, then it wasn't and the VR decision stacks up.

I'm like yourself in that I am no longer sure of the rules. I thought that loosing control of the ball whilst facing your oppositional is a clear knock on all day long irrespective if eventually propel it backwards or sideways.

So many of us can't help thinking the try would have been disallowed if a Wigan player had done exactly the same as McGuire did....! That is the crux of the whole matter.
I find it amazing that apparently the RFL apologised to Wigan and SW after the Headingley game when despite 2 knock-ons by Sinfield both tries were awarded by the VR, Bentham. That there was a case of déjà vu just over a month later with an even more blatant knock-on really sticks in the craw.
Claims that 3 professional referees deemed it not to have been a knock-on and awarded the try do not alter the fact (as already stated) that the vast majority of people with a knowledge of rugby (not just Wigan fans) would have disallowed the try for a blatant knock-on!

They may know rugby but do they know the rules? If, for example, McGuire had fumbled the ball then palmed it backwards/sideways without it having hit the ground or an opponent then I doubt many would call it as a knock-on (unless in their view it had gone forward and not sideways). Is it different if it hits his leg? I'm not claiming to know the answer although there must be one.

If he palmed the ball backwards before it hit the ground it would be ok. In this case, though, the ball came forwards out of McGuires's hands and then involuntarily hit his thigh. From what I understood Cummins to be saying, this "involuntary" action was the crucial fact. If he had deliberately kicked the ball, it would have been ok but he didn't. Definite knock-on! As the vast majority agree.
I still don't know how 2 professional referees could come to this decision. I have my theories, but....

From the rules:

"Accidental 2. If, after knocking-on accidentally, the player knocking-on regains or kicks the ball before it touches the ground, a goal post, cross bar or an opponent, then play shall be allowed to proceed.
Otherwise play shall stop and a scrum shall be formed except after the fifth play-the-ball"

Their definition of a kick is to impart movement with any part of the leg from knee to toe but excluding the heel.

Looks like you're right unless they deemed the ball to have hit the knee.

All the professional referees agree it was a try.

Makes up for the seemingley endless 50/50 video ref decisions that have denied leeds against wigan in recent years. Mcguire ''drop kick'' try 2011, mcguire obstruction try MM 2013, Joel Moon phantom knock on MM 2014, Mcguire obstruction try 2015 (which was confirmed should have stood after by the ref's).

Basically anytime in the last 5 years there's been a 50/50 video ref call in a game against wigan, it's gone wigan's way. In all those games less than 6 points winning margin.

Poor old downtrodden hard done by wigan.

Where have you been me owd stocking top?
No soccer on toneet in Merseyside?

He's a Leeds fan, with an infatuation with the 'S'