I think you are right Wigg'n.

Perhaps it was judged that Tommy had stripped it as opposed to a saints knock on, as in the quite frankly farcical occasions where the defending team is judged to have knocked on if the ball goes the opposite way.

Either way, it is clearly an area where the rules need clearing up as there seem to be far too many grey areas.

I was listening to the VR and his ruling was as follows:

The drop-out was for Tommy grounding the ball after Wheeler lost it.

The reason that Wheeler lost it was that the ball was knocked out in the tackle - NOT that the ball was stripped in the tackle.

The difference being that if our player had deliberately struck the ball, it wouldd be stripping, but as he simply hit the ball during the act of making a tackle, it is legal.

Exactly the same as Pat's disallowed one at Wakefield a while back - Read "loose carry".

i agree knocked out in a loose carry not stripped

But surely had it been a 'loose carry', it would have been deemed a knock on and scrum to Wigan?

but it was knocked out and backwards by farrell and then grounded by leuluai.

But it was knocked forwards by the Saints player meaning they knocked on if the ball was simply lost in the tackle due to a loose carry.

But the ball went forward from Wheelers perspective. So I think the question still stands as to why that wasn't a knock on.

Is having the ball knocked out in the tackle considered different to losing control of it?

You occasionally see a crunching tackle result in the attacker dropping the ball and so a knock on is given. The only reason I can think of why Wheeler wasn't considered to have knocked on was due to the way the ball came out i.e. it was knocked out as opposed to him dropping it.

Having watched the play again it looks like Farrell deliberately punches the ball out so if the video ref thought it was just the result of the ball being hit in the tackle I reckon we were lucky to get away with it.

IMO there are two ways this could have gone. It could have been a penalty to them for us knocking the ball out with more than one in the tackle. He wasn't in the process of scoring IMO as the ball carrying arm would have been at least a foot away from the try line, his arm was underneath him and his momentum had stopped. He would have been short of the line. Or, it could have been a scrum to us for him knocking on due to a loose carry and the ball coming loose in the process of being tackled. Either way, it definitely was not a goal line drop out.

No, the ball was knocked out of his grasp (legally) by Hughes, and travels towards our line, so it's still play-on at that point, until Tommy grounds it.

According to a trained ref next to me, it was correct

Howcome when in normal play then when a player loses the ball forward during a tackle its a knock on but this wasnt? It just doesnt make any sense at all imo.

but if the ball was knocked out it surely should of been a penalty as there was more than one player involved in the tackle... therefore not a 1 on 1!!

I've not watched it back on BBC yet, but to my mind, that was the only way it could've been a drop-out; if the ball was knocked out, backwards, by a Wigan player in a 1-on-1 tackle, and then grounded in-goal by Tommy.

My recollection of it is that there was more than one Wigan man in the tackle when the ball came loose, so I too was baffled by the GLDO decision from the video ref, and still am after reading people's interpretations here.

Because it was ruled as knocked out by Hughes, not Wheeler. Had the ball travelled away from our line instead of towards it, it would have been ruled a knock-on by Hughes. It wasn't a deliberate steal.

Any other time, an "accidental" knock out would be deemed a "loose carry", and therefore a defensive scrum. Still don't understand it.

And another thing, how come their offside at a 20 metre restart was given as penalty on the 20m, and not the 30? Offside is given as a penalty where the player shoold have been. The tackler was clearly offside on about the 27/28 metre line, so how come the penalty was taken back to the 20?