disallowed try at the end of the first half : Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:19 pm  

Can anyone explain why our try at the end of the first half was disallowed? As I see it, Joe passed forward and the ball was caught before the ball hit the floor or an opponent therefore it would be a forward pass, and the video ref could not possibly action anything about this under their own rule? Answers please

Re: disallowed try at the end of the first half : Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:23 pm  

spoonie wrote:

Can anyone explain why our try at the end of the first half was disallowed? As I see it, Joe passed forward and the ball was caught before the ball hit the floor or an opponent therefore it would be a forward pass, and the video ref could not possibly action anything about this under their own rule? Answers please

He gave a knock-on I think, but I stand to be corrected. That thought did cross my mind too though.

Re: disallowed try at the end of the first half : Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:23 pm  

spoonie wrote:

Can anyone explain why our try at the end of the first half was disallowed? As I see it, Joe passed forward and the ball was caught before the ball hit the floor or an opponent therefore it would be a forward pass, and the video ref could not possibly action anything about this under their own rule? Answers please

Pushing the ball forward with your fingers is not considered a pass in RL, but classed as a knock on!

Re: disallowed try at the end of the first half : Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:24 pm  

spoonie wrote:

Can anyone explain why our try at the end of the first half was disallowed? As I see it, Joe passed forward and the ball was caught before the ball hit the floor or an opponent therefore it would be a forward pass, and the video ref could not possibly action anything about this under their own rule? Answers please

Good point, and one I missed. In terms of justice it wasn't a try because it was a yard forward off Westy's hand. You're right though - they can't use the video ref for forward passes.

Unless it's a Cas decision and a Wakey ref of course.

: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:24 pm  

No attempt to pass was made, knock on.

: Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:33 pm  

serge le forge wrote:

No attempt to pass was made, knock on.

Looked like a rush-pass attempt to me. It probably needed a different shirt colour to make it look convincing though.

Re: disallowed try at the end of the first half : Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:06 pm  

So Grose but So Good wrote:

Pushing the ball forward with your fingers is not considered a pass in RL, but classed as a knock on!

unless your warrington..

: Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:08 pm  

It was the same as the Leeds disallowed try against Bradford at Easter.

It was a knock on. He never had control of the ball at any stage for it to be called a pass. The ball hit his hand and went forward and was caught by another player.

Knock on.

: Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:33 pm  

Dave T wrote:

It was the same as the Leeds disallowed try against Bradford at Easter.

It was a knock on. He never had control of the ball at any stage for it to be called a pass. The ball hit his hand and went forward and was caught by another player.

Knock on.

I don't think anyone's saying it should have stood, mate. Natural justice concedes there was an infringement in play which ruled out the try. TBH though, it seems a little oblique to infer that infringement was in fact a 'clear knock on', purely to justify the act of going to the screen. It certainly wasn't clear by any definition, and for Thaler to miss so much else in the game yet pick up on this particular nuance of this particular play seems a tad beyond the credible for me. It strikes me that, ordinarily, a ref would have either called that play as forward on the spot (the 'just' outcome, in this case) or - much more likely - would have let the try stand.

: Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:47 pm  

Disco wrote:

I don't think anyone's saying it should have stood, mate. Natural justice concedes there was an infringement in play which ruled out the try. TBH though, it seems a little oblique to infer that infringement was in fact a 'clear knock on', purely to justify the act of going to the screen. It certainly wasn't clear by any definition, and for Thaler to miss so much else in the game yet pick up on this particular nuance of this particular play seems a tad beyond the credible for me. It strikes me that, ordinarily, a ref would have either called that play as forward on the spot (the 'just' outcome, in this case) or - much more likely - would have let the try stand.

TBH I think in a non TV game they would probably have blown straight away and the fans would hav gone mad.

There was quite a lengthy debate about this after that Leeds game, with some fans claiming the VR couldn't disallow it as it was a pass rather than a knock on, and he can;t rule on a forward pass.

My take on it (and obviously the ref's too) is that the player (in both cases) did not have hold of the ball, so isn't actually passing the ball. If it is deemed the ball has gone forward it is a knock on. IMO in instances like this, unless the player has held the ball at any stage then the VR is well within his rights to call a knock on.

As you stated, the ball clearly went forward (I only watched on TV but called it instantly, and was glad that he got over the line, as had he been stopped short and you scoring on the next tackle, it would have stood).

My point saying it was a clear knock on was not to be dismissive, but when you look at it, it hit's his hand, and travels forward, collected by another player, remove the whole debate about whether this is a pass and that has 100% of the characteristics of a knock on.