Every single camera angle showed it CLEARLY going forwards before Hardacre moving forwards as well made it look less obvious, but still a clear knock on.

Correct.

The ref originally waved/called play on so he clearly felt in real time it went back video ref called it back. Try was given. It's not like if enough people pretend/disagree it wasn't a try that it will change

Yes and he was wrong to.







Yes and he was wrong too.







No, but it's still wrong.

Get over it try was given try still had to be scored and hall beat two men after that.

I thought it was a clear knock on, but then again I am biased.

However, can anyone explain why the new rule didn't seem to apply when Ryan Hall caught the ball out of play before it touched the gound (or anything else) and Leeds still got the restart?

I thought there were some very poor decisions tonight, but Child is improving as a referee by not blowing for penalties in every set for the most minor of infringements.

In some games you seem to get the decisions in your favour, in others you don't.

Not sure I can.

Silverwood hasn't got a bloody clue!!

It was DEFFO a knock on. DISGRACEFUL DECISION.



Enjoyed the game though, a couple of players that caught my eye, Lee (?) Mitchell for Cas, and Kallum Watkins, how good could that lad be, awesome talent.

Inconclusive for me. It didn't cross the line before the bounce as some posters are claiming. One angle seemed to show a very marginal knock-on, the other looked flat at worst. I'd probably have chalked the try off if I'd been VR.



Cas played out of their skins tonight and could have won if not for some stupid defensive play by that tattooed idiot (when will wide defenders learn NOT to shoot out the line?!?!!) and a couple of potical tackle attempts. That said, their attacking play lacked much threat.

Hard to believe that Stevo and Eddie have suckered so many in to an argument about a non-issue. The ball may or may not have been knocked on, anyone who says it is "clear" is either on the wind or a liar. It is exceptionally unclear, and so the call could, obviously, have gone either way.



Child (who was in good position on filed to actually see it) obviously wasn't immediately convinced it was a knock on; he rightly checked, the VR clearly could not see enough evidence to say that the ball was definitely propelled towards the opponents' dead ball line, and so made a perfectly reasonable judgment call.



Personally, although my initial reaction in normal speed was "knock on", was similarly unconvinced the more I watched the replays. There is no doubt the ball was touched, but it isn't I think possible to be sure that when it landed, it ended up nearer the try line than it was when touched.

People seem to forget the fact that although the player was stood behind the line, his arms were stretched out in front of him. The ball was not touched as far back as his feet were.



Saying that... I still thought it was a knock on!

Just not as much of a knock on as people are saying.