He dropped it so close to the ground, there wasn't time to "catch up with it". A moment after it landed, he exerted downward pressure on it.

Exerting downward pressure does not negate your previous knock-on. The ball contacting the ground means it is a knock-on and that's that. It was poor ball security, he lost control of it, and never regained it.

If that's the case then I'm with you on this one and as you say if it has touched the floor after being dropped then it was a knock on and should have been ruled out.

T-R-Y for me. No issues with any of the tries apart from Higham's from the illegal play the ball. There were a few with dubious decisions leading up to them though.

True, but that wasn't the VR. Presumably Smith was keeping to some diktat to use VR less, and decided to trust his own judgment.

It would've been harsh to chalk it off, but it was almost a straight illustration of the example given in the Rules

That description fits what happened to a T.

Firstly there was no knock-on, A knock-on hasn't occured until tha ball hits something like the ground or a defending player, in this case Gardner never lost contact witht he ball although the ball did come out of his grasp. He didn't drop the ball and then ground it he had contact all the way down as can be clearly seen on the video.

As for the Higham try again it was the correct decision. People really shouldn't take what Stevo says as gospell. The player played the ball backwards there was no forward movement from the foot at all which would have been accidentally playing the ball forwards The foot was in front of the ball so how could it be played forwards. The ball bounced forwards from the force of the foot playing the ball backwards and it hitting the ground. Again this can clearly be seen on the video. It is indeed unusual but then a correct play the ball is unusual in the professional game and I'm not surprised you didn't recognise it.

Thought it was a close call but i would have gone for a try.

Looking at the replays there was no visible daylight between the ball and Gardeners body, although the ball slid away from his hand and he seemed to touch down with his forearm /elbow.
Try for me....I would say benefit of the doubt...very harsh if dis-allowed.

Obvious try, can't see why the VR took so long to give it the go-ahead.

Disagree, there was visable light from certain angles of the ball slipping away from Gardners grasp.

I would not have much argument either way some you will get, some you wont! My only concern last night was the way Briers was adjudged to have knocked on when he was making a tackle, that decision in my opinion turned the match( as well as saints being quiet good). There were also a couple of balls that went backwards but given as knocked on,I would like the RFL to explain when the rule was changed, as my understanding is that to be a knock on it has to be propelled towards the oposition try line from the hand/lower arm & hit the ground or another player not just droped.