Quote ="chubbs1981"he didn't have full control? could that be anything to do with 2 guys pulling the ball carrying arm behind his back? if a player is able to fully control the ball with 2 guys trying to pull it behind his back he may in your oppinion deserve the possession but in my mind he needs a drugs test. 2 guys in a leveraged position will always force a single players arm around if they try. its lose the ball or break or arm/shoulder what would you chose'"



which sounds great but that isn't what happened. There is always, shall we say, a modicum of man-handling in a tackle. It's a contact sport of course, and various parts of a tackled player will be handled in the tackle. Doesn't mean he had his arm twisted up behind his back, does it? In fact, are you suggesting the the referee should have awarded a penalty for a chicken wing tackle or perhaps something else as dangeorus?



The players weren't twisting his arm behind his back, in the sense they were deliberately trying to do that, or trying to dislodge the ball by doing so - any contact and movement was just part of a normal tackle. ergo if he cant keep hold in a normal tackle, its a loose carry and he deserves to lose it. />


I dont see a lot of broken arms or shoulders as a result of this - tells me it doesnt happen the way you seem to think it does very often. A halfway competent player would be able to keep possession, even in contact, without worrying about if his arm was going to be twisted up behind his back. Something to do with having it in the right position to start with....?

Quote ="chubbs1981"he didn't have full control? could that be anything to do with 2 guys pulling the ball carrying arm behind his back? if a player is able to fully control the ball with 2 guys trying to pull it behind his back he may in your oppinion deserve the possession but in my mind he needs a drugs test. 2 guys in a leveraged position will always force a single players arm around if they try. its lose the ball or break or arm/shoulder what would you chose'"



which sounds great but that isn't what happened. There is always, shall we say, a modicum of man-handling in a tackle. It's a contact sport of course, and various parts of a tackled player will be handled in the tackle. Doesn't mean he had his arm twisted up behind his back, does it? In fact, are you suggesting the the referee should have awarded a penalty for a chicken wing tackle or perhaps something else as dangeorus?



The players weren't twisting his arm behind his back, in the sense they were deliberately trying to do that, or trying to dislodge the ball by doing so - any contact and movement was just part of a normal tackle. ergo if he cant keep hold in a normal tackle, its a loose carry and he deserves to lose it. />


I dont see a lot of broken arms or shoulders as a result of this - tells me it doesnt happen the way you seem to think it does very often. A halfway competent player would be able to keep possession, even in contact, without worrying about if his arm was going to be twisted up behind his back. Something to do with having it in the right position to start with....?

Quote ="cherrydevil"It also seems like anytime the ball hits the floor the referee gives a knock on, even when the ball goes back.'" />


This a major bugbear of mine, if they're going to give a knock-on even when the ball goes backwards they may as well just introduce some sort of a "fumble" rule, at least that way we won't get regular half-baked decisions where balls that clearly go backwards are pulled up, whilst every now and again balls that are genuine knock-ons get a play on.

Quote ="cherrydevil"It also seems like anytime the ball hits the floor the referee gives a knock on, even when the ball goes back.'" />


This a major bugbear of mine, if they're going to give a knock-on even when the ball goes backwards they may as well just introduce some sort of a "fumble" rule, at least that way we won't get regular half-baked decisions where balls that clearly go backwards are pulled up, whilst every now and again balls that are genuine knock-ons get a play on.

Quote ="chubbs1981"ok and i'd say that if as in this case the ball is on the back of his ribs and its knocked out by accident then the tackling player is so close to the tackled player he is impeding him getting up.



as you said its a two way thing it just so happens that it was on sky and the refs at sky games seem to use the video replay facilitiy for the most minor of things that wouldn't get considered at a non sky match.



if they can use the video to check offsides and crossing etc surely they could have used it for instances like this. after all it showed on the big screen and the ref could see it. i know once the decision is given it can't be over turned but it seems like such a waste of a facility that is available to them.'" />


we gotta be careful we dont get what we wish for here!



atm the VR is only for Tries and for 40/20 decisions not for any other decision throughout the game. I think if they were to introduce something like this it'd be the thin end of the wedge - it wouldn't be long and they'd be checking for all kinds of errors and indiscretions. The game would never flow, and itd end up liek Gridiron!



leave it as it is I say!

Quote ="chubbs1981"ok and i'd say that if as in this case the ball is on the back of his ribs and its knocked out by accident then the tackling player is so close to the tackled player he is impeding him getting up.



as you said its a two way thing it just so happens that it was on sky and the refs at sky games seem to use the video replay facilitiy for the most minor of things that wouldn't get considered at a non sky match.



if they can use the video to check offsides and crossing etc surely they could have used it for instances like this. after all it showed on the big screen and the ref could see it. i know once the decision is given it can't be over turned but it seems like such a waste of a facility that is available to them.'" />


we gotta be careful we dont get what we wish for here!



atm the VR is only for Tries and for 40/20 decisions not for any other decision throughout the game. I think if they were to introduce something like this it'd be the thin end of the wedge - it wouldn't be long and they'd be checking for all kinds of errors and indiscretions. The game would never flow, and itd end up liek Gridiron!



leave it as it is I say!

Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"This a major bugbear of mine, if they're going to give a knock-on even when the ball goes backwards they may as well just introduce some sort of a "fumble" rule, at least that way we won't get regular half-baked decisions where balls that clearly go backwards are pulled up, whilst every now and again balls that are genuine knock-ons get a play on.'" />


I think the answer is much more simple than that - at the moment they are quite strict on a knock-on decision; I'd say just be less strict. If it looks like it went back or there is some conjecture or doubt, play on. I'm not saying ignore knock-ons but if it goes back or there is a strong suggestion it went back or if there is genuine doubt, etc etc, call it a knock-on. Then allow play to continue. />


I dont think it'd mean many changes, maybe only one in every four would be a play on call as a result but I think thats about right. this way there are no rue chages but the refs are just a little more lenient. I'm not sure if there is an edict from RFL match officials dept which contradicts that but surely its worth a thought, especially when we all want to see the ball in play more. It would lower the number of stoppages as well I think.

Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"This a major bugbear of mine, if they're going to give a knock-on even when the ball goes backwards they may as well just introduce some sort of a "fumble" rule, at least that way we won't get regular half-baked decisions where balls that clearly go backwards are pulled up, whilst every now and again balls that are genuine knock-ons get a play on.'" />


I think the answer is much more simple than that - at the moment they are quite strict on a knock-on decision; I'd say just be less strict. If it looks like it went back or there is some conjecture or doubt, play on. I'm not saying ignore knock-ons but if it goes back or there is a strong suggestion it went back or if there is genuine doubt, etc etc, call it a knock-on. Then allow play to continue. />


I dont think it'd mean many changes, maybe only one in every four would be a play on call as a result but I think thats about right. this way there are no rue chages but the refs are just a little more lenient. I'm not sure if there is an edict from RFL match officials dept which contradicts that but surely its worth a thought, especially when we all want to see the ball in play more. It would lower the number of stoppages as well I think.