This was the incident in the Wire-KR game. The ball was touched in flight by one Wire player then caught by Briers before it hit the deck. The ruling was that Briers had defused the bomb even though he didn't catch it directly from the kick but after another Wire player had touched it.



I was quite surprised with the decision but I admit to not being clear on whether the ball has to be caught directly to count as being defused.

Maybe he was trying to make the distinction between him signalling that the clock should be stopped and the actual stopping of the clock. He did go on to make that point more clearly by saying that he wasn't responsible for the timekeeping.

Taking the conversation as a whole, I'm sure the point he was making was that he didn't, doesn't and can't stop the clock on account of him not being the timekeeper. I don't think he intended to suggest he had not given the signal to the timekeepers.

hmmmm but if the ref had gone to stop the clock then the ball is dead, hooter goes to signal full time, should he not have allowed the scrum to be taken and blow full time after the next tackle/dead ball?



It happens with pens. If a team is awarded a pen and then the hooter goes afterwards they can still take the pen. They can kick to touch, take the tap and then play on until a tackle is complete or the ball is dead either through scoring/knocking on etc

this has already been covered, try reading again or look at a rule book

Several prominent PL referees are Liverpool fans. It's not unknown.