I agree, so it comes down to what McGuire's intentions & what he was attempting to do. I was responding to Starbug's assertion that McGuire's intentions were irrelevant when in fact what McGuire was attempting to do is the crux of the matter.

Due to the situation, position on the field, scoreline etc he obviously wasnt going for a drop goal he was attempting a grubber and due to pressure from Tomkins didn't get it right. So knock on was the correct call IMO.

It was irrelivant because he didnt do a drop kick , he wasnt intending to do a drop kick , he dropped the ball and then kicked it

That's exactly how I see it, and I'm sure I've also been told this in the past.

I'm not sure why certain people are still convinced they're somehow more insightful than the match officials, players, commentators, the media and indeed most fans (neutral or otherwise - even on here).

He dropped it. It hit the floor and bounced. That immediately constitutes a knock-on. That his foot then connected is irrelevant. Trying to claim some form of accidental drop-kick is frankly laughable.

Which is what a drop kick is - a kick on the half volley.

He never intended to do a drop kick though. He clearly wasn't going for goal. So it was a knock on.

He did actually do a drop kick, because he wasn't intending to do a drop kick is why it was a knock on.

It is McGuire's intentions that caused it to be a knock on not his physical actions.

No he dropped it , then kicked it , it was nowhere near being a ' drop kick '

Anyway , you lost end of

Good lord you're as bad as Smokey!


McGuire's physical actions, taking the situation he was in out of the equation, adequately fulfill the criteria for a drop kick. It was his intentions, the fact he intended to grubber rather drop kick, that made it a knock on. In the same way that a defender making a play to stop an attacker passing is judged to have knocked on yet another defender making exactly the same physical actions can make a tackle and in doing so stop an attacker passing but not be judges to have knocked on. Both players knocked the ball forward, both players actions were exactly the same, it is the players' diferring intentions not their physical actions which leads to the different decisions.


No I didn't. I didn't play in that game.
The club I support lost to a very good team, I'll deal with it, it is only a game after all.
Plus, as a Leeds fan, I have plenty of experience to draw on when losing to Wigan.

This has happened in both games for Hull against St Helens and in both games the rule has been overlooked, much to the fury of the Hull fans. It wouldn't annoy me so much if both weren't so blatantly obvious, and one actually ended up setting Saints up in a good position which they capitalised on.

Ah well. Win some, lose some (and in the first case... draw some!).

Yep well we're then into the issue of how the officials uphold the rules! I think most people are agreed on that the TJ's need to give the ref more/better help.

There also seems to be a habit at the moment of refs giving another set of 6 everytime a kick hits an opposition player, when in many cases they havent played at the ball. It seems the default position seems to be to give an extra set. Which comes back to old Uncle Stu, our friendly Match Officials Director, recently relocated to the south of France.

Making a movement towards the ball (even before it is in the air off the kicker's foot) is now treated as "playing" at it IIRC.

So if you take a few steps forward out of the defensive line to close the kicker down in case he chooses to run it and he then subsequently smacks the ball straight at you, the attacking team gets another set of six if they can recover it.

A ludicrous interpretation IMO, which sees players who are virtually stood still with their back to the kicker being classed as having made a charge down.

Someone needs to get Starbug to sit down and watch some drop goal attempts frame by frame. I'm guessing that in the majority you'll find at least one frame (so that's what - 1/32 of a second?) where the ball is on the floor and not in contact with the kicker's foot. Presumably in his world those are all knock-ons?

dropkick - (football) kicking (as for a field goal) in which the football is dropped and kicked as it touches the ground

Your definition is incorrect. The one I pasted is correct.
It was clearly a knock-on by Maguire.
Tomkins, in tackling Maguire by the arms, caused him to drop it. Quick thinking Maguire, then put his foot to it.

Errm, no.

Not sure where your version comes from, but the laws of the game state

"DROP KICK is a kick whereby the ball is dropped from the hands (or
hand) and is kicked immediately it rebounds from the
ground."

which is what the OP said.