Firstly the laws of rugby definition of a knock on:
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

So what did our refs think (they are staying anonymous to avoid the inevitable social media outcry)?

Harrow Ref Mr "A" says: "My first instinct was that the ball was knocked on. Having looked at the laws again I can't see anything to change that. Rees-Zammit is attempting to catch the ball from the kick through. It hits his right hand, travels forward, it then hits his leg twice, once on the thigh and once on the calf. It then goes backward. Rees -Zammit never had any control of the ball so it's not a kick and the fact that the ball hit him again was of no consequence. There is nothing in the rules to mitigate a knock on if the ball hits any part of his body so by instinct and law for me it's 100% knock on."
He wisely adds: "However the referee's decision is final so try given whatever we think."

Ref Mr "B" commented: "he lost control and the ball went forward so I’d have definitely given it as a knock on. Rees-Zammit’s face said it all when the try was given – he was sure it was a knock on as well."

and ref Mr "C" :"Knock on all day long for me. The ball has clearly gone forward off his hand and he has not regained control of it before it has hit another player or the ground.
The fact that is has subsequently gone backwards off his thigh shouldn't be a factor."

So there you have it - a fairly unanimous interpretation of a complex area although the referee's decision is always final and we all agree with that!

It goes without saying that none of our panel were willing to be quoted on their views of the quickly taken penalty, however.

All further debate on this topic is suspended pending the re-opening of licensed premises.