That's a helluva pass ...

Paule23

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
#3
So when is,a kick not a kick but a ball lost forwards that gets toed?

Didds
The only realistic answer here is when you judge it to be so. It's going to be incident dependent.

In this instance, with one look it appeared OK, with a replay full screen it's borderline knocked on, but could also have been intentional given he had been tackled and had no realistic passing option at that angle. Not C&O, play on.
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#4
NO argument with that Paule123... my initial thought when I saw it real time for the first time was "that's a knock on that got toed". Others MMV naturally. I know some here are vehement about this sort of situation.

didds
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#5
NO argument with that Paule123... my initial thought when I saw it real time for the first time was "that's a knock on that got toed". Others MMV naturally. I know some here are vehement about this sort of situation.

didds
Unfortunately the confusion arises from a poor use of punctuation for a list of things set out in the definition of a knock on. This is similar to an issue highlighted in another post just recently. Semi colons better!s the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
Done correctly you should have read into it that it would have had to have touched the ground prior to the to poke to be determined a knock on.
 
Last edited:

didds

, Resident Club Coach
#6
Done correctly you should have read into it that it would have had to have touched the ground prior to the to poke to be determined a knock on.
well I agree but there are some here that in their view (which is fair enough) getting a toe on the end of a knock on (before it hits the ground, or another player etc) does not prevent a KO being called. Personally I think it would be clearer if a toe on the end of KO being called a kick and play on would simplify the whole area, bgut that's just me view


didds
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#7
well I agree but there are some here that in their view (which is fair enough) getting a toe on the end of a knock on (before it hits the ground, or another player etc) does not prevent a KO being called. Personally I think it would be clearer if a toe on the end of KO being called a kick and play on would simplify the whole area, bgut that's just me view


didds
You then have to consider any supplementary evidence. It also meets the definition of a kick. What's not to like?

Note an incorrect use of punctuation in the definition of a kick. In that case it is an improper use of the semi-colon! In itself, a contributing factor to the confusion arising in the TJP thread!

Grrrh!
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#8
I always used to kick a grubber kick that way... drop it on the ground and toe-end it.

Its a drop kick!
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#9
You then have to consider any supplementary evidence. It also meets the definition of a kick. What's not to like?

Note an incorrect use of punctuation in the definition of a kick. In that case it is an improper use of the semi-colon! In itself, a contributing factor to the confusion arising in the TJP thread!

Grrrh!
It has been highlighted in another post that one shouldn't look to compare the structuring of documentation in sporting laws, in this case rugby, with that of legal documentation more generally. Unfortunately it is inevitable when documentation management is part of the day job!

I can only see rugby being forced to tighten. Not the other way round.
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
#11
I have no problemwith the definitionof a kick.
I think the definition of a knock on could have the words "or kick" added after "catch" which woud decide the debate.
Or if you go the other way you should add "The act of kicking a ball does not prevent a knock on."

However, if a player runs with the ball and loses possession and the ball initially travels backwards then bounces forwards off the body we would all call knock-on.
So if kicking does not prevent a knock on, why would the fact it bounces off a foot be any different to bouncing off the body.
So all kicks that go forwards should be knock ons.
But the laws specifically permit a player to kick forwards.
So we have a reductio ad absurbum.
So the laws cannot mean that.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#12
I have no problemwith the definitionof a kick.
I think the definition of a knock on could have the words "or kick" added after "catch" which woud decide the debate.
Or if you go the other way you should add "The act of kicking a ball does not prevent a knock on."

However, if a player runs with the ball and loses possession and the ball initially travels backwards then bounces forwards off the body we would all call knock-on.
So if kicking does not prevent a knock on, why would the fact it bounces off a foot be any different to bouncing off the body.
So all kicks that go forwards should be knock ons.
But the laws specifically permit a player to kick forwards.
So we have a reductio ad absurbum.
So the laws cannot mean that.
... or you could ask yourself what the law is intended to achieve. Clearly Law 12 is meant to prevent players from benefitting if they lose the ball forward.

There is not usually any confusion over whether or not the contact with the foot was originally meant as a kick, because the set up for even a grubber kick is fairly distinct from just sticking out a foot.
 

VM75

Player or Coach
#13
Often we hear that "it's the players game".

I suspect that if polled the vast majority would prefer to see that any knock/throw or spill forward that was then kicked/toed by the same player before it touched the ground as simply 'play on'

then only the simultaneous landed/strikes would be open to discussion [hopefully!]
 

beckett50

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#14
Brilliant passage of play.

Looks like a kick ahed to me - nothing that isn't C&O so I would award the try.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#15
I have no problemwith the definitionof a kick.
I think the definition of a knock on could have the words "or kick" added after "catch" which woud decide the debate.
Or if you go the other way you should add "The act of kicking a ball does not prevent a knock on."

However, if a player runs with the ball and loses possession and the ball initially travels backwards then bounces forwards off the body we would all call knock-on.
So if kicking does not prevent a knock on, why would the fact it bounces off a foot be any different to bouncing off the body.
So all kicks that go forwards should be knock ons.
But the laws specifically permit a player to kick forwards.
So we have a reductio ad absurbum.
So the laws cannot mean that.
Testing how robust my understanding is, off the top of my head, I believe a kick will always prevent a knock on unless the ball comes in contact with the ground first. Of course, happy to hear from anyone with examples that might help me home in on the laws that might allow it to be interpreted otherwise.

This view would then make this example much easier to give the interpretation that it passes as ok.

As as such, from a laws perspective, I would see a simultaneous ground/foot contact as a knock on. It's a kick but it also meets the definition of a knock on which is an infringement. Infringement trumps play on.

A drop kick is defined in the laws in its own right for use in the relevant areas that then allow it to pass as the exception.
 

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#16
My understanding in rugby union has always been that a knock-on is a knock on and the act of sticking your foot out to make contact with the ball before it touches the ground does not negate the knock-on. There is some scope for a referee to interpret whether it is a knock-on (an accident/handling error) or a deliberate and controlled attempt to kick.

If we look at the definition of a knock on:-
A knock-on occurs 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.

The only possible let off for a player who knocks-on is the word ‘and’ since this would suggest that the previous conditions can be negated by the phrase ‘the ball touches the ground or another player’. Clearly contact with the foot is neither of these. However the end of this phrase does say ‘before the original player can catch it’. By kicking it the original player is obviously not catching it so the next action once it has made contact with the foot is to either hit the ground or to touch another player. The act of kicking is an intentional, deliberate and controlled act as far as I’m concerned.

However, I did mention in the first sentence ‘rugby union’. This is because of finding this:-
http://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules/laws_of_the_game/knock_on__forward_pass

Is this another aspect of rugby league that we need to adopt?
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#17
My understanding in rugby union has always been that a knock-on is a knock on and the act of sticking your foot out to make contact with the ball before it touches the ground does not negate the knock-on. There is some scope for a referee to interpret whether it is a knock-on (an accident/handling error) or a deliberate and controlled attempt to kick.

If we look at the definition of a knock on:-
A knock-on occurs 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.

The only possible let off for a player who knocks-on is the word ‘and’ since this would suggest that the previous conditions can be negated by the phrase ‘the ball touches the ground or another player’. Clearly contact with the foot is neither of these. However the end of this phrase does say ‘before the original player can catch it’. By kicking it the original player is obviously not catching it so the next action once it has made contact with the foot is to either hit the ground or to touch another player. The act of kicking is an intentional, deliberate and controlled act as far as I’m concerned.

However, I did mention in the first sentence ‘rugby union’. This is because of finding this:-
http://www.rugby-league.com/the_rfl/rules/laws_of_the_game/knock_on__forward_pass

Is this another aspect of rugby league that we need to adopt?
Haven't investigated the post fully yet but I think our punctuation issue is clearly in play again. Helping with brackets, I see it nesting ( maths and computing) as, "...and the ball touches the ground) or (another player before the original player can catch it). I see that if it touches the ground it must automatically be a knock on. The second is a separate scenario . I'll have to take a punt that most instances happen this way, so supporting the case I am putting forward.

If your understanding is correct, I think it is an understanding that cannot be readily taken from the laws. it can only perhaps come from: experience; knowledge; forms of evidence, or; guidance (haven't confirmed the correctness my own punctuation there!). This presents a hurdle for us new inductees when the laws are our primary source of reference. Society is the next layer.

off the top of my head and without trying to interpret RL laws in detail, for the situation described, gut feel is, theirs looks to be consistent with what I am understanding for this situation, However I see knocked on accidentally cannot be recognised immediately as the as accidental knock on per RU code. The laws might diverge and with good reason.
 
Last edited:

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#18
.......
The act of kicking is an intentional, deliberate and controlled act as far as I’m concerned.
....
just to note, our example had different characteristics.

Colby's kick was intentional, deliberate but ultimately, not controlled. In the process, a defender attempted to tackle him, Hence, it ended up as a toe poke.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#19
My general view is that you cant save a knock on by getting a toe to it.
BUT in that particular instance I can't help but think play on...