That's a helluva pass ...

Balones

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#21
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.
I can accept that in the video clip being discussed that there was less than complete control. Out of the three aspects of a kick that I mentioned the third would have a degree of variability. There was attempted control by the player in possession and that is what I meant, The lack of full control was an intervention by another player so was not the fault of the original player. There was no knock-on by the original player so he was entitled to kick the ball; even if it was not with the degree of control that he would have liked.

In my post I was making a general point rather than referring to the specific video. Apologies for any confusion.

So my opinion in conclusion is that in the specific scenario in the OP - play on -try.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#22
I can accept that in the video clip being discussed that there was less than complete control. Out of the three aspects of a kick that I mentioned the third would have a degree of variability. There was attempted control by the player in possession and that is what I meant, The lack of full control was an intervention by another player so was not the fault of the original player. There was no knock-on by the original player so he was entitled to kick the ball; even if it was not with the degree of control that he would have liked.

In my post I was making a general point rather than referring to the specific video. Apologies for any confusion.

So my opinion in conclusion is that in the specific scenario in the OP - play on -try.
No apologies necessary. All three combine to provide more conclusive evidence than a lesser combination.

i have just thought of a challenge to myself as regards a loss of control when attempting a grounding in-goal. I shall go and ponder to see if my application of logic holds true or if I have shot myself in the foot and have to then resort to gut feel!:)
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#23
As an aside, I am just asking myself whether we there is a danger the game is tending to rely too heavily on the c&o vs not c&o judgement call and could it work against the development of the game?

Has it always featured so strongly or is it a more recent phenomenon with the advent of comms., TMO , etc.?
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#24
For me the question is possession.

The law dictates that during a (normal) kick the player retaines possession until the foot and ball meet. Otherwise all kicks, except fly hacks and conversions, would be knock ons. Therefore in cases like this we ask the question: " Did the player retain possession (control)?" In this case I do feel it was not clear and obvious that he did not.
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#25
at the risk of participating in the hijack of my own thread, IMO the kicker commenced the kick before he was scragged so play on.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#26
RFU: Rugby Football Union

In the spirit of the origins of the game, I believe we should certainly be phrasing any questioning of the circumstances as, "Is it clear and obvious it wasn't a kick?", rather than, "Is it is clear and obvious it wasn't a knock on?"

i.e. We then have a firm understanding an attempt to kick the ball is to be seen as kick unless you see a specific infringement to determine it as being otherwise. Relegates the judgement of any element of control down the ladder somewhat.

It's a subtle but important difference.
 
Last edited:

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#27
I'd agree with Dickie, certainly seeing it at full speed in a game I'd give play on. It looked like an intentional attempt to kick ahead.

I think there's enough difficulty in interpreting laws to account for safety, enjoyment and equity, without bringing etymology in as an additional constraint.
 

Lee Lifeson-Peart

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#28
I'd agree with Dickie, certainly seeing it at full speed in a game I'd give play on. It looked like an intentional attempt to kick ahead.

I think there's enough difficulty in interpreting laws to account for safety, enjoyment and equity, without bringing etymology in as an additional constraint.
Insects?
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#29
at the risk of participating in the hijack of my own thread, IMO the kicker commenced the kick before he was scragged so play on.
I remember seeing a clip in which Dan Carter went to kick the ball but was tackled immediately after releasing the ball (not late - player committed) and so missed it. The referee ruled it was a knock-on.

That is the inverse of the current discussion, and I felt it was unfair that an opponent can turn a legal* action into an infringement.

*ie allowed by convention. It underlines my point that the action of kicking usually involves throwing the ball forward first, and needs to be covered in the laws.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#30
I remember seeing a clip in which Dan Carter went to kick the ball but was tackled immediately after releasing the ball (not late - player committed) and so missed it. The referee ruled it was a knock-on.

That is the inverse of the current discussion, and I felt it was unfair that an opponent can turn a legal* action into an infringement.

*ie allowed by convention. It underlines my point that the action of kicking usually involves throwing the ball forward first, and needs to be covered in the laws.
in that instance the tackle is legitimate and indeed the ultimate objective for the tackler. Carter was just "in process"?

So, not by convention perhaps? Rather by design?
 
Last edited:

OB..

, Advises in England
#31
in that instance the tackle is legitimate and indeed the ultimate objective for the tackler. Carter was just "in process"?

So, not by convention perhaps? Rather by design?
No problem with the tackle.

My point was
I felt it was unfair that an opponent can turn a legal action into an infringement.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
 

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
#32
You run along, I tackle you you lose possession, its a knock on.
You run along, you think about kicking, I tackle, you lose possession. its a knock on.

I do not actually see any difference.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#34
No problem with the tackle.

My point was
I felt it was unfair that an opponent can turn a legal action into an infringement.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing?
Camquin got there first.

I am disagreeing. "No surprise there!", I hear everybody cry.

Running with the ball, diving for the line are legitimate actions and legal. When a tackling opponent makes legitimate contact such that the ball is lost forwards turns these into infringements called against the attacker.

How might you be seeing those instances?

A bit too much being read into this one for me on this occasion. Sorry.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#35
You run along, I tackle you you lose possession, its a knock on.
You run along, you think about kicking, I tackle, you lose possession. its a knock on.

I do not actually see any difference.
The important point is that when shaping to kick, you release the ball forward. If you are tackled after releasing, but before getting a foot to the ball, the tackler can apparently turn a legal move into an infringement. That is unfair. The crucial point is that the tackler has not caused you to lose the ball.
 

Dickie E

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#36
The important point is that when shaping to kick, you release the ball forward. If you are tackled after releasing, but before getting a foot to the ball, the tackler can apparently turn a legal move into an infringement. That is unfair. The crucial point is that the tackler has not caused you to lose the ball.
You've raised this view several times in the past so obviously strongly held.

It is not a view that I share. By attempting to kick the ball the kicker takes an option that has some inherent risk to it. For instance, he may miss the ball completely with his boot. If he attempts a kick and fails (for whatever reason) then knock on for me.

Similar to a forward pass. If he's all alone and throws it forward - forward pass. If his arm is jolted by an opponent and throws it forward - forward pass (ie an oppenent has turned a legal act into an infringement).
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#37
The important point is that when shaping to kick, you release the ball forward. If you are tackled after releasing, but before getting a foot to the ball, the tackler can apparently turn a legal move into an infringement. That is unfair. The crucial point is that the tackler has not caused you to lose the ball.
I am happy to accept that this is your strongly held view even if it seems to leave you flying in the faces of a majority view. If I were to consider a literal interpretation of the laws along with your explanation, your argument is not be dismissed as groundless.

I have some of my own issues, ones that appear in that bracket, as the forum will all too readily know. I am at least relieved that, from time to time, I might not be alone on such matters.

Without looking to hijack, my loitering example is case in point. I believe I have argued a case that, while it goes against what seems to be the accepted view of as situation, means I see the current generally accepted interpretation of the law as being unfair. I go further to suggest that as it stands out there on its own, not only is it unfair, it should actually be changed. That will be unfinished business for me for a while, I suspect?
 
Last edited:

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
#38
It is one thing to suggest your point of view is correct, and that held by OB.. is incorrect.
However to suggest the majority do not share his point of view is simply wrong. The majority on RRF refrain from posting anything for fear of being lambasted by one or other fringe group (aka the various minorities)

Forum stats : Total Members 2,757 Active Members 298 (11%, including 2 camps, approx 15 v 15)

That's roughly half a percent versus half a percent, broadly speaking made up of those who hold to the letter of the LoTG (however ambiguous and poorly worded) and those who prefer to apply the spirit of the LOTG by using common sense. Neither side is completely right, nor completely wrong, just both equally tiresome at times.

YMMV
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith

, Referees in America, Rank Bajin!
#39
It is one thing to suggest your point of view is correct, and that held by OB.. is incorrect.
However to suggest the majority do not share his point of view is simply wrong. The majority on RRF refrain from posting anything for fear of being lambasted by one or other fringe group (aka the various minorities)

Forum stats : Total Members 2,757 Active Members 298 (11%, including 2 camps, approx 15 v 15)

That's roughly half a percent versus half a percent, broadly speaking made up of those who hold to the letter of the LoTG (however ambiguous and poorly worded) and those who prefer to apply the spirit of the LOTG by using common sense. Neither side is completely right, nor completely wrong, just both equally tiresome at times.

YMMV
I don't see how you can possibly make that assertion. You're projecting your own biases.

Have you considered what the average posting rate is on boards like ours?
How do you know the motivation for posting is fear?
How do you know the non posters aren't simply happy reading and thinking that "oh, my point has been made"?

In short - you make a groundless statement and then ask us to take it as fact, when even a basic application fo thinking would tell you that your post is without foundation.
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
#40
I don't see how you can possibly make that assertion. You're projecting your own biases.

Have you considered what the average posting rate is on boards like ours?
How do you know the motivation for posting is fear?
How do you know the non posters aren't simply happy reading and thinking that "oh, my point has been made"?

In short - you make a groundless statement and then ask us to take it as fact, when even a basic application fo thinking would tell you that your post is without foundation.
It's not like I made up the 1% rule,

On any given user-participation site, you almost always hear from the same 1% of users, who almost certainly differ from the 90% you never hear from.


any more than you can alter it.

The first step to dealing with participation inequality is to recognize that it will always be with us. It's existed in every online community and multi-user service that has ever been studied.


Google it if you are inclined to disbelieve anything I say.
 
Last edited: