[Law] deliberate knock up

[OB..]

Hmmmm I take your point, but given we see it happen in matches all the time at higher levels and refs allow it, it'd be a hard sell. Would basically do away with interceptions. These are exciting to watch when they happen.

If a player deliberately knocks the ball up in order to make an interception by running under it to catch it, he should definitely be penalised. That is not a valid interception technique.

If he tries to catch the ball but accidentally knocks on, that is only a scrum offence.

 

[ChrisR]

Let me repeat what I had posted previously:

[TEXTAREA]There are two different scenarios where a player could knock the ball forward. One: Where he has possession and knocks the ball over a defender and then catches it. Two: As in this scenario (and similar) where he doesn't have possession and knocks the ball forward in an interception (or when trying to collect a poor pass from a teammate).

One, to me, is clearly illegal but Two ​is an exaggerated juggle in an attempt to take control and I'd allow it.
[/TEXTAREA]

So . . . what is 11.3 really prohibiting?

 

[OB..]

Let me repeat what I had posted previously:

[TEXTAREA]There are two different scenarios where a player could knock the ball forward. One: Where he has possession and knocks the ball over a defender and then catches it. Two: As in this scenario (and similar) where he doesn't have possession and knocks the ball forward in an interception (or when trying to collect a poor pass from a teammate).

One, to me, is clearly illegal but Two ​is an exaggerated juggle in an attempt to take control and I'd allow it.
[/TEXTAREA]

So . . . what is 11.3 really prohibiting?

It is prohibiting a deliberate knock forward. It says so. Why are you trying to get round it?

 

[ChrisR]

It is prohibiting a deliberate knock forward. It says so. Why are you trying to get round it?

Because I think that there is a huge difference between a player in possession punching the ball up and over a defender and a player going for an intercept (or recovering a bad pass from a teammate) who knocks the ball up and then catches it.

I think that it's appropriate to consider what the framers of the law were intending to prohibit. Where does a "juggle" end and a "knock forward" begin?

 

[OB..]

Because I think that there is a huge difference between a player in possession punching the ball up and over a defender and a player going for an intercept (or recovering a bad pass from a teammate) who knocks the ball up and then catches it.

I think that it's appropriate to consider what the framers of the law were intending to prohibit. Where does a "juggle" end and a "knock forward" begin?

For me that is stretching things too far. Juggling is inadvertent. The deliberate knock up is an attempt to try and get an interception when you could only get one hand to the ball. It is designed to avoid risking a knock-on and hoping to get round the law. I have no sympathy for the manoeuvre, or for the argument in favour of it. The law is too clear.

 

[ChrisR]

For me that is stretching things too far. Juggling is inadvertent. The deliberate knock up is an attempt to try and get an interception when you could only get one hand to the ball. It is designed to avoid risking a knock-on and hoping to get round the law. I have no sympathy for the manoeuvre, or for the argument in favour of it. The law is too clear.

I don't see this in that way. I see it as a player attempting to take possession of the ball and an act of skill. I think your technical interpretation is valid but mine is more empathetic. Perhaps the difference in our connection to the game influences this.

 

[OB..]

I don't see this in that way. I see it as a player attempting to take possession of the ball and an act of skill. I think your technical interpretation is valid but mine is more empathetic. Perhaps the difference in our connection to the game influences this.

There are many acts of skill that are illegal.

The law is so clear that the player is either ignorant of it (ignorantia juris neminem excusat) or hopes the referee won't apply it.

If a player knocks the ball up and fails to gather it, will you just give a scrum?

 

[ianh5979]

I like the 7s version, its either an interseption or a yellow card and penalty for deliberate knock on, then all players know where they stand and can weigh up risk and reward

 

[ChrisR]

I like the 7s version, its either an interseption or a yellow card and penalty for deliberate knock on, then all players know where they stand and can weigh up risk and reward

Yes, that's how it's called but that doesn't sit well with me, either. Saw two incidents in the last couple of HSBC rounds where players jumped to get the intercept with both hands above the head. Clearly an attempt to catch the ball not a deliberate knock forward but both got the YC. That means that the "offending" side lost about 15% of their players for about 15% of the game. For what? For failing to catch the ball.

Yes, OB, if he knocked it up in an attempt to catch it and it went for a knock-on then I'd award the scrum.

PS. . . .,and, L'irlandais, one of the incidents was USA vs. France and the French player was faulted to the benefit of the USA in a tight game. Still thought it wrong.

 

[OB..]

Yes, OB, if he knocked it up in an attempt to catch it and it went for a knock-on then I'd award the scrum.

Just as well I am never likely to assess you, because I would mark that as a law error!

Obviously we are not going to agree, but for me the deliberate knock up is a breach of one of the fundamental principles of rugby.

 

[L'irlandais]

..
PS. . . .,and, L'irlandais, one of the incidents was USA vs. France and the French player was faulted to the benefit of the USA in a tight game. Still thought it wrong.

In Vegas? Or at Vancouver Sevens?

They didn’t play each other in Hong Kong Sevens, right?

That video hub is awesome.

 

[Ian_Cook]

If a player deliberately knocks the ball up in order to make an interception by running under it to catch it, he should definitely be penalised. That is not a valid interception technique.

If he tries to catch the ball but accidentally knocks on, that is only a scrum offence.

No, it would not mean doing away with interceptions. It would mean that we would return to a technique where players intercepted by catching the bloody ball, not by knocking the ball up and trying to regather it.

One of the things I try to teach kids when I coach them is "soft hands". Its the same as catching a cricket ball; if you try to catch with hard hands, you will almost certainly drop the ball (and likely hurt yourself in the process).

Soft hands have "give" so that when you stick a single hand out the ball doesn't bounce off it.

 

[Arabcheif]

See, I've no problem with that type of interception, except 11.3 was pointed out. [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. [/FONT][COLOR=#BC252D !important][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Sanction: [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#BC252D !important][FONT=fs_blakeregular]Penalty.... [/FONT][/COLOR]Doesn't specify the ball need to go to the ground/hit a player etc.

I'd be happy enough to allow it and award a Pen if he was unsuccessful. As it was a deliberate act rather than an error in passing or trying to pick the ball up from the ground. But then, this 11.3 was highlighted earlier. Seems wring to penalise someone for taking a risk and pulling it off. I'd allow a tackle at any point until the ball hits the ground/other player etc.

 

[ChrisR]

Just as well I am never likely to assess you, because I would mark that as a law error!

Obviously we are not going to agree, but for me the deliberate knock up is a breach of one of the fundamental principles of rugby.

OB, what fundamental principle of rugby is being breached?

 

[ChrisR]

This is for L'irlandais:

www.world.rugby/sevens-series/video/402364

Sorry that it's in extended time at the end of the half and it's preceded by a Vegas rendition of the US anthem but the game was critical for advancement.

The attempted intercept by France could in no way fit under 11.3. And to chuck in the YC? C'mon pedantry reigns here. Sad!

Yes, I'm happy that the US go on to win the tourney but this YC for an attempted intercept is a blemish that needs to stop.

 

[Arabcheif]

@ChrisR I hear ya brother. As a player I agree that it should be permitted and I've got no issue with the skill myself. I've not seen the video so I'm just generalising here.

11.3 does not state that the ball ball needs to hit the ground, just that the player is not permitted to intentionally knock the ball forward. It's this forward motion that seems to be the issue. If he knocks it up - straight up, with no forward motion - then I think this would be permitted no probs, but in the wording I'd say a knock forward wouldn't be permitted.

This would seem to be regardless if it was an interception or a poor pass from a team mate.???

 

[OB..]

OB, what fundamental principle of rugby is being breached?

It has always been the case that you can advance the ball by foot but not by hand. For a while there was a guideline that any one-handed attempt at an interception that went forward was to be ruled intentional and therefore a PK. I think that was eventually deemed to be overkill, as I haven't seen it for many years now.

@ChrisR I hear ya brother. As a player I agree that it should be permitted and I've got no issue with the skill myself. I've not seen the video so I'm just generalising here.

11.3 does not state that the ball ball needs to hit the ground, just that the player is not permitted to intentionally knock the ball forward. It's this forward motion that seems to be the issue. If he knocks it up - straight up, with no forward motion - then I think this would be permitted no probs, but in the wording I'd say a knock forward wouldn't be permitted.

This would seem to be regardless if it was an interception or a poor pass from a team mate.???

Agreed, though the attempt to catch a poor pass is more likely to be accidental.

 

[SimonSmith]

This is for L'irlandais:

www.world.rugby/sevens-series/video/402364

Sorry that it's in extended time at the end of the half and it's preceded by a Vegas rendition of the US anthem but the game was critical for advancement.

The attempted intercept by France could in no way fit under 11.3. And to chuck in the YC? C'mon pedantry reigns here. Sad!

Yes, I'm happy that the US go on to win the tourney but this YC for an attempted intercept is a blemish that needs to stop.

That's your version of an intercept?
That, for me, is a player jumping straight up with both hands to block a pass, and that then goes forwards. YC looks right to me.

 

[ChrisR]

Putting aside the deliberation on whether an attempt at interception (or blocking a pass) that goes forward is in violation of 11.3 let me ask this: Why does 11.3 get an automatic YC?

After all, the offence is not listed under "Foul Play" where other YC worthy infractions are documented. WTF is so heinous about a knock forward? Especially from an attempted catch?

 

[OB..]

After all, the offence is not listed under "Foul Play" where other YC worthy infractions are documented. WTF is so heinous about a deliberate knock forward? Especially from an attempted catch?

Fixed that for you.

[LAWS]9.7 [FONT=fs_blakeregular]A player must not:
[/FONT] a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.[FONT=fs_blakeregular]
[/FONT][/LAWS]

That is a PK offence.