• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Knock-on

Balones said:
If it is accepted eventually that it was legal and that the referee had made an error then I expect to see more of it.
Click to expand...
I can see that too … swiftly followed by several examples prompting a debate over the boundary between where it moves from “the ball was passed and bounced off the player’s arm/hand before being successfully recovered, play on” to “the ball was passed but was deliberately knocked forward off the player’s arm/hand before being successfully recovered” for a PK.

Hopefully WR addresses both openly and not just a quiet memo to elite refs.
 
Volun-selected said:
I can see that too … swiftly followed by several examples prompting a debate over the boundary between where it moves from “the ball was passed and bounced off the player’s arm/hand before being successfully recovered, play on” to “the ball was passed but was deliberately knocked forward off the player’s arm/hand before being successfully recovered” for a PK.

Hopefully WR addresses both openly and not just a quiet memo to elite refs.
Click to expand...
That’s why I take the position I do. To accept it as legal opens the door to inconsistency and further debate/argument. I’d prefer us to close the door. We are all in the same room then.:)
 
Marc Wakeham said:
Well what they will probably do (if they agree with me) is contact the ref and tell him he was wrong and leave it there.

A long time ago St Nige of Farmshire gave a PT in a european cup game. On the Monday morning WR sent an email to him and CCd the WRU to say he was wrong as you cannot give a PT for repeated offences. The criteria "a try would have problably been scored" not being met in the specific scenario. Nothing was ever made public . But the email was read out in our society meeting (Nige and the then head of WRU referees dept were present at the meeting).
Click to expand...
The implication that Farmer Nige may have occasionally MSUed for his decisions is shocking. Shocking I tell you.
 
Balones said:
He didn’t catch it after the knock-on - he caught it after the kick which was not initially an intentional kick but an attempt to stop it from hitting the floor. Please see Wayne Barnes’ video. He doesn’t say what the law says but explains how it is interpreted.
Lucky to kick it? - Okay, wasn’t luck as such but he was lucky that after the knock-on he was able to reach the ball with his foot.
I appreciate that you are trying to learn and I admire that. What you will have learnt from this discussion is that you can’t take a legalese approach to the wording of the laws since every scenario cannot possibly be accounted for so we have to rely on interpretation which is often based on what the law makers’ intentions are, which in general are cascaded down from our professional full time referees or from those that we know function at WR level in a variety of capacities.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately I do not feel they are the best example of how to apply the Laws.

We see week in week out how showcase tinker and avoid laws, make judgments/adjustments often with a claim of no materiality and probably more often some detrimental impact upon community rugby.
 
Balones said:
I admit that the convention is mainly to do with a kick after a knock on. I have seen the scenario we are discussing done several times over the last few years and the outcome has always been the same. For anyone to suggest that we can manage the two ‘kicks’ differently would only leave the door open to inconsistency. I.E. How far can you kick it before catching it?
Click to expand...
But the outcome is different, one ball is lost and touches the ground or an opponent. The other is regathered.

Not even legalese but logically different.
 
Balones said:
When observing a match a scenario such as you describe in the latter part of your second sentence actually occurred when a chaser tapped it over the waiting full back’s head and caught. (Plus try.) I took it to the RFU and it was deemed okay.
Click to expand...
I cannot compute that this is deemed acceptable and yet a kick to self and recollect isn't. 😵‍💫
 
RemainingInTheGame said:
Thank Marc, always good to explore and discuss! (And notwithstanding @Balones previous posts on the practical application and focus only on the laws and definitions as written rather than the clear guidance that it should be a scrum sanction!).

I think as soon as soon as it touched his foot it was no longer 'juggling' in the sense of control of the ball, but either a kick or not, and my opinion follows this belief, but I considered that maybe you do think it could be unintended but not a knock on, hence 'juggling with his feet' (for me 'juggling with his feet' would just be kicked and re-gathered, and then the distinction is moot).

I think when the ball hit his foot it was either a kick (intentional) or something that shouldn't invalidate the knock on that precipitated it.

The 'touched ground or another player' part of the definition is not relevant because had not the player played the ball with their foot (i.e. kick or lost control definition), it would have hit the ground and been a knock on, so if not a kick then a knock on.

I'm still 100% ok with your view if you believe the kick was a legal kick and regather (then play on), but I think if it wasn't a legal kick, then it should be a knock on and scrum.

To the specific question about regathering, if the player had not used his foot, and regathered from chest, knee arm etc... play on - my thinking is that their foot contact stopped a knock on.

Please keep us updated with your society discussion, I think it will interesting to see where you all land!
Click to expand...
Why is the kick being discussed as legal or otherwise?

The alleged offence is Knock On!

And there was no Knock On until it hit another player or the ground.

And then you say their foot stopped the Knock On -

So still no Knock On -

Play on.

PS If Mark Cueto hadn't been judged to have put a foot in touch England would have won the 2007 RWC, his intent was to score the try but you can only judge/officiate on what actually occurs.
 
BikingBud said:
Why is the kick being discussed as legal or otherwise?

The alleged offence is Knock On!

And there was no Knock On until it hit another player or the ground.

And then you say their foot stopped the Knock On -

So still no Knock On -

Play on.

PS If Mark Cueto hadn't been judged to have put a foot in touch England would have won the 2007 RWC, his intent was to score the try but you can only judge/officiate on what actually occurs.
Click to expand...
I may have been wrong, and now have been convinced by this good forum that legally as written in the law it was not a knock on!

BUT I hope WR come out with some clarification and guidance.

EDIT: "It takes a big man to admit when he's wrong. I am not a big man" Chevy Chase.
 
Last edited:
Law Change Proposal:

11.8 A player may not save a ball from being knocked on by intentionally kicking it.

This covers the situation (I think) we all agree with, and this new nuance that there is considerable disagreement about.
 
thepercy said:
Law Change Proposal:

11.8 A player may not save a ball from being knocked on by intentionally kicking it.

This covers the situation (I think) we all agree with, and this new nuance that there is considerable disagreement about.
Click to expand...
Is it only use of the foot that you don't like? What if he used his knee/head/elbow ?

For me I would make no Law Change, I am quite happy for that rare event to be play on
 
BikingBud said:
Unfortunately I do not feel they are the best example of how to apply the Laws.

We see week in week out how showcase tinker and avoid laws, make judgments/adjustments often with a claim of no materiality and probably more often some detrimental impact upon community rugby.
Click to expand...
this 100%.

Otherwise you guys would all be following the elite refs' interpretations and calls and allowing totally not straight feeds to the scrum, wonky lineout throws, rolling on the floor post tackle, multiple players off their feet at "rucks" (I use the word advidely) etc etc. Which at least at level 6 and below I do not see refs doing
 
crossref said:
I have a feeling WR
- will want it to be a KO
- but won't want to make a law change
And so they will fudge it with some reasoning that doesn't make sense
Click to expand...
Business as usual then...

and maybe pass such rulings along in secret emails...
 
crossref said:
Is it only use of the foot that you don't like? What if he used his knee/head/elbow ?
Click to expand...
this.

Then it could be a knee on for a catch. Or a head on for a catch. Now we are back to the original debate about a fumbled ball being propelled forwards but caught without touching ground or another player.
 
crossref said:
I have a feeling WR
- will want it to be a KO
- but won't want to make a law change
And so they will fudge it with some reasoning that doesn't make sense
Click to expand...
The response I have received, supposedly via WR, is that it was not a knock-on in line with the strict interpretation of the law as worded. Unlikely to happen very often seems to be the basis. Why stop the game for another scrum.
I don’t like it but can accept it. It seems the referee was incorrect.
Just wish, considering how widely this is being debated worldwide, some sort of statement would be made.
 
Balones said:
The response I have received, supposedly via WR, is that it was not a knock-on in line with the strict interpretation of the law as worded. Unlikely to happen very often seems to be the basis. Why stop the game for another scrum.
Click to expand...
I do "get" that.

And it never happens very often, for sure.

until one day it does. In a "vital" game and its a "critical incident".

Then it becomes 100% pertinent because it was never properly addressed, but quasi-ignored
 
didds said:
I do "get" that.

And it never happens very often, for sure.

until one day it does. In a "vital" game and its a "critical incident".

Then it becomes 100% pertinent because it was never properly addressed, but quasi-ignored
Click to expand...
It was critical incident in this game, as a try was scored
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top