• 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

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.
When the game is based upon skill, speed, speed of thought, challenge, fitness, aggression amongst other things why would you want to remove some of those elements and downgrade the game?

Just because some people seem to misinterpret or incorrectly apply the Law doesn't mean the Law is wrong.

Let's concentrate on addressing and removing the material deviances we see every time rugby is on telly rather than overact to an exceptional piece of skill that might have caught us unawares, and we might be better appreciating and just saying, good effort mate!

Pundits comments "no intent to kick!" "so still a knock on" although one does later say "gee it looked good"
 
It always looked good to me and had I been that player, I would have been loudly proclaiming in the bar, that it was always my intention to display my dazzling ball skills to confuse the opposition.
Thus opening myself to the inevitable and justified ridicule
 
It always looked good to me and had I been that player, I would have been loudly proclaiming in the bar, that it was always my intention to display my dazzling ball skills to confuse the opposition.
Thus opening myself to the inevitable and justified ridicule
Did you play in the FR Harry?

A TH would want to build and sustain that aura of unassailable skill, vision and prowess and be gutted if it was disallowed as they would consider it "Try of the Year" in any club's end of season review and they'd bin robbed.
 
Did you play in the FR Harry?

A TH would want to build and sustain that aura of unassailable skill, vision and prowess and be gutted if it was disallowed as they would consider it "Try of the Year" in any club's end of season review and they'd bin robbed.
Yup I prefered TH but I was just as useless the other side
 
Did you play in the FR Harry?

A TH would want to build and sustain that aura of unassailable skill, vision and prowess and be gutted if it was disallowed as they would consider it "Try of the Year" in any club's end of season review and they'd bin robbed.
I think we LHPs used to be the same. Never did my 90 metre sidestepping tries make the short list. Jealousy on the part of the "girls", pure and simple!!! At least if a thieving ref stopped me winning it would not be down to jealousy!

Now I've had my rant I need matron to bring me my yellow pills.
 
Last edited:
Here's Marcelo Pilara's take (in spanish).


He basically says the try should have been awarded as the player regained control before the ball touched the ground and/or another player. The first part of the video is used as an example of a knock-on, where the ball carrier loses control, and the ball is touched by another player before the original ball carrier regains control.

For those who wanted an official WR clarification, well, this might be the closest we're going to get.
 
That’s good enough for me.
For those that don’t know him, he selects the referees for the 7s and works for WR.
I hope that it isn’t a case of being annoyed by an Argentinian try being disallowed because he’s Argentinian.:)
 
That’s good enough for me.
For those that don’t know him, he selects the referees for the 7s and works for WR.
I hope that it isn’t a case of being annoyed by an Argentinian try being disallowed because he’s Argentinian.:)
And again I say - so too did Nigel Owens. And he MSUed,
 
… the try should have been awarded as the player regained control before the ball touched the ground and/or another player. The first part of the video is used as an example of a knock-on, where the ball carrier loses control, and the ball is touched by another player before the original ball carrier regains control.

For those who wanted an official WR clarification, well, this might be the closest we're going to get.
Seems a decent balance, but I’d appreciate some explicit reminders that this only applies to an accidental fumble, or to attempting to bring a ball under control and not opening a door to dressing up a throw forward to themselves by “accidentally” fumbling the ball and “accidentally” juggling the ball past the defender before regathering.
 
Seems a decent balance, but I’d appreciate some explicit reminders that this only applies to an accidental fumble, or to attempting to bring a ball under control and not opening a door to dressing up a throw forward to themselves by “accidentally” fumbling the ball and “accidentally” juggling the ball past the defender before regathering.
I don't understand. Could you describe a scenario where this could be exploited? I don't see it.

I put myself in the shoes of the player and i cant see a situation where I'd pretend to lose control only to regain it later by using the foot. If it is accidental, i get it, you regain control after losing it. The upside is avoiding a scrum an maintaining possession. But doing this on purpose? You have to slow down, lose momentum, you give the defense time to adjust, get closer, and given the skill such a maneuver requires, you put a huge bulls eye on the ball carrier. His eyes are on the ball and regathering and not on the defender.
But the fact that i cant see one doesn't mean there isn't one, so I'm all ears. Very curious actually.


To be honest, i don't see the "balance" either. The word balance appears to imply some sort of compromise, which i don't really see. Maybe it's me. They are just applying the letter of the law. If the play doesn't meet the criteria set out by the definition, you don't blow the whistle.
 
I don't understand. Could you describe a scenario where this could be exploited? I don't see it.

I put myself in the shoes of the player and i cant see a situation where I'd pretend to lose control only to regain it later by using the foot. If it is accidental, i get it, you regain control after losing it. The upside is avoiding a scrum an maintaining possession. But doing this on purpose? You have to slow down, lose momentum, you give the defense time to adjust, get closer, and given the skill such a maneuver requires, you put a huge bulls eye on the ball carrier. His eyes are on the ball and regathering and not on the defender.
But the fact that i cant see one doesn't mean there isn't one, so I'm all ears. Very curious actually.


To be honest, i don't see the "balance" either. The word balance appears to imply some sort of compromise, which i don't really see. Maybe it's me. They are just applying the letter of the law. If the play doesn't meet the criteria set out by the definition, you don't blow the whistle.
I can imagine a player pretending to fumble while actually throwing the ball OVER a defender. But why would anyone pretend to lose control and then kick the ball, when a deleiberate kick is a legal way of getting past a defender.
 
A few questions come to mind.
It is legal to tackle a player while they are ‘juggling’ with their hands. I wonder if it is okay to tackle them after they have ‘juggle kicked’ the ball and before they catch it?
What if they are ‘hit’ while they are waiting for the ball to come down? Are they still in possession as with a normal juggle? If they are not juggling what are they doing?
 
A few questions come to mind.
It is legal to tackle a player while they are ‘juggling’ with their hands. I wonder if it is okay to tackle them after they have ‘juggle kicked’ the ball and before they catch it?
What if they are ‘hit’ while they are waiting for the ball to come down? Are they still in possession as with a normal juggle? If they are not juggling what are they doing?
I think you can juggle with your feet (and in this case that was what he was doing) so fair game to be tackled
 
Aren’t they still attempting to bring it under control as per definition of possession if they haven’t knocked-on yet?
Perhaps!

It's the great thing about all these hypotheticals what you imagine and describe is not what I imagine you described.

I feel Knock On is a total red herring until the required factors occur. If a kick cannot be recovered because the kicker was tackled (taken out) then penalty for tackling off the ball.
 
Back
Top