• 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

knocked ball hits post?

crossref


Referees in England
Red 10 passes to Red 12, who fumbles the catch, the ball goes forward and hits the post padding. Red 12 catches the ball and scores.

Knock on ? Or not ?

Would it make any difference - for the sake of visualising it - if in this scenario ..
a) the ball hits the front of the padding, bouncing back into 12's arms (ie lucky)
b) the ball glances off the side of the padding, so taking a marginal deflection but basically carries on its way and 12 gathers (ie skilful)
 
The posts are not "the ground or anothet player", so play on. (Until the Law Definitions are chnged.) Good re-gather skills.
 
Red 10 passes to Red 12, who fumbles the catch, the ball goes forward and hits the post padding. Red 12 catches the ball and scores.

Knock on ? Or not ?

Would it make any difference - for the sake of visualising it - if in this scenario ..
a) the ball hits the front of the padding, bouncing back into 12's arms (ie lucky)
b) the ball glances off the side of the padding, so taking a marginal deflection but basically carries on its way and 12 gathers (ie skilful)
Not.
No distinction.
 
Good question!
I was 100% against he knock-on on the other thread, but here i am 50%-50%.
I could buy the argument, give me some rope here, that the lawmakers intended no interference at all (hence the ground or other players) when they wrote the rule but forgot to consider the posts. When you think of a knock-on the posts are probably not a top-of-mind item. Not elegant but i could understand where they were coming from.

Still, if i had to make the call, i'd rather fall with @chbg's argument. If you don't like the rule, you should change it. I dislike far fetched interpretations and i believe the 'what is not forbidden is allowed' principle to be a very strong one. And for good reasons.
 
Before the allowance to score against the post was removed. The law stated that the goal posts were part of the goal line. Does that possibly suggest they were meant to be included here? More mess in the laws.

" 22.4
(b) Grounded against a goal post. The goal posts and padding surrounding them are part of
the goal line
, which is part of in-goal. If an attacking player is first to ground the ball against
a goal post or padding, a try is scored."
 
Last edited:
The whole matter of clarifying the laws with regards to kicks regathered and balls touching the posts is being taken to WR for their consideration to see if a clarification or tweak to the laws is required. They may decide not to bother and decide the law is clear enough as it stands.
 
The whole matter of clarifying the laws with regards to kicks regathered and balls touching the posts is being taken to WR for t. They may decide not to bother and decide the law is clear enough as it stands.
Seriously? my ball touching posts scenario may go to World Rugby ,?

I am chuffed 😊

.. but I have a LOT more scenarios!
 
"
Red 10 passes to Red 12, who fumbles the catch, the ball goes forward and hits the post padding. Red 12 catches the ball and scores.

Knock on ? Or not ?"

If it's not a knock on then players could practice passing forward to the post and catching the rebound in order to get passed a defender near the goal line. . Such a pass off the posts to oneself then implies that if the ball carrier who threw the ball forward to bounce off the post and padding, then gets tackled by the defender the defender would be giving away a penalty or even a penalty try. Which all sounds rdiculous, so it has to be a knock-on surely. tbh I can imagine Dupont performing such an off the post/padding pass to himself, as he loves exploiting loopholes in the laws and has the skills to do it.
 
Back
Top