Ditch the knock on rule?!!

[TRF_heineken]

OK, for all those who are obviously far brighter, more enlightened and articulate than me.......rather than basic sledging (easy, dull, get over it!).......how about using your superior whit, knowledge of the game and writing skills to explain, in a detailed sentence if possible, why a simple knock on at a ruck, picked up by the same player, not passed forward, is worth stopping the game for? Rather than having a scrum, which will inevitably need to be reset 3 times and could lead to a penalty all for.....a one inch knock on, let it go!

I also agree with the posts above that a line THAT ISN'T CONTESTED doesn't need to be penalised. If the defending team can't be bothered to compete, what possible difference does it being straight make? Easy to referee, speeds up play, gets my vote.

Okay, it's very simple...



RULES ARE RULES!!!!

 

[Wander]

I like it that Rules are Rules, but that isn't an argument, merely a statement that we all follow the rules laid down when playing. (And with respect, unlike other sports!)

What we're discussing are potential ways to aid continuity and keep the game flowing. The new 5 second rule must have started somewhere, these new rules have to be bounced around and discussed to thrash out problems.

With respect to throwing the ball from a lineout straight to the scrum half......why would you? If you take that risk and the opposition are contesting the lineout.....it's a guaranteed way of losing the ball!

 

[Draggs]

Okay, it's very simple...



RULES ARE RULES!!!!

Ahem... Laws are laws.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ahem... Laws are laws.

Yeah yeah, I know.. It's actually an Afrikaans saying: "Reëls is Reëls"

Either way, still applicable

 

[Colombia]

OK, for all those who are obviously far brighter, more enlightened and articulate than me.......rather than basic sledging (easy, dull, get over it!).......how about using your superior whit, knowledge of the game and writing skills to explain, in a detailed sentence if possible, why a simple knock on at a ruck, picked up by the same player, not passed forward, is worth stopping the game for?

I would not be averse to a 'you can't knock-on into a ruck' law being trialled, certainly no less sensible than some of the laws which have been trialled in recent years.

Rather than having a scrum, which will inevitably need to be reset 3 times and could lead to a penalty all for.....a one inch knock on, let it go!

I think you need to move away from the scrum criticism as your justification. The huge majority of rugby fans like to watch scrums. Scrum resets are another matter but they are being tackled by the IRB on a yearly basis.

I also agree with the posts above that a line THAT ISN'T CONTESTED doesn't need to be penalised. If the defending team can't be bothered to compete, what possible difference does it being straight make? Easy to referee, speeds up play, gets my vote.

How do you define competing? lifting? Even if I agreed with it in principle or desired it (which I don't) I just don't see this one working.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I like it that Rules are Rules, but that isn't an argument, merely a statement that we all follow the rules laid down when playing. (And with respect, unlike other sports!)

What we're discussing are potential ways to aid continuity and keep the game flowing. The new 5 second rule must have started somewhere, these new rules have to be bounced around and discussed to thrash out problems.

With respect to throwing the ball from a lineout straight to the scrum half......why would you? If you take that risk and the opposition are contesting the lineout.....it's a guaranteed way of losing the ball!

it's not a guaranteed way of losing the ball. Many teams have scored tries from doing that on their own lineout ball...

Risk = Reward

 

[Jayatron]

I would not be averse to a 'you can't knock-on into a ruck' law being trialled, certainly no less sensible than some of the laws which have been trialled in recent years.


I think you need to move away from the scrum criticism as your justification. The huge majority of rugby fans like to watch scrums. Scrum resets are another matter but they are being tackled by the IRB on a yearly basis.


How do you define competing? lifting? Even if I agreed with it in principle or desired it (which I don't) I just don't see this one working.

In my opinion Friday's night game between Wales and Samoa was brilliant, mostly because of the running rugby that was attempted - mostly by the South Sea Islanders. Anything that would encourage that type of game I would love to see, anything has to better than that was seen on Saturday. One thing I think that could help would be no knocks inside a ruck.

I suppose most balls are spilled in the ruck while trying to get quick ball to run the ball, so take away that offence should limit mistakes and have more flowing rugby? Can not be any worse than the ELVs, so why not?

As for the lineout I would say the majority of the below lineouts are fine, but if you look at 1.30 when Leicester don't compete that is good example of just get on with it, if Gloucester didn't throw in straight.
Think about it like the contest in the ruck. Bridging is considered illegal because it kills the contest for the ball, which is a new interpretation, but has worked well. It's just everything else that is messed up. But I think that referees should be trying more to referee killing of the contest for the ball rather than every little aspect of the game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyEy7pbIW1s

Again the ruck is a good example. I have seen over the weekend referees pinging players for going off their feet, bridging or whatever when there is very little going on, I suppose increasingly defending teams don't put many players into a ruck. So this should decrease penalties and increase running rugby or force defending teams to contest rucks and enforce the referee to examine the ruck more for 'killing the contest' thus allowing for more space for the attacking team and on the field.

To clarify I mean the games on Saturday being Scotland Vs South Africa and Ireland Vs Fiji. And that a lot of balls knocked on in open play but still a few in the ruck. And that tactically if a team wants to compete to force the referee to referee it that involves putting players in and thus making more room on the pitch. Hope I am clear, I am tired.

 

[dasNdanger]

Easy Tigers!

Didn't suggest turning the game into football! Or allowing offside, or forward passes, just that if someone's passed the ball and dribbles it forward a short distance, without it going to anyone else, and then picks it up, where's the problem?

I'm just not a fan of endlessly stopping the game for scrums, dull! And I was a forward.

Hey ho!

Personally. I love scrums. Yeah, yeah...mostly I love 'em because even after 10 years of watching the game I'm still trying to figure out what - exactly - the locks are locking onto... :blink:

oh, hell. I just lost my thought.

das

 

[Cliffyboy]

Rules that are a fundamental part of the game, definitely shouldn't be changed, and it's not being 'purist' to argue this.

I've been watching some old matches recently and I reckon the line-outs were much better when lifting wasn't allowed. Alright, there was a lot of argy-bargy but they were also much more keenly contested.

The knock-on is not a negative thing.

 

[smartcooky]

Real shame couldn't debate this. Very disrespectful to a new user, doubt we'll see him again. Overall disgusting behaviour from rugby players/fans.

I would say that if a knock on occurs inside a ruck and no advantage is made by the attacking team, or nothing lost from the defending team, then get on with it. The principles of good rugby is running rugby, and as a spectator sport the IRB should be putting an emphasis in this area. I would also say if a throw in to a line out is not straight but the defending team don't challenge then just get on with it.

This the first thing that anyone has said on this thread that actually makes some sense.

The same could apply at a tackle. A player attempting to place or release the ball does it a bit untidily and it rolls forward. Well so what!? The only team who will gain from that are his opponents.

Play on

 

[UilamOsa]

Real shame couldn't debate this. Very disrespectful to a new user, doubt we'll see him again. Overall disgusting behaviour from rugby players/fans.

I would say that if a knock on occurs inside a ruck and no advantage is made by the attacking team, or nothing lost from the defending team, then get on with it. The principles of good rugby is running rugby, and as a spectator sport the IRB should be putting an emphasis in this area. I would also say if a throw in to a line out is not straight but the defending team don't challenge then just get on with it.

I don't know if i'd agree with that.

I think the major issues with Wanders proposition is that what if there are multiple knock ons by the player? What if it's deliberate? If they happen to dribble it, I mean especially at the ruck - we are talking a majority of the time about forward play - do we 'play on'?

In indoor netball, i've tapped a ball forward to get around an opponent. It's only a small amount, and their already on the backfoot...

Also, although it's completely unlikely to happen, even if it were - it would open up something else for referees to interpret on and that's just another problem in itself.

Already posted (i think) was the fact that no one should really get away with mistakes. If we're talking about the very best of running rugby, then that's the best example of teams striving to be effective and mistake free and being rewarded for that.

 

[Maverick1987]

Sorry I'm new and unsure how to tag other people's comments into my own but on the subject of knock ons in the ruck being allowed surely alot of knock ons at the base of the ruck by the player retrieving the ball are caused by challenging at the breakdown ? So by changing this rule you would be removing a skill from the game aswell ? Mccaw, pocock and warburton I find are especially good at this .

Although Ben Youngs knocks on at the base all the time so as a leicester/England fan maybe this could suit me

 

[Maverick1987]

By the way although I'm a Leicester fan I'm not all about the scrum either don't want anyone to get the wrong idea . NZ third try against England yesterday was a thing of beauty but in the same breath I equally enjoyed scrum time when England met Ireland in the last game of 6N last year

 

[Cliffyboy]

I don't think this will ever be changed and thank the Lord it won't. This tinkering about and changing fundamentals of the sport reminds me of the American's ridiculous ideas about widening the goalposts and raising the bars at football, would have had a deterimental effect on the skills and arts and of both the goalkeepers and the goal scorers. It is just not being a purist to maintain this, and while I'd agree with not insulting the originator of this thread, his suggesting this idea would not go down well with the 'purists' did his cause no good. Seeing supremely talented people playing a sport you love and have played to the best of your ability at the heights they do, well, you marvel at it, and that includes incorporating such things as the knock-on rule.

I fell in love with this sport, having been denied playing it in the fifties through falling foul of an asinine education system that never let me play it, because of the great Barry John whose skills took my breath away, and I even began to play it as an adult because of it. Consider the seriousness of a question that asks if Barry John had been as great a player, if this rule hadn't applied? Yeah, sometimes he, no doubt, would have knocked on, but that would have motivated him to improve. Oh no, such basic changes to sports that have greatly entertained us for years, are ill-considered and ill-thought through, and I don't mean that rudely to the person who started this thread.

 

[dasNdanger]

Ahem... Laws are laws.

Laws are meant to be broken.




das

 

[dasNdanger]

Okay, I got that wrong. Rules are meant to be broken...laws are meant to be overturned.

(For some reason I cannot edit the above post, so my apologies for the double post.)


das

 

[Tony Manx]

The principles of good rugby is running rugby, .

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it but to me and many others, the scrum and breakdown are equally as important................and I am entitled to that opinion!

 

[Big Ewis]

I seriously can't stand the spiteful sarcasm going on here...very weak stuff. You don't look any smarter or mightier lol or wtvr fellas, but anyways I'm losing time here...

Wander: I see your point about the knock-on man, it's just that we ought to be more realistic and detailed about the approach. In essence, I like your idea. But as some users have pointed out here, there are some logic fukkups entailed...unless we come up with a nice big plan and cover all the tiny little annoying aspects the idea is just some concept floating around in outer space...it needs cementing.
But I think you're right, and yes rugby is mainly of course a running game, that's when it's most exciting, at its best. Scrums and kicks of course are a part of the game, just so happens they're crucially important, but the game of rugby is in the end truly about that: guys strategically passing it around with skill and accuracy and going for a TRY, not boring forward work waiting for a darn penalty and kick...

 

[lucky number 7]

I seriously can't stand the spiteful sarcasm going on here...very weak stuff. You don't look any smarter or mightier lol or wtvr fellas, but anyways I'm losing time here...

.

I am entitled to my opinion that its a ****ing horrible idea.

Perhaps there could be a case for it at the top echelons where referees quite often know the rules and are well versed at when the ball is in fact out of the ruck , but at grassroots right up to semi pro most referees have different opinions on the matter. Despite it being clearly stated.

As such I think don't bother making a change , you might see one instance a game where a scrum half knocks on while actually removing from a ruck , In my opinion that's normally the forwards fault for not securing quick enough ball.

So genuinely I dislike this idea greatly , indeed I'd like to see all ideas like this taken and driven into the sea.

 

[smb64]

I think the point is, for example - if a scrum half commits a minute knock on in a messy ruck, why should the opposition team get a scrum? Does seam silly to me.

Similar to all the messing about in the scrum - in my opinion if the ball gets to the back of a scrum to the team that put it in, it should never be reset even if it collapses. If a scrum was only reset if the ball was lost inside a lot less time would be wasted - in my opinion anyway.