Knock on and forward pass undefined?

[Umaga's Witness]

so, a knock on or forward pass ("throw forward") can occur in the field of play, according to the laws. And there are even videos for each. But it doesn't actually seem to define them.

I get annoyed when I see a pass or knock initially go backward but then bounce forward and gets called a forward pass or knock on. To me it shouldn't, but given how often it happens I thought I better check the rules. ..... there aren't any.

Please prove me wrong.

Also, where does it say a drop kick isn't a knock on?

And where does it say you can fumble the ball forward as long as it doesn't touch the ground or another player?

And the thing about how a pass can travel forward if by the momentum of the passer running forward, as long as it is passed backward out of the hand?

Maybe I am reading the abbreviated rules?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

so, a knock on or forward pass ("throw forward") can occur in the field of play, according to the laws. And there are even videos for each. But it doesn't actually seem to define them.

I get annoyed when I see a pass or knock initially go backward but then bounce forward and gets called a forward pass or knock on. To me it shouldn't, but given how often it happens I thought I better check the rules. ..... there aren't any.

Please prove me wrong.

Also, where does it say a drop kick isn't a knock on?

And where does it say you can fumble the ball forward as long as it doesn't touch the ground or another player?

And the thing about how a pass can travel forward if by the momentum of the passer running forward, as long as it is passed backward out of the hand?

Maybe I am reading the abbreviated rules?

...how would a ball going from hand to ground and going forward not be a knock on?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

...how would a ball going from hand to ground and going forward not be a knock on?

How would it be a knock on? How would it not be a knock back? I can't answer because there appear to be no rules defining it. Surely if you knock it backwards but it bounces forward it is a knock back? And if you knock it forward but it bounces backward it is a knock on? Or are you saying that should be a knock back? Or are you saying that any kind of knock, if it at any point goes forward, is a knock on? It would be easier to interpret if they just defined it.

 

[bushytop]

How would it be a knock on? How would it not be a knock back? I can't answer because there appear to be no rules defining it. Surely if you knock it backwards but it bounces forward it is a knock back? And if you knock it forward but it bounces backward it is a knock on? Or are you saying that should be a knock back? Or are you saying that any kind of knock, if it at any point goes forward, is a knock on? It would be easier to interpret if they just defined it.

I had a discussion about this topic a month or so ago as I had confused (misheard or forgotten aspects of the rule) and had to go googling to get a full understanding... as it turned out my understanding prior to getting confused through only hearing part of the rule during a commentary was pretty much right... and I'd assume that it would be the same for you UW.

So the knock-on/Forward pass obviously doesn't count when performing a drop-goal or charge down but is in operation at all other times. If a ball is accidentally 'fumbled' (struck against but not instantly caught) from anywhere above the knee and does not touch the ground before being regathered it's fine. If a ball is fumbled but travels directly backwards (and does not subsequently travel forward through the awkward bounce of the rugby ball) it's play on but... and this is where I'm using a logical assumption (which can be dangerous) if it was fumbled backwards but does subsequently travel forwards through the awkward bounce it would be called as a knock on.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

I feel people might just be overthinking it

A live ball has gone forward from the hand...

 

[Umaga's Witness]

I had a discussion about this topic a month or so ago as I had confused (misheard or forgotten aspects of the rule) and had to go googling to get a full understanding... as it turned out my understanding prior to getting confused through only hearing part of the rule during a commentary was pretty much right... and I'd assume that it would be the same for you UW.

So the knock-on/Forward pass obviously doesn't count when performing a drop-goal or charge down but is in operation at all other times. If a ball is accidentally 'fumbled' (struck against but not instantly caught) from anywhere above the knee and does not touch the ground before being regathered it's fine. If a ball is fumbled but travels directly backwards (and does not subsequently travel forward through the awkward bounce of the rugby ball) it's play on but... and this is where I'm using a logical assumption (which can be dangerous) if it was fumbled backwards but does subsequently travel forwards through the awkward bounce it would be called as a knock on.

So where did you find these rules in your googling? I looked in the official laws and didn't find the thing about a drop kick, or the fumbled from above the knee but not hitting the ground thing. The charge down exception is clearly there. Some of this is very well known stuff. I must not be looking in the right place.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11

 

[FLOBALOB]

And the thing about how a pass can travel forward if by the momentum of the passer running forward, as long as it is passed backward out of the hand?

Maybe I am reading the abbreviated rules?

This is one that annoys me. I think its exaggerated how far the ball would go forward just on the momentum of the moving player. Its an immeasurable factor and I would be much happier if they ignored any potential momentum and only allowed passes that actually went backwards.in relation to the pitch. I've seen some commentators try to use the position of the passer,in relation to the ball, when caught , as proof of backward/forward pass, but this doesn't take into account the backward momentum the passer has applied to the ball.
It would simplify things if they totally ignored momentum.

 

[bushytop]

So where did you find these rules in your googling? I looked in the official laws and didn't find the thing about a drop kick, or the fumbled from above the knee but not hitting the ground thing. The charge down exception is clearly there. Some of this is very well known stuff. I must not be looking in the right place.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11

Found the info on some Rugby referee forum... will try and add some of the links to discussions I found previously. Not sure I'll find them all though:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-4750.html

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-444.html

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-19637.html

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-20011.html

The pass backwards but the ball travelling forwards due to the forwards momentum of the passer is the most difficult thing to referee correctly I'd imagine. It comes down to an equation involving how fast the the passer was travelling and the angle of the actual pass which results in the propensity of how far the ball will naturally travel towards the opposition try line with out being actively propelled that way. How a ref is meant to accurately get that right on a consistent basis I'll never know.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Found the info on some Rugby referee forum... will try and add some of the links to discussions I found previously. Not sure I'll find them all though:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-4750.html

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-444.html

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-19637.html

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-20011.html

The pass backwards but the ball travelling forwards due to the forwards momentum of the passer is the most difficult thing to referee correctly I'd imagine. It comes down to an equation involving how fast the the passer was travelling and the angle of the actual pass which results in the propensity of how far the ball will naturally travel towards the opposition try line with out being actively propelled that way. How a ref is meant to accurately get that right on a consistent basis I'll never know.

Not to mention friction/ air resistance.

Thanks. This helped me unlock the biggest secret of all: the knock on and forward pass appear in the definitions section. Heheh I should have taken the hint from the thread ***le "....undefined?" and looked for a definitions section.

Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

I would still suggest the implication here is that the ball goes forward before it either hits the ground or another player, not after.


Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.

And this specifically excludes cases where a backwards pass hits the ground and then bounces forward. Yet refs tend to call that a forward pass .

 

[dullonien]

If the ball is knocked back, but subsequently bounces forwards, this is NOT a knock on. However referees sometimes (understandably) get this wrong in the moment unless it'a obvious.

With regards to the momentum thing, the IRB (as they were then) produced a good video demonstrating exactly why this rule is so important. While I can understand why it may frustrate some, it would be totally unfair on the players if it were scrapped just because some people struggle to understand simple physics. Experienced referees get a feeling for these things and can get most calls correct without getting a calculator out. The direction of the hands thing can help as well.

 

[Umaga's Witness]

If the ball is knocked back, but subsequently bounces forwards, this is NOT a knock on. However referees sometimes (understandably) get this wrong in the moment unless it'a obvious.

With regards to the momentum thing, the IRB (as they were then) produced a good video demonstrating exactly why this rule is so important. While I can understand why it may frustrate some, it would be totally unfair on the players if it were scrapped just because some people struggle to understand simple physics. Experienced referees get a feeling for these things and can get most calls correct without getting a calculator out. The direction of the hands thing can help as well.

Glad someone agrees.
I agree that the ref can't always pick it, which brings me to another pet peeve - when referees just judge any kind of fumble as a knock on just because they are too lazy to actually watch to see whether it was forward or backward, or even which player it hit.

I've also seen really obvious cases of passes that have gone backward but then bounces forward given as a forward pass, for example at the start of the Japan Tonga game last night. The definition ( when I finally found it) is pretty clear that a forward pass has to be forward out of the hand, therefore it would be pretty hard to argue a pass as forward if it went backward out of the hand and then bounces forward. To be clear I've seen it ruled this way on several occasions when not only was it backwards out of the hand but it also hit the ground further towards the players own goal line from where he had released it (in other words the interpretation wasn't muddied by any momentum effect, they were straight up just wrong).

 

[FLOBALOB]

The pass backwards but the ball travelling forwards due to the forwards momentum of the passer is the most difficult thing to referee correctly I'd imagine. It comes down to an equation involving how fast the the passer was travelling and the angle of the actual pass which results in the propensity of how far the ball will naturally travel towards the opposition try line with out being actively propelled that way. How a ref is meant to accurately get that right on a consistent basis I'll never know.

It would also have to take into account the amount of sideward/backward momentum applied to the ball when passed,which is acting in opposition to existing forward momentum. Its NOT simple physics, and is too complex for any referee to use anything other than guesswork to assess.
By only allowing passes that literally go level/back w.r.t the pitch cuts out the need for any such guesswork, and therefore much fairer and easier to referee correct decisions.

 

[dullonien]

It would also have to take into account the amount of sideward/backward momentum applied to the ball when passed,which is acting in opposition to existing forward momentum. Its NOT simple physics, and is too complex for any referee to use anything other than guesswork to assess.
By only allowing passes that literally go level/back w.r.t the pitch cuts out the need for any such guesswork, and therefore much fairer and easier to referee correct decisions.

And how exactly would that be fair on the players? Bugger referees and fans for the minute, the most important part of rugby is the players, especially at community level. So why would it be fair to complicate such a fundamental aspect as passing?

If you're a player running with the ball, surely if a teammate is running alongside, but behind, they are free to pass to? You wouldn't want to first have to stop, consider your velocity and the distance between you and your teammate in order to calculate if said teammate is far enough behind to compensate!

The actual maths behind the physics is probably quite complicated including allowing for wind speed/direction etc. But the concept is a basic physics one. The alternative is far more complicated.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

so, a knock on or forward pass ("throw forward") can occur in the field of play, according to the laws. And there are even videos for each. But it doesn't actually seem to define them.

Are you serious or are you taking the ****?

 

[Umaga's Witness]

Are you serious or are you taking the ****?

I was serious. i didn't realise there was a a definitions section.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

It would also have to take into account the amount of sideward/backward momentum applied to the ball when passed,which is acting in opposition to existing forward momentum. Its NOT simple physics, and is too complex for any referee to use anything other than guesswork to assess.
By only allowing passes that literally go level/back w.r.t the pitch cuts out the need for any such guesswork, and therefore much fairer and easier to referee correct decisions.

That would be terrible. As was illustrated in a video, a player running at speed could literally chuck the ball backwards over his head but still have the ball travel forwards due to momentum. There is absolutely no way anyone could claim the actual pass was forwards and introducing this rule would make passing at speed virtually impossible without the player having to slow down enough to ensure the ball travels backwards. It's easier to analyse for the ref but makes it much more difficult for the players. The current rule is more difficult to analyse but easier for a player on the pitch.

The general rule is you compare the flight of the ball to the player running. Excluding where the player who passed the ball is stopped, the ball should never travel in front of him and he should be in front of the ball at the point it is caught.

 

[sigesige00]

A knock on or forward pass ("throw forward") can occur only in the field of play. So they do not occur in ingoals, OK?

 

[die_mole]

A knock on or forward pass ("throw forward") can occur only in the field of play. So they do not occur in ingoals, OK?

A knock-on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
A throw forward may occur anywhere in the playing area. Sanction: Scrum.

Playing area includes in-goal.

 

[sigesige00]

Playing area includes in-goal.

Why are knock-on and throw-forward fouls? Because of Rugby's fundamental principle: moving ball forward by hand(s) is illegal.
However, in opponent's ingoal, "moving ball forward" is meaningless.
In opponent's ingoal, moving ball laterally for a better coversion place makes sense, but moving ball vertically is unnecessary. So, the "moving ball forward by hand(s) is illegal" principle does not make sense. Therefore knock-on and throw-forward are unnecessary in opponent's ingoal.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

In opponent's ingoal, moving ball laterally for a better coversion place makes sense, but moving ball vertically is unnecessary.

Forward passes arent necessarily about necessity. Most of them are actually about poor execution.
Poor execution of a pass in the playing area could be a forward pass. Whether it's in the in goal or the field of play is irrelevant.

Interestingly enough, probably the longest forward pass in the history of the game came from an ingoal pass.