Rock bottom

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Part I, or an ridiculously long, obtuse and even unnecessary introduction

I was a click away from creating this very same thread this past weekend, but decided not to, as i ended up considering it a non-issue. The purpose was something long the lines of 'look at how wrong the ref got this one'. I thought it was SOOO bloody obvious, that i eventually thought it wasn't interesting enough to merit a thread.
However, the purpose changed. During the week i've seen, read, heard and watched so many people arguing about it, from both sides, that a call/result that is virtually uncontestable in my mind, apparently wasn't so. At first i thought "well, it's social media. Tons of half wits posting nonsense about things they cant even comprehend". I was wrong again. It wasn't just ignorant people who watch the game twice a year (three on world cup ones!). Pundits, refs, journalists, former players.
I've heard from people who officiate regularly that the play was discussed between refs at reasonably high levels and the consensus, if any, was absolutely not as clear as i hoped for.

Part II, or the events

So what the hell happened.
This happened

HSBC SVNS Perth 2025 | Day One Replay

Recap all the incredible action from day one in Perth!

rugbypass.tv

Go to the 9 hour and 5 minute mark and watch the play (1 min tops?). Behold.
Well, that, THAT was ruled a knock-on. And the ref's audacity to explain the ruling. Jesus wept. He cried unconsolably.


I believe this play illustrates a very important, relevant and tangible problem with the sport. The sport is hard to officiate as it is. You show ANYONE with two functioning brain cells the official meaning of a knock on and that play, and he will conclude that such a play does not meet the definition. It's is absolutely clear. Yet a lot of people (not a majority, but still) argued endlessly that not only was there an interpretation that could fit the definition of a knock on, but that such an interpretation should be the one applied. Teeth and nails.

It is unthinkable, literally impossible for a sport to grow if the people who've played the sport for decades and/or officiated it, the people who watch the sport every single weekend, cannot agree on something so basic, so rudimentary and so important.
This is NOT rocket science. A small part of me died this week. Lost a bit of faith in humanity and our ability to tackle the simplest of problems.

end rant/

 

[Rinkadink]

Do you have another source? Cannot watch the video.

Hard to comment without that context.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

oh boy. Apologies. Let me see if i can get one.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

here it is.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Unless I'm missing something, he knocked it onto his foot then regathered it. If that's a knock on then surely every kick becomes a knock on as they will drop the ball forwards onto their foot...?

 

[Which Tyler]

IIRC to be a kick, not a knock-on, it has to be a deliberate action, not pure fluke

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

it's a bad call followed by a compounding error. Should have given the scrum to Argentina after he realized he ****** it. Instead, the good guys get the scrum, the resultant free kick, and go on and win the game.

Not giving Argentina the scrum was worse than the knock on call even though that was pretty clearly not a knock on.

IIRC to be a kick, not a knock-on, it has to be a deliberate action, not pure fluke

you are allowed to regather before it hits ground or other player. From the broadcast cam I thought it may have hit someone but he was nowhere near. Even then, you have a TMO, let them call the ticky tacky **** that is hard to see with the naked eye.

 

[Which Tyler]

Yep, good point, it was a re-gather, not a kick, so as long as it doesn't hit the ground another player... or pretty much anything else, then it's fair game.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

you are allowed to regather before it hits ground or other player. From the broadcast cam I thought it may have hit someone but he was nowhere near. Even then, you have a TMO, let them call the ticky tacky **** that is hard to see with the naked eye.

Here's the thing: the referee didn't miss it. That is precisely the problem. Initially he hesitated so he called for a TMO review, which was performed. After watching the replay, from 2 angles, with the aid of the TMO and assistant refs, he called the captain and educated him with an explanation on why that was a knock-on. You should have heard the live commentary.
So in a nutshell, at least 3 officials (ref, one assistant ref and the TMO) watched that play, rewatched it on the screen, then watched it again from another angle, and they all concluded a knock on was the right call.
This play decided the game (and could have easily decided the series).

Btw, all this i am mentioning can be seen/heard in the video from the first link i posted above. Dont you guys have a rugbypass.tv account? If not, i recommend you get one. You can watch all (iof not all most) the SVNS series there and some occasional top tier game. It's free.

 

[dullonien]

Clearly a knock on. It has always been required for a kick to be 'intentional', and not just a reaction to a fumble.

It doesn't matter that he regathers the ball before it hits another player/ground, as you need to remove the reactionary foot from the equation, in which case it would have hit the floor and been a knock on.

Unless I'm missing something, he knocked it onto his foot then regathered it. If that's a knock on then surely every kick becomes a knock on as they will drop the ball forwards onto their foot...?

This is just how it is. A kick has to be intentional. Similar to a drop goal, or charge down, there are just some laws in rugby that are somewhat contradictory to others and rely on the ref interpreting intent.

It was easy for the ref to see that there was no intent in the example above, but there has been examples in the past where it's been difficult to see if the player truly intended to kick the ball. Not the only area of rugby where the ref has to use their judjement though!

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Clearly a knock on. It has always been required for a kick to be 'intentional', and not just a reaction to a fumble.

It doesn't matter that he regathers the ball before it hits another player/ground, as you need to remove the reactionary foot from the equation, in which case it would have hit the floor and been a knock on.

Could you quote the part of the laws of the game (or definitions) that support such a view?

I am asking because everything i see in WR's laws and definitions contradicts what you've posted.