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.

 

[dullonien]

It's tough. The official wording for a knock on is:

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.

Which doesn't make it clear that kicking it before it hits the ground isn't allowed. I suppose normally a player doean't regather it after kicking, so it would fall foul of 'touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it part'.

Basically this is an accepted interpretation of the laws and has been for as long as I can remember. I remember my brother getting pinged for it in a 7's game 25+ years ago - although he was adamant it was an intentional kick and the ref couldn't see as he was just too slow to keep up.

I can see the confusion with this specific scenario, as the Argentinian player did 'catch the ball again before it hit the ground or another player', but it was after it hit his foot, so for me it still falls under the same interpretation as above, and obviously the ref and assistants thought the same, and they were within their rights to do so.

We have to remember that how the laws/definitions are interpreted is almost as important as the laws/definitions themselves. We've seen how much adjusting the interpretation can have on games, as usually that's all that happens when WR trial 'law changes', they aren't often actial new laws, or changes to the laws themselves, but directives to referees to interpret them in a different way.

Edit. And to expand a little more, this is tje definiton of a kick:

Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

Did he intentionally kick the ball? The common interpretation is that a reactionary kick after knocking the ball on, isn't intentional, it's a reaction. So this scanario would fall foul of that common interpretation.

I go back to my point above, you could read that definition slightly differently if you want, and say even a last gasp reactionary kick is still 'intentionally hitting the ball', regardless of how unintentional knocking the ball on was beforehand, but this isn't the common interpretation.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

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.


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!

But I've seen it before where a player has fumbled it onto his leg and the ball has gone forwards and it not been deemed a knock on.

Generally doesn't a knock on rewire the ball to hit the ground or another player first (ie you can juggle the ball a bit) and also a knock on cannot be off the knee or below. As he regathered without it hitting anything except his own foot, surely that's therefore not a knock-on?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Interesting one.

From the audio the ref seemed to say that it wasn't a valid kick as the player wasn't in control of the ball. But I don't think there's any requirement for him to be. Possibly slightly arguable but the intent part of the kick definition seems to be on whether the player deliberately makes contact between ball and foot / leg - which he clearly does. I think it would be a stretch to apply the intention, as worded, to premeditation or what was in the player's mind half a second before.

(And while this is a case where the ball was in a player's possession fly hacks and many others are examples of players legitimately kicking a ball without being in control of it).

Then was there a knock on?

My reading of the knock on definition is that one of the things listed to make the ball go forwards must happen (it did) and then the player must catch the ball (he did) before it hits the ground (it didn't) or another player, (it didn't). It's therefore hard to say there was a knock on and the definition is silent on whether a kick can be used in the act of catching or what other body parts can be touched or used - no-one would bat an eyelid if a player needed 4 attempts with his hands to complete a catch. And to me, if something's not prohibited, then it's permissible.

So while it didn't 'look' right in some respects my take is the ref got it wrong.

I think.

Moral of the story: Don't watch 7s. Or become a referee.

 

[dullonien]

But I've seen it before where a player has fumbled it onto his leg and the ball has gone forwards and it not been deemed a knock on.

Generally doesn't a knock on rewire the ball to hit the ground or another player first (ie you can juggle the ball a bit) and also a knock on cannot be off the knee or below. As he regathered without it hitting anything except his own foot, surely that's therefore not a knock-on?

The ref's would have been wrong in those situations then, not necessarily here.

It's generally accepted that a kick following a fumble is a knock on, so I'm not sure why this scenario is being complicated, as the same happens, regardless of what follows. We always call for consistency in refwreeing, I think this is an example of being consistent with 95% of rulings you will see.

There is clearly a law covering fumbles that are cleanly regathered by catching the ball again with the hands, but this isn't cleanly regathered.

Ultimately the referee on the pitch is deemed 'correct' with grey areas like this, and his ruling was is was a knock on. Move on...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Which doesn't make it clear that kicking it before it hits the ground isn't allowed.

Here is where we disagree. I believe it absolutely does.
Let me highlight what i believe is the exact part that does that.

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

The knock on has several, but specifically, one of two necessary conditions. The key word here is necessary. There is no wiggle room for this in the law. It is crystal clear. This is not some obscure twist on the wording. It is transparent and explicit.
The ball must touch the ground or another player before the original player can catch it (again).
Since neither of those conditions are met in the video, it seems rather obvious that the criteria for a knock on was not met either.


Side note: The kicking part, which a LOT of people keep referring to, would be relevant only if the player did not catch the ball after the kick.
Let's break down the events, for clarity:

Player (lets call him Player 1) drops the ball --> kicks it --> ball touches ground or another player

In this case intent does matter because if he intended to kick the ball, he is allowed to kick it without re catching it, while if he didn't intend to kick it, he is only doing to 'mask' his lose of control. This is key, true.
But that doesn't apply here because he catches it before the ball touches another player or the ground.

It's generally accepted that a kick following a fumble is a knock on,

Are you presenting the above as an opinion or a fact? If it's an opinion, i disagree. 100%. And if it's a fact, i'd like to see some evidence to support it, prove it, etc.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

My reading of the knock on definition is that one of the things listed to make the ball go forwards must happen (it did) and then the player must catch the ball (he did) before it hits the ground (it didn't) or another player, (it didn't). It's therefore hard the say there was a knock on and the definition is silent on whether a kick can be used in the act of catching or what other body parts can be touched or used - no-one would bat an eyelid if a player needed 4 attempts with his hands to complete a catch. And to me, if something's not prohibited, then it's permissible.

This, the entire thing, is key imo.
I find the highlighted part brilliant. Two points about the quote (one which you've already made!).

1) Sometimes a definition, law or part of a law can be open to interpretation. Granted. But when such a silent part of a definition exists, WR has historically provided guidance to refs about how to address that sort of situations.
I don't believe the law is unclear, but even if it is, and the argument is that there is a silent portion of the definition, one would expect some sort of memo or guidance letter from WR providing clarity. That, as far as i am aware and i've asked, is not the case.
Someone could argue this was a first case and that's the reason for the lack of guidance. It is tho? Really? I know this is very rare occurrence, but a first? I've seen it before, a handful of times. And i am 100% sure i am not the only one.

2) "Everything which is not forbidden is allowed". This is a maxim by which all rule based systems work. If this is not the case for rugby, then it is literally equivalent to "we're making up the rules as we go". That is a problem.


One last comment, about materiality. I've heard a ref saying (with a straight face) "if we allow this players could exploit it". If THAT is what you are worried about, i dont think you have to worry at all. No player, ever, will attempt to do this on purpose and the reasons are quite obvious.
- It is incredibly difficult to execute, you cannot plan it in advance and it gives you no advantage at all (vs not dropping the ball).
- Say you actually plan it, for the sake of the argument. Let's assume I am a defender facing someone who tries to pull this off. As a defender, this gives me 1 or 2 seconds where
a) The player is standing or slowing down a LOT
b) His vision is on the ball and not on the defender

This gives the defender a huge advantage. HUGE. Unless the defender is completely out of position (like in the video) those 1-2 extra seconds PLUS the slowing of the attacker give the defender a virtual free tackle hit on the ball carrier, who is not in control of the ball (yet in possession as per the laws of the game) and whose focus is on regathering the ball. That sounds like a position i'd love to be in as a defender.
And even if the defender is out of position, this gives him a way to catch up.

 

[dullonien]

Here is where we disagree. I believe it absolutely does.
Let me highlight what i believe is the exact part that does that.

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

The knock on has several, but specifically, one of two necessary conditions. The key word here is necessary. There is no wiggle room for this in the law. It is crystal clear. This is not some obscure twist on the wording. It is transparent and explicit.
The ball must touch the ground or another player before the original player can catch it (again).
Since neither of those conditions are met in the video, it seems rather obvious that the criteria for a knock on was not met either.


Side note: The kicking part, which a LOT of people keep referring to, would be relevant only if the player did not catch the ball after the kick.
Let's break down the events, for clarity:

Player (lets call him Player 1) drops the ball --> kicks it --> ball touches ground or another player

In this case intent does matter because if he intended to kick the ball, he is allowed to kick it without re catching it, while if he didn't intend to kick it, he is only doing to 'mask' his lose of control. This is key, true.
But that doesn't apply here because he catches it before the ball touches another player or the ground.


Are you presenting the above as an opinion or a fact? If it's an opinion, i disagree. 100%. And if it's a fact, i'd like to see some evidence to support it, prove it, etc.

Without trawling back through games and ref decisions I'm not going to be able to give evidence of 'generally accepted that a kick following a fumble is considered a knock on', but over 30 years of watching rugby suggests this is the case.

There is also nothing in the definitions that memtions that the kicking part only applies only if the player does not catch the ball after the kick, so personally I think it also applies here.

I can accept that this scenario is somewhat unique though, and the definitions can certainly be interpreted in the way you have. But then, we just have to accept the ref's ruling in these cases.

 

[Which Tyler]

But I've seen it before where a player has fumbled it onto his leg and the ball has gone forwards and it not been deemed a knock on.

You shouldn't have - but people do make mistakes.

FTR: I can absolutely see where confusion arises in this specific case.

For me, the ball didn't touch anything other than himself, between knocking the ball forwards and regathering, so "knock-on" isn't completed, but the regather is.
But, he he failed to regather it cleanly after using the boot it absolutely would have been a knock on. I can 100% see why a ref would think that the knock onto the foot meant knock-on, I just personally disagree with that interpretation.