Rock bottom

[pagliaccio_euforico]

I can't find any clarification on it in the clarifications system.

The intent only has to deal with the drop.

So if you lose the ball forward the knock on process has began and you have to regather. I don't see any reason why a kick would stop this process. If the Argentina player had backheeled it would it not have been a knock on cause that isn't a kick?

But if you intentionally drop the ball the forward you have started a drop kick the onus is on you to kick the bal.

Just on this point of the 'intention' part of the kick definition. I think it has to refer to whole process, i.e. intentionally releasing the ball onto the boot/leg (not knee or heel). I just can't think of another scenario where unintentionally kicking the ball would really matter. E.g. if a ball ricochets into a players leg/foot resulting in an unintentional kick, then so what? It would't result in anything.

In which case the word 'intentional' has been inserted into the definition of a kick for a reason, one of which is to cover these types of scenarios. Therefore he doesn't 'kick' the ball by the definition provided by WR = a mistake = knock on.

Please do let me know if I'm missing another scenario where a player might unintentionally kick the ball which results in play being halted.

In an attempt to regather the ball how is the ball hitting a foot any different than a thigh, arm, or head?

The law book is very clear that a knock on has to touch the ground or another player for it to happen. I see nothing to support that foot=ground in the law book.

There is nothing in the law book, definitions, or prior clarifications to support your stance.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

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.

That's the point, isn't it? in order to make such a statement that trawling back is needed. Or some sort of evidence. You can't have it both ways.
And i am sure credentials is not a card you (nor me) want to play here. I'm pretty sure most of the members here have been following the sport just as long, played it, reffed it, coached it. That's why we visit this place.
Everything I've experienced strongly suggests the opposite, but that is my opinion.

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.

Yes there is. That's the entire point. It says the ball needs to touch the ground or another player, and it doesn't forbids using the feed to achieve that.
And, and this is important, laws focus mostly (not always but mostly) on what is not permitted and work under the assumption that, as stated above, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed".
This is not just for rugby. Other sports apply this criteria too. For the lack of a better word, you can call it universal.

Think about it this way

Your argument: there is nothing in the definitions that ..... so it is not allowed.
My counter: there is nothing in the laws of the game that mentions that players are allowed to breath while practicing the sport. Therefore, breathing is not allowed.

But then, we just have to accept the ref's ruling in these cases.

No, we don't. Well, depending on the definition we use of the word "accept". If by accept you mean we need to conclude that was the right call, then no, we don't. And the reason are quite simple: refs can be wrong and in this particular case his interpretation goes against the letter of the law. We have to respect (i.e. he is the ultimate authority) the call, but we can most certainly consider it a mistake and ask for an explanation, guidance, clarification, etc.

-------

Let me break it down in the simplest way i can think of:

- The laws of the game, in "definitions", set up a list of requirements for a knock-on to be (correctly) called.
- The play does not meet those requirements.

Given the above, i sincerely fail to understand how all of this is debatable. I understand how someone can dislike the rule itself, but that is in no way, shape or form a reasonable argument to twist the interpretation enough to go against the letter of the law. Interpretation should be applied when the law is not clear. I fail to see what is not clear about the laws & definitions. We dont like them? Then let's change them.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

The law book is very clear that a knock on has to touch the ground or another player for it to happen. I see nothing to support that foot=ground in the law book.

There is nothing in the law book, definitions, or prior clarifications to support your stance.

 

[dullonien]

Before agreeing with you, I'm going to describe A different, but similar scenario (kind of):

A player fumbles the ball into the corner flag or goal posts, then regathers the ball. The knock on definition only mentions the ground/other players, nothing about the corner flag or posts - so by your reasoning this isn't a knock on either?. Now the corner flag is no longer considered in touch and rebounds off the goal post is allowed, so if the player regathers the ball and scores, that's also fine? I'd suggest most ref's would interpret the rules to determine a knock on had occurred.

Back to the scenario being discussed though, I think you've convinced me that I'm wrong here. An unintentional kick isn't a kick, therefore if the kick subsequently hits the ground/another player, then it would be deemed a knock on - but as he regathers it before this, it can be deemed that the ball has just hit his leg/foot and bounced back to his hands, therefore no knock-on has occurred.

Would love to see a hypothetical scenario of player fumbles, kicks the ball into the post/crossbar, bounces back into his hands and player scores. Can't imagine many ref's would just wave play on