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

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

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.

Not sure that is a fair comparison, but i get your point, so i will give you a straight answer, or try to. I wouldn't like it, but I'd be open to an interpretation that considered that scenario a knock-on. I can see both sides. The rationale would be something along the lines of: the ones who wrote the laws and definitions that affected knocks had for this aspect, understandably, a two axis plane in mind when writing the law and forgot to add things within the enclosure, such as the posts or the corner flag, when considering things or objects that could alter the ball's trajectory. I can see that happening and i could see myself supporting either/both sides of the argument. It would probably come down to personal preference.
I wouldn't have a problem with the ref making a judgement call at the moment (either way) and setting a precedent, etc. As long as it is consistent and applied across the board, nothing else needs to be done. I can live with that.

But I see two differences.
1) part of the players body vs everything else
2) Skill vs luck.

A big difference between that scenario and this one is that the player IS in control of his feet and can manipulate them, while he is not in control of the posts nor the corner flags.
In my mind a rebound from the posts involves a LOT of luck while what happened in the video involves a LOT of skill.
I would also assess how the laws treat other situations where the ball 'accidentally' touches the posts. I believe there is not specific criteria. It's business as usual.

Imaginate i am an attacking 10, see my 14 wide open but too far for a pass. I kick (he is not off side) he begins his chase. The completely missed the kick. Ball is going straigh past the ingoal, nothing to be done. But it accidentaly hits the post, is deviated, lands on his hands and he scores.
As far as i understand, that is a try. Well, i can see quite a few similarities.


Why would i like this to be allowed (besides the rules)? Because it is incredibly rare, i sincerely don't see a way it could be exploited in a manner that ruins the fun or fairness, and it rewards skills. It gives the player an option, that is incredibly difficult to execute and extremely risky.

 

[Half Pint]

Just to come at this from another angle, there was an incident in a Wales v England 6N game (2021 possibly?), where Louis Rees Zammit fumbled & dropped a pass just a few yards before the try line. The ball glanced off his shin and trickled over the line. LRZ threw his hands up in dismay at butchering the try, and then dotted the ball down as he picked it up, just because.
Ref awarded the try. His rationale was that LRZ had deliberately kicked the ball forwards, hence no knock on.

(Incidentally in the same game Ref also awarded Wales a free kick, blew time off and asked the England captain, Owen Farrell, to speak to his team about infringements. While the defending team were busy in a huddle under the posts, ref blew time on, Dan Biggar kicked crossfield for his winger to run into the corner un-opposed.)

Not sure who the ref was, but I believe that after that game he was put into a mincer and turned into dogfood.

Back on topic, I'm afraid that until we can clone Dolly the Referee, inconsistent decisions are a part of the game. Ref's decision is final.

 

[dullonien]

Just to come at this from another angle, there was an incident in a Wales v England 6N game (2021 possibly?), where Louis Rees Zammit fumbled & dropped a pass just a few yards before the try line. The ball glanced off his shin and trickled over the line. LRZ threw his hands up in dismay at butchering the try, and then dotted the ball down as he picked it up, just because.
Ref awarded the try. His rationale was that LRZ had deliberately kicked the ball forwards, hence no knock on.

(Incidentally in the same game Ref also awarded Wales a free kick, blew time off and asked the England captain, Owen Farrell, to speak to his team about infringements. While the defending team were busy in a huddle under the posts, ref blew time on, Dan Biggar kicked crossfield for his winger to run into the corner un-opposed.)

Not sure who the ref was, but I believe that after that game he was put into a mincer and turned into dogfood.

Back on topic, I'm afraid that until we can clone Dolly the Referee, inconsistent decisions are a part of the game. Ref's decision is final.

I remember the incident well. The justification from the ref to allow the try was that the ball initially went backwards out of LRZ hands, then went forwarss off his calf/heel.

I didn't really agree with the ruling at the time, as it just looked 'wrong'.

 

[ncurd]

I remember the incident well. The justification from the ref to allow the try was that the ball initially went backwards out of LRZ hands, then went forwarss off his calf/heel.

I didn't really agree with the ruling at the time, as it just looked 'wrong'.

I did soo much analysis on that one looking at the angles. The issue essentially stems from does it touch another part of his body before his shin (I think it did but its definitely contentious). Backwards out of the hands or not doesn't matter in this case as its not following forward pass laws and thus has gone forwards from where the ball started after he lost control (we don't take into account conservation of momentum for knock ons).

So essentially if hits his shin first kick good try.
If its hits another part of his leg (I think its his his thigh if memory serves me correctly) its a knock on and bad try.



The other part of the game with referee starting play whilst players were huddled led to a protocol clarification that the ref must clarify with the defending side that he is putting time back on if he has declared time off. (This use to be unwritten but said ref had done it twice to England).

 

[Half Pint]

So essentially if hits his shin first kick good try.
If its hits another part of his leg (I think its his his thigh if memory serves me correctly) its a knock on and bad try.

Thanks ncurd. So given this snipped part of your post above, the OP is right and the ball-juggling ace in the video should have been awarded the try, as the ball went from hand-to-foot-to-hand.

 

[ncurd]

Thanks ncurd. So given this snipped part of your post above, the OP is right and the ball-juggling ace in the video should have been awarded the try, as the ball went from hand-to-foot-to-hand.

Well there's is the whole "intentional" part of a kick but I've decided that intent is too complex to rule against unless there is specific guidelines to actions (see intentional knock on).

I'd rule that try good.

 

[ncurd]

Also in LRZ example there is the fact it hits the ground thus he never regathered it.

 

[dirty harry]

This was an interesting read...

The concensus in rugby has always been a boot can be used to regather, I remember discussing that in my ref days.

There was famous incident many years ago involving Ugo Monye, flying down the wing, pass came to him, he juggled before losing it forward, but managed to poke a toe to it and scoring. It was deemed a knock on, because the contact he made with his toe wasn't an attempt to regather, it was a stabbing motion to avoid a knock on, which most refs would have allowed. Infact I remember debating this 15 years ago with level 2 refs at the time, and the ref educator couldn't give a solid answer tbh.

There was also a famous Hadley Parkes disallowed try, where he juggled the ball twice before soft slapping it as a pass to someone to score. No interference, nothing forward, it was just deemed he didn't attempt to regather before the pass.

This just seems like another, of many cases where ref interpretations are more important than the laws themselves.
For refs to determine intent, or what constitutes an attempt to regather is impossible in reality.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Just to come at this from another angle, there was an incident in a Wales v England 6N game (2021 possibly?), where Louis Rees Zammit fumbled & dropped a pass just a few yards before the try line. The ball glanced off his shin and trickled over the line. LRZ threw his hands up in dismay at butchering the try, and then dotted the ball down as he picked it up, just because.
Ref awarded the try. His rationale was that LRZ had deliberately kicked the ball forwards, hence no knock on.

I recall that play. I disagree with the call, but i dont think that matters. The play was not comparable to the one we are discussing here. For many reasons, but for one specifically: LRZ did not regather. The ball touched the ground.
In the arg 7s case, that never happened.
Let me break it down

Scenario 1 (arg's 7s)
1-Player loses or appears to lose control and ball falls from his hands towards the ground
2- Player uses his foot to prevent the ball from touching the ground
3- Player regathers before the ball was able to touch the ground or any other player.

Since the ball touching the ground is a necessary condition

Scenario 2 (wales)
1- Player either loses control of the ball or drops it to kick it (intention)
2- player 'kicks' the ball
3- ball touches ground/another player

Because the ball DID touch the ground/another player (didn't happen in scenario 1), his intention DOES matter as he would be allowed to do so if he intended to kick it, but NOT if he dropped it and tried to mask the drop as a kick.

But again, that issues is only relevant if the player is unable to regather. That was not the case in scenario 1, which makes both situations completely different.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Almost forgot: the person in charge of selecting refs for the svns circuit was interviewed and asked specifically about this incident. He said the ref got the call wrong. Let me find a link to the interview

EDIT: here you go

 

[Derpus]

Honestly Rugby doesn't fucken help itself. Surely the simplest definition of 'knock-on' would just be that the player has lost control of the ball and its gone to ground or into another player.

Instead we have a page long explanation for why a dropped ball that is kicked is not a 'regather'.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

What you just stated applies to 99% of the cases, but not to this one. The definition is crystal clear and it's virtually what you said.

"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. "

The problem in this case was that three officials either didn't understand one of the simplest definitions in the laws OR performed some of the greatest interpretative gymnastics to twist such definition from what the law statea into what they thought the law ought to state. And even, that would be okish if their interpretation didnt explicitly violate the letter of the law. But they had to go there... They just had to.

I watched the game at the pub: we all spotted this atm and it took the ref selector 30 seconds to explain why that wasn't a knock on in plain Spanish. The laws don't help, granted, but in this particular case the problem lied elsewhere.

 

[Derpus]

It actually is pretty straightforward. The grammar in the drafting of the rule makes it clear and should be read

Knock-on:
- When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,
- When a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm,
- 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.

People are just confused because no one ever succesfully recovers a potential knock on with a kick cause that's real hard.