Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Rock bottom
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cruz_del_Sur" data-source="post: 1210213" data-attributes="member: 55747"><p>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. </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>But I see two differences. </p><p>1) part of the players body vs everything else</p><p>2) Skill vs luck. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>In my mind a rebound from the posts involves a LOT of luck while what happened in the video involves a LOT of skill. </p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p>As far as i understand, that is a try. Well, i can see quite a few similarities. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Why would i <em>like </em>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cruz_del_Sur, post: 1210213, member: 55747"] 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 [I]like [/I]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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Rock bottom
Top
