Thoughts on this call?

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Deleted

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

So by that definition wouldn't dropping the ball forward and then kicking it before it hits the ground be considered not a knock-on? I assume that's covered in another law?

I believe there is another law that you cannot kick "non-deliberately" I.e you can't knock it forward accidentally and then kick it on to prevent a knock-on. So this scenario should still be given as a knock-on. I'm sure someone will let me know if I've just made that up...

 

[ncurd]

Yup there is a law somewhere that essentially says if you intentionally break any law its sanction is a penalty kick. Free kicks are supposed to be for mistakes not intentionally infringing.

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

I believe there is another law that you cannot kick "non-deliberately" I.e you can't knock it forward accidentally and then kick it on to prevent a knock-on. So this scenario should still be given as a knock-on. I'm sure someone will let me know if I've just made that up...

Yea I assumed so, just wonder what the actual law is.

 

[ncurd]

Law 10.2a seriously this took all of 5 seconds to look up its not hard to stick it google.

10.2 Unfair play
(a)
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.

Sanction: Penalty kick

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

 

[smartcooky]

So by that definition wouldn't dropping the ball forward and then kicking it before it hits the ground be considered not a knock-on? I assume that's covered in another law?

Well isn't that how you punt the ball? And as for a drop kick, where you release the ball forward and it strikes the ground before you kick it, it would seem that is a knock on, but that is covered by the Law's General Definitions,

Drop kick: The ball is dropped from the hand or hands to the ground and kicked as it
rises from its first bounce.

... which acts as an exception (like a charge down)

The Law referred to by @themole25 is generally only applied (as writ) to a ball carrier. He cannot knock or throw the ball forward to get it past an opponent and then regather it. Some of you may remember that bit of brilliance by BOD where he passed the ball to himself...



...and that wasn't a forward throw either. He clearly throws the ball back out of the hand, the ball only travels forward due to BOD's momentum.

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off.

We're not debating that, we're debating whether or not the offence actually is or should be deemed as foul play. IMO it shouldn't.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

So by that definition wouldn't dropping the ball forward and then kicking it before it hits the ground be considered not a knock-on?

Or letting it touch the ground, kicking it, and claiming it was a drop goal attempt.



Actually, another knock on question: if a player genuinely does a clear attempt to perform a drop kick (assume the intent was obvious) but somehow manages to miss the ball after the bounce, is that a knock on?

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

Well isn't that how you punt the ball?

Well obviously, I mean like when you accidentally drop the ball, like a knock on, but before it hits the ground you manage to get a boot to it, despite having no intent to kick the ball in the 1st place. I know this is still deemed a knock on, was just wondering where in the laws this is covered since it isn't covered in that knock on law

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

Actually, another knock on question: if a player genuinely does a clear attempt to perform a drop kick (assume the intent was obvious) but somehow manages to miss the ball after the bounce, is that a knock on?

Well yea because in that case he's just dropped the ball forward, even if he did mean to kick it... his intent is irrelevant because it's his responsibility to make sure he does kick the ball otherwise, like I said, he's just dropping it and knocking it on.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Yes, I know what you are referring to...

12.1 (f) Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball
forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

but your understanding is wrong, because the Lawbook itself is written incorrectly.(thanks to the illiterate 12 year-olds the IRB use for proofreading)

We had a briefing covering things like this a few years ago, from the then head of NZ referees (Colin Hawke IIRC). and this very example came up. What you must do is refer back to the main clause that this paragraph is part of

12.1 THE OUTCOME OF A KNOCK-ON OR THROW FORWARD

There is actually no such thing as a "knock forward" in the Laws, just as there is no such thing as a "forward pass" (its a forward throw).

This isn't just my understanding, it's all of south Africa's.

The law book says you can't intentionally knock the ball forward, there doesn't have to be a definition of "knock forward" for knocking the ball forward to be illegal.

You mentioned that it outlaws ball carriers from doing so.
What is the difference between a ball carrier handpassing afl style over a defender and a defender tipping a passed ball over the intended target.

There is no specific mention of it applying to offensive players so I don't see how you can make a distinction.

 

[Sixways Cheryl]

It's obviously a grey area (like so much in rugby). I thought in the overseas Premiership match Vereniki Goneva made a genuine attempt to intercept the pass (something that's almost his trademark) but the referee gave him a yellow card without hesitation & awarded a penalty try to Saracens. Incredibly harsh call.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

...getting tired to giving away random penalty tries...

 

[smartcooky]

This isn't just my understanding, it's all of south Africa's.

It would be a mistake to think that because it appears on SA Referees it must be right and/or reflect the thinking of SARU and all South African referees. SA Referees have been shown to be completely wrong on several occasions and have had to print retractions when their Duty Ref has given advice and answers that were incorrect in Law to people who have written in with questions. The most recent of these was as a result of the spat that erupted over a try that was awarded in the Lions v Blues match in 2014. The referee Stu Berry and TMO Johan Greef incorrectly awarded a try to the Lions the try when the scorer lost the ball forward after it was knocked out by Charles Piutau in the course of a tackle. SA Referees backed up their man and told everyone that it was the correct call. Lyndon Bray (then head of SANZAAR Referees) told them they had it wrong. An argument ensued and in the end, the IRB stepped in and told SA Referees that they were wrong, and they issued a clarification that resulted in at change in the Law Book. You can see that change in the 2016 Laws where the following was added to the knock on Defintions.

If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes
forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is a knock-on.
If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands
and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is not a knock-on.

SA referees had to publish a retraction.

The law book says you can't intentionally knock the ball forward, there doesn't have to be a definition of "knock forward" for knocking the ball forward to be illegal.

You mentioned that it outlaws ball carriers from doing so.
What is the difference between a ball carrier handpassing afl style over a defender and a defender tipping a passed ball over the intended target.

And I'm telling you that your interpretation is incorrect. I said it generally applies more to players in possession than those tipping a loose ball, but I agree; I would not allow an AFL style handball or a player tipping a loose ball forward to regather and if a player did try to do that, I would have no problem with an opponent still tackling him, because he is still in possession under the Laws

A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in
possession of the ball.

I suggest you need to read through your Union's GMGs

There is no specific mention of it applying to offensive players so I don't see how you can make a distinction.

If you are refereeing regularly, you need to understand that "offensive" and "defensive" are terms that speak to where the player is on the field NOT whether or not they have the ball.

GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Attacking team: The opponents of the defending team in whose half of the ground
play is taking place.
Defending team: The team in whose half of the ground play is taking place; their
opponents are the attacking team.

Look, the Law is an ass sometimes. It is full of conflicts and ambiguities. A very wise friend of mine, who is also a very experienced RFU Referee and Referee Advisor once told me (actually, he keeps reminding me) that the Laws of the Game of Rugby should be treated as a framework, and the referee has to make sense of them. And I agree. You literally cannot take the Laws literally or you won't be able to have a game. For example, do you allow the SH to go digging for the ball at ruck. I'll bet you do, because it allows the game to flow. It is of course, technically illegal for a player to do that - he's playing the ball in a ruck with his hands, and infringement of Law 16.4 (b).

 

[smartcooky]

...getting tired to giving away random penalty tries...

Nothing random about that, its the correct decision - you are not allowed to bat or hit the ball into touch, touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line. If you do so intentionally, its foul play, and if it prevents the probable scoring of a try then a penalty try is the correct call.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Nothing random about that, its the correct decision - you are not allowed to bat or hit the ball into touch, touch-in-goal or over the dead ball line. If you do so intentionally, its foul play, and if it prevents the probable scoring of a try then a penalty try is the correct call.

i didnt mean random as in it was wrong, only in that you dont see it all the time, didnt realise it was a rule until this but it made sense.

do they go into WHY some of these things are rules? as long as its gone backwards why cant to you throw it out

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

It would be a mistake to think that because it appears on SA Referees it must be right and/or reflect the thinking of SARU and all South African referees. SA Referees have been shown to be completely wrong on several occasions and have had to print retractions when their Duty Ref has given advice and answers that were incorrect in Law to people who have written in with questions. The most recent of these was as a result of the spat that erupted over a try that was awarded in the Lions v Blues match in 2014. The referee Stu Berry and TMO Johan Greef incorrectly awarded a try to the Lions the try when the scorer lost the ball forward after it was knocked out by Charles Piutau in the course of a tackle. SA Referees backed up their man and told everyone that it was the correct call. Lyndon Bray (then head of SANZAAR Referees) told them they had it wrong. An argument ensued and in the end, the IRB stepped in and told SA Referees that they were wrong, and they issued a clarification that resulted in at change in the Law Book. You can see that change in the 2016 Laws where the following was added to the knock on Defintions.

If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes
forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is a knock-on.
If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands
and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is not a knock-on.

SA referees had to publish a retraction.



And I'm telling you that your interpretation is incorrect. I said it generally applies more to players in possession than those tipping a loose ball, but I agree; I would not allow an AFL style handball or a player tipping a loose ball forward to regather and if a player did try to do that, I would have no problem with an opponent still tackling him, because he is still in possession under the Laws

A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in
possession of the ball.

I suggest you need to read through your Union's GMGs



If you are refereeing regularly, you need to understand that "offensive" and "defensive" are terms that speak to where the player is on the field NOT whether or not they have the ball.

GENERAL DEFINITIONS
Attacking team: The opponents of the defending team in whose half of the ground
play is taking place.
Defending team: The team in whose half of the ground play is taking place; their
opponents are the attacking team.

Look, the Law is an ass sometimes. It is full of conflicts and ambiguities. A very wise friend of mine, who is also a very experienced RFU Referee and Referee Advisor once told me (actually, he keeps reminding me) that the Laws of the Game of Rugby should be treated as a framework, and the referee has to make sense of them. And I agree. You literally cannot take the Laws literally or you won't be able to have a game. For example, do you allow the SH to go digging for the ball at ruck. I'll bet you do, because it allows the game to flow. It is of course, technically illegal for a player to do that - he's playing the ball in a ruck with his hands, and infringement of Law 16.4 (b).

i very much understand that the laws provide a framework and that literal interpretation of the laws will hinder the game

1. don't accuse me of not reading my gmgs... that's quite the accusation and i think you know it to be false. knock-ons appear no where in the usa gmg so i don't know why it's applicable to this conversation.

2. "defending" appears 0 times in the knock-on law and the only time that "attacking" appears is to establish that knock-ons into goal are a 5m scrum and not a 22 dropout. so again, how is that relevant to THIS conversation.

the funniest thing about this is that you agree with me...

I would not allow an AFL style handball or a player tipping a loose ball forward to regather and if a player did try to do that, I would have no problem with an opponent still tackling him, because he is still in possession under the Laws

all i've said in this thread is that for a deliberate knock/throw even catching it does not guarantee that the player is safe

 

[smartcooky]

i didnt mean random as in it was wrong, only in that you dont see it all the time, didnt realise it was a rule until this but it made sense.

do they go into WHY some of these things are rules? as long as its gone backwards why cant to you throw it out

That is an interesting question, and you probably realize that they have dropped that Law from rugby league.

Why is it an infringement to knock the ball on? AFL seems to do OK without requiring a clean catch
Why is it an infringement to throw the ball forward? The offside law would pretty much cover throwing the ball to a team-mate downfield, and NFL manage it OK, you can throw the ball forwards sometimes and not other times.
Why are hands not allowed in the ruck, yet they are in a maul and at the tackle?

Sometimes rules are rules; they are there to set limits and boundaries on how the game is played; Somewhere in the dim, distant past, the lawmakers have decided that you can't throw or hit the ball into touch.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

comparing to different sports isn't really apples and apples

you and i have talked about intent before when i comes to the rules, high tackles etc. in those situations the argument is intent isn't part of the rule book, it doesn't matter if they accidentally contacted the head , they did it so they're in trouble.

But with these examples apparently intent does matter. we've all seen someone throw it straight into touch because they thought someone was outside them and they weren't....just given as a lineout....now it seems if the ref decides otherwise he can give a penalty.

all im saying is its confusing for some of us, even those that played for a long time and watched for twice as long. i don't think its too unexpected to think that other than the fundamental idea of "must pass backward" that there might be a reason for rules

 

[smartcooky]

comparing to different sports isn't really apples and apples

That wasn't really my intent. I was showing that games are played according to their rules, and sometimes there seems to be no rhyme or reason for those rules, they just are, because someone, somewhere has decided that is how the game is to be played. In chess the Bishop can only move diagonally. Why? A Rook can only move directly or orthogonally. Why? The Queen can move either way. Why? The answer is, because that is the way the game is played.

But with these examples apparently intent does matter. we've all seen someone throw it straight into touch because they thought someone was outside them and they weren't....just given as a lineout....now it seems if the ref decides otherwise he can give a penalty.

It has always been the case that intentionally throwing or knocking the ball into touch is an infringement that can result in a penalty try. Here's one from 2010...



and heres another one from even earlier in 2008...