What can WR do about Red Cards ruining games for the fans?

[ncurd]

But your not allowed to just grab the ball the ball has to be won fairly in many aspects of.the game this is just another instant of that. Knock ons are generally given to the attacking team a deliberate knock on is usually given to a defending team that has failed to win the ball cleanly. They essentially are stopping the flow of play and spoiling the ball and if it wasnt a penalty offence with a potential YC on offer defenses would be doing it every damn pass.

Once you get into was it actually deliberate or not the entire thing becomes very subjective so it make sense in the failed intercept to err on the side of.the attacking team to stop it becoming rampant. That way a defensive player knows the risk of going for the intercept.

I think the problem is the phrase deliberate knock on...It's more defender deliberate attempt to handle the ball resulting in a knock on.

 

[TRF_heineken]

But your not allowed to just grab the ball the ball has to be won fairly in many aspects of.the game this is just another instant of that. Knock ons are generally given to the attacking team a deliberate knock on is usually given to a defending team that has failed to win the ball cleanly. They essentially are stopping the flow of play and spoiling the ball and if it wasnt a penalty offence with a potential YC on offer defenses would be doing it every damn pass.

Once you get into was it actually deliberate or not the entire thing becomes very subjective so it make sense in the failed intercept to err on the side of.the attacking team to stop it becoming rampant. That way a defensive player knows the risk of going for the intercept.

I think the problem is the phrase deliberate knock on...It's more defender deliberate attempt to handle the ball resulting in a knock on.

Again the word "intent" needs to be used here. You can clearly see from replays what was the intent of the player when the attempt happen and also what he does directly after that. If it's a slap down or deliberate knockdown, then the player is usually not bothered in trying to regather the ball or even attempt to dive onto it or catch it.

With an intercept, there is always this determined look of desperation on the guy's face trying to regather it or preventing it from going to ground.

 

[ncurd]

Again the word "intent" needs to be used here. You can clearly see from replays what was the intent of the player when the attempt happen and also what he does directly after that. If it's a slap down or deliberate knockdown, then the player is usually not bothered in trying to regather the ball or even attempt to dive onto it or catch it.

With an intercept, there is always this determined look of desperation on the guy's face trying to regather it or preventing it from going to ground.

The problem with that is it will lead to playacting. The only true answer of World Rugby thinks it's a problem that need solving is for guidelines of what it constitutes in terms of body/arm position is a legitimate intercept attempt. And honestly I think it's fair currently an intercept try is a great thing but we don't want them common place. If you decrease the risk associated with an intercept a penalty with a YC added in if there was a high chance of a try there you will increase intercept attempts. That in turn will lead to passes being less flat and therefore causing issues with attacks in game. Lets also remember a lot of these incidences occur during a major attacking threat so I think there is a lot more intent than people like to believe. So really we could scarificing normal attacking play to allow people to make last ditch defensive efforts after their team has screwed up.

Remember not all penalties in the game are the result of a player willingly breaking the laws.

 

[All Black]

As far as I can remember, I have yet to see a tricky scenario where you had to decide whether a defender 'shut down' a pass or was trying to intercept. They've been easy to determine so far.

Bring up a video of a intercept and we'll sort it out no problem because I truly think this is an easy thing to handle.

Like I said before - this problem only arises when the attacker takes it to the line and then passes it late. The outside defenders can either anticipate a pass or see the ball pop up in front of them and from there its an impulse reaction where there is only time for either a knockdown or a upwards tip from the hands.

 

[smartcooky]

Players understand plausible deniability, how would you differentiate between a failed intercept and an intentional knock on?

The player knocking the ball to intercept has to have a reasonable chance of catching it, so, assuming that the player in question does not successfully intercept...

1. Player slaps the ball down = intentional knock on - penalty
2. Player knocks the ball forward or up so hard he cannot catch up with it = intentional knock on - penalty
3. Player knocks the ball forward or up then gets a hand or hands on the ball but can't regather = knock forward - scrum
4. Player knocks the ball forward or up but is tackled before he can recover the ball = knock forward - scrum

NOTE: On item 4, it is not deemed playing the player without the ball if a player trying to gain control of the ball is tackled by an opponent. This is now officially allowed under the Laws.

DEFINITIONS
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

It feels like virtually every time we see an knock on we also see a yellow. Where's the cut off?

 

[All Black]

The player knocking the ball to intercept has to have a reasonable chance of catching it, so, assuming that the player in question does not successfully intercept...

1. Player slaps the ball down = intentional knock on - penalty
2. Player knocks the ball forward or up so hard he cannot catch up with it = intentional knock on - penalty
3. Player knocks the ball forward or up then gets a hand or hands on the ball but can't regather = knock forward - scrum
4. Player knocks the ball forward or up but is tackled before he can recover the ball = knock forward - scrum

NOTE: On item 4, it is not deemed playing the player without the ball if a player trying to gain control of the ball is tackled by an opponent. This is now officially allowed under the Laws.

DEFINITIONS
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

Yeah this looks good to me. I don't see too much of an issue around this other than a ref making a wrong call and not using the TMO.

This is not one of these tricky calls.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Does everyone prefer all the interpretation, the use "fairly" and "cleanly" "deliberate" and "intentional" in the law rather than just making it legal and letting one of the other existing rules (knock on) handle the situation?

I'd rather simplify the game

 

[Derpus]

the more i think about it the more it seems like just another excuse for giving penalties and cards, i've never considered the attacking team to have unhindered right to make perfect passes. if you're making a pass that a defender can get a hand on then you've just made a poor pass.

if they just made it legal we'd have NONE of this interpretation and arguing. players would just take the tackle more often if they didn't think they'd get a pass away cleaning or pass it earlier. if the defender doesn't regather then its a knock on and so scrum to the attackers.

I have to say, talking with AFL fans in Melb and this is exactly the kind of thing that puts people of rugby, they're just like

afl fan: "but why couldn't he try and grab it"
me: "he is"
AFL fan: "then why is it a penalty?"
me: "he dropped it, didn't regather"
AFL fan: "but isn't that the knock on you told me about last week?"
Me: "the ref decided it was deliberate"
AFL fan: "of course it was deliberate, he didn't accidentally try and grab it"
Me: "deliberate knock on/down...its different'
AFL fan "....so you're allowed to try and grab it but if you knock it on the ref has to make a decision on you're intentions potentially from +10m away and you might get sent off?"
me: "...yeah....get it?"
me: "....where ya going?"

This x1000.

You can justify the rule just fine. Doesn't mean it results in an entertaining game. The rugby rule book is spitting out a very large number of explicable yet absurd decisions that, i think, negatively affect the game.

They are also proving so hard to enforce consistently that technology has to be employed mid-game, ruining the flow of the match entirely.

You can sit here and debate the necessity of the knock-down rule all you want, but the fact remains that a very large number of fans hate it.

Plus. There are far, far too any cards in the game.

 

[Scotty]

Rugby got on fine for a 100 odd years before referring think tanks decided to complicate it.

If a player slaps a ball down, penalty.
If a player misses an intercept, even if it is just fingertips, play on.

Going for an intercept is a risky play, without the refs interfering, if you miss it then it's try time.

If defenders lunge wildly and slap it. Penalty
If defenders lunge, almost get it but drop it,. Knock on.

Attackers need to be responsible for taking care of their possession and for drawing defenders and then passing. Without nanny referees.

"If defenders lunge wildly and slap it. Penalty
If defenders lunge, almost get it but drop it,. Knock on."

Yes penalty, but if that stops a try scoring opportunity then its a yellow if he leads with one hand, yellow.

Players need discipline on doing the right thing or leading with one hand. Maybe the rules could be inproved but if they are softened then we will get so many more deliberate knocks ones stopping tries

 

[smartcooky]

Rugby got on fine for a 100 odd years before referring think tanks decided to complicate it.

Rugby got on alright for 100 years when smacking opponents was a rite of passage.
Rugby got on alright for 100 years when stamping on and raking players in a ruck was acceptable.
Rugby got on alright for 100 years when props punched props in a scrum to start an all-in brawl.
Rugby got on alright for 100 years when playing on after a severe head-knock was the "manly' thing to do.

What "rugby got on alright for 100 years" doing are not things I would necessarily like to see the game go back to. While you may have a point as regards intentional knock ons, please don't use "rugby got on alright for 100 years when" as some sort of moral justification for your assertion.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

"If defenders lunge wildly and slap it. Penalty
If defenders lunge, almost get it but drop it,. Knock on."

Yes penalty, but if that stops a try scoring opportunity then its a yellow if he leads with one hand, yellow.

Players need discipline on doing the right thing or leading with one hand. Maybe the rules could be inproved but if they are softened then we will get so many more deliberate knocks ones stopping tries

I think we're narrowing in on agreement here but i don't know about this, lots of successful are lead with one hand, when they've had to knock it out of the air above them for example.....

 

[Immenso]

Rugby got on alright for 100 years when smacking opponents was a rite of passage.
Rugby got on alright for 100 years when stamping on and raking players in a ruck was acceptable.
Rugby got on alright for 100 years when props punched props in a scrum to start an all-in brawl.
Rugby got on alright for 100 years when playing on after a severe head-knock was the "manly' thing to do.

What "rugby got on alright for 100 years" doing are not things I would necessarily like to see the game go back to. While you may have a point as regards intentional knock ons, please don't use "rugby got on alright for 100 years when" as some sort of moral justification for your assertion.

Those were all things that occurred frequently and entail levels of violence.

The deliberate knock-on was something that occurred very infrequently and was punished even less frequently, has no safety concerns and was not seen as anything particularly bad, yet is now policed like Rudi Giuliani checking for broken windows. A problem has been made out of something that was never a problem, with the unintended consequence of ref's handing out cards like confetti.

I'm old enough to have watched probably an even amount of rugby before that law was policed like mad and after.
Before that rule started getting poIiced I can not recall an occasion when I was disappointed or mad at one of my team's certain tries being spoiled by a deliberate knock-on.
Since that rule started getting poIiced I can recall 2 occasions that was ruled in NZ in test matches:
- Rob Kearney being sin-binned for missing an intercept after making an intelligent defensive decision when he was outnumbered but that didn't quite come off. Stupidly harsh.
- Bryan Habana, might have been RWC 2015 semi?, slapping the ball out of the halfbacks hands. I think he got yellowed; it was a professional foul at a ruck 5m from the line with NZ likely to score with numbers out wide, plus he combined 2 offences (deliberate knock-on and playing the halfback at a ruck maybe even diving off his feet depending on interpreation). Seemed fair enough.

To me its seems obvious. You should be able to tell a deliberate slap down when you see it.

 

[smartcooky]

Those were all things that occurred frequently and entail levels of violence.

Agreed

The deliberate knock-on was something that occurred very infrequently and was punished even less frequently, has no safety concerns and was not seen as anything particularly bad, yet is now policed like Rudi Giuliani checking for broken windows. A problem has been made out of something that was never a problem, with the unintended consequence of ref's handing out cards like confetti.

The game has become professional, and with it, the professional foul has reared its ugly head. Left unabated, we end up with the kind of antics we see in Wendyball (see Neymar's disgraceful exhibition in Brazil v Mexico. In Rugby we have already seen the beginnings of this kind of behaviour with Huget a couple of years back). I want to see professional fouls nipped in the bud in Rugby by punishing it absolutely ruthlessly and without mercy. We neither need nor want this behaviour in our sport.

I'm old enough to have watched probably an even amount of rugby before that law was policed like mad and after.

I am old enough to have both played and refereed during that time. It was an amateur game then; I don't recall anyone ever attempting to intentionally knock the ball on during that time, let alone being penalised. Any player who did attempt it would probably have copped an earful from his own coach.

Before that rule started getting poIiced I can not recall an occasion when I was disappointed or mad at one of my team's certain tries being spoiled by a deliberate knock-on.
Since that rule started getting poIiced I can recall 2 occasions that was ruled in NZ in test matches:
- Rob Kearney being sin-binned for missing an intercept after making an intelligent defensive decision when he was outnumbered but that didn't quite come off. Stupidly harsh.

Kearney had no chance of catching that ball. That was a straight up intentional knock on.

- Bryan Habana, might have been RWC 2015 semi?, slapping the ball out of the halfbacks hands. I think he got yellowed; it was a professional foul at a ruck 5m from the line with NZ likely to score with numbers out wide, plus he combined 2 offences (deliberate knock-on and playing the halfback at a ruck maybe even diving off his feet depending on interpreation). Seemed fair enough.

Agreed

To me its seems obvious. You should be able to tell a deliberate slap down when you see it.

I posted these bullet points earlier....

1. Player slaps the ball down = intentional knock on - penalty
2. Player knocks the ball forward or up so hard he cannot catch up with it = intentional knock on - penalty
3. Player knocks the ball forward or up then gets a hand or hands on the ball but can't regather = knock forward - scrum
4. Player knocks the ball forward or up but is tackled before he can recover the ball = knock forward - scrum

IMO, this flow chart that covers all the bases.

In bullet point 3, the player who knocked the ball forward must at least get a hand on it to demonstrate a reasonable chance to regather.

In bullet point 4, the player is relieved of the obligation to get a hand or hands on the ball.

This seems perfectly fair to me...what do you think?

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Agreed



The game has become professional, and with it, the professional foul has reared its ugly head. Left unabated, we end up with the kind of antics we see in Wendyball (see Neymar's disgraceful exhibition in Brazil v Mexico. In Rugby we have already seen the beginnings of this kind of behaviour with Huget a couple of years back). I want to see professional fouls nipped in the bud in Rugby by punishing it absolutely ruthlessly and without mercy. We neither need nor want this behaviour in our sport.



I am old enough to have both played and refereed during that time. It was an amateur game then; I don't recall anyone ever attempting to intentionally knock the ball on during that time, let alone being penalised. Any player who did attempt it would probably have copped an earful from his own coach.



Kearney had no chance of catching that ball. That was a straight up intentional knock on.



Agreed



I posted these bullet points earlier....

1. Player slaps the ball down = intentional knock on - penalty
2. Player knocks the ball forward or up so hard he cannot catch up with it = intentional knock on - penalty
3. Player knocks the ball forward or up then gets a hand or hands on the ball but can't regather = knock forward - scrum
4. Player knocks the ball forward or up but is tackled before he can recover the ball = knock forward - scrum

IMO, this flow chart that covers all the bases.

In bullet point 3, the player who knocked the ball forward must at least get a hand on it to demonstrate a reasonable chance to regather.

In bullet point 4, the player is relieved of the obligation to get a hand or hands on the ball.

This seems perfectly fair to me...what do you think?

ive said id just like them all to be scums but i could live with this, still takes some interpretation from the ref but if he gets it wrong the worst case is a penalty as apposed to the yellowcard / penalty combo we've seen

with point 4, wouldn't that be a penalty to the interceptor? tackled without the ball

also, is point 4 the same for when they pop it up but it deflects off another player?

 

[RedruthRFC]

Those were all things that occurred frequently and entail levels of violence.

The principle of the point stands though. For years, the game was played with 20+ players with only 2 backs with no points gained for scoring a try. It was no doubt regarded as fine at the time, so why don't we regress to a pile of bodies rumbling up and down the field in a wrestling match? Kicking the ball out on the full was permitted for much longer, should we bring that back in? Lifting in the lineout wasn't permitted, should we bring back bean pole second rows? Where do we draw the line to avoid offending the sensibilities of those who refuse to acknowledge that the game is constantly evolving, or should we only worry about things that offend your personal sensibilities?

 

[RedruthRFC]

IMO, this flow chart that covers all the bases.

You're almost certainly right if said flow chart is followed accurately an universally. TBH I can't think of any controversial situation regarding this area of the laws, so I don't see a problem with the current status quo. I didn't make myself very clear in my initial post, so I understand why people have clarified the current laws, my only reason for posting was to point out that any changes would have to be carefully considered in order to avoid discouraging cynical play. This is one of the big unintended consequences that I don't think World Rugby are very good at identifying when making law changes.

 

[smartcooky]

with point 4, wouldn't that be a penalty to the interceptor? tackled without the ball

Nope, you must have missed seeing this in the earlier post

NOTE: On item 4, it is not deemed playing the player without the ball if a player trying to gain control of the ball is tackled by an opponent. This is now officially allowed under the Laws.

DEFINITIONS
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

also, is point 4 the same for when they pop it up but it deflects off another player?

That would be fair.

The player has been denied the opportunity to regather through no fault of his own.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i did miss that sorry

not sure im a fan of that, just seems like another place for confusion, if they jump slightly to grab a ball thats popped up....are they protected because they're jumping or are they free game?

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Before that rule started getting poIiced I can not recall an occasion when I was disappointed or mad at one of my team's certain tries being spoiled by a deliberate knock-on.

Clearly not English then. I've happily held a 27 year grudge against Campese for costing us the 1991 RWC.....