NPR

Jimmy Smallsteps wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:33 pm No try for mine. Guy grassed it, end of. No need to overcomplicate things.

Ymx wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:38 pm https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super ... l-try-call

Hope the Chinese haven’t blocked Australasia for you.

At the end of the clip

Insane_Homer wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:53 pm I would not have awarded that.

Hong Kong wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:21 pm

Ymx wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:38 pm https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super ... l-try-call

Hope the Chinese haven’t blocked Australasia for you.

At the end of the clip

We even have Facebook too but let’s do that elsewhere. Thanks for the clip and to me, from behind looked like the ball went backwards; I’m sure the TMO had the camera angles from the other side but not clear and obvious

Hong Kong wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:33 pm A clip would help

Ymx wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:24 pm

Jimmy Smallsteps wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:33 pm No try for mine. Guy grassed it, end of. No need to overcomplicate things.

It’s not over complicating things. Knock ons are differently adjudicated to passes.

Was it a deliberate pass? Or did he lose the ball?

dob wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:20 pm

Ymx wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:24 pm

Jimmy Smallsteps wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:33 pm No try for mine. Guy grassed it, end of. No need to overcomplicate things.

It’s not over complicating things. Knock ons are differently adjudicated to passes.

Was it a deliberate pass? Or did he lose the ball?

He clearly dropped the ball.

Knock-ons should not be treated differently to passes. If it travelled forwards out of his hands, it travelled forwards and should be called as such.

Ymx wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:41 pm

dob wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:20 pm

Ymx wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 1:24 pm

It’s not over complicating things. Knock ons are differently adjudicated to passes.

Was it a deliberate pass? Or did he lose the ball?

He clearly dropped the ball.

Knock-ons should not be treated differently to passes. If it travelled forwards out of his hands, it travelled forwards and should be called as such.

They are by law.

If a pass it’s allowed to go forward, as long as it’s less forward than the player himself.

Losing the ball is different and purely about exact point of ball from hands and where it hit the deck.

dob wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:03 pm

Ymx wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:41 pm

dob wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:20 pm
He clearly dropped the ball.

Knock-ons should not be treated differently to passes. If it travelled forwards out of his hands, it travelled forwards and should be called as such.

They are by law.

If a pass it’s allowed to go forward, as long as it’s less forward than the player himself.

Losing the ball is different and purely about exact point of ball from hands and where it hit the deck.

Yeah, I hate that reading of the law. It leads to inconsistent application and allows too much subjectivity. The knock-on leading to the try was further forward than the knock-down of the intercept which got a yellow card at the start of the clip.

Forward-over-the-ground is the cleanest, clearest way to determine if a pass was forward, and really ought to be how these things are decided. But the genie's out of the bottle now and we end up with threads like this.

A6D6E6 wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 3:50 pm

dob wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:03 pm Forward-over-the-ground is the cleanest, clearest way to determine if a pass was forward, and really ought to be how these things are decided. But the genie's out of the bottle now and we end up with threads like this.

Well apart from the whole "it would ruin rugby as we know it" problem.

dob wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 2:03 pm

Ymx wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:41 pm

dob wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 1:20 pm
He clearly dropped the ball.

Knock-ons should not be treated differently to passes. If it travelled forwards out of his hands, it travelled forwards and should be called as such.

They are by law.

If a pass it’s allowed to go forward, as long as it’s less forward than the player himself.

Losing the ball is different and purely about exact point of ball from hands and where it hit the deck.

Yeah, I hate that reading of the law. It leads to inconsistent application and allows too much subjectivity. The knock-on leading to the try was further forward than the knock-down of the intercept which got a yellow card at the start of the clip.

Forward-over-the-ground is the cleanest, clearest way to determine if a pass was forward, and really ought to be how these things are decided. But the genie's out of the bottle now and we end up with threads like this.

Law Application: Knock-on
The knock-on would probably be regarded as the easiest of law applications, bread-and-butter stuff for a referee.

By Paul Dobson, Moonsport

This may well not be the case and it may just be that the knock-on may be the most abused law in the book - the one that regularly produces wrong decisions which lead to stoppages when there should be none.

Let's start with the definition of a knock-on.

Knock-on: 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.

There are two different players involved in the definition. The first is the player who has the ball and then loses it forward, whether because of his own carelessness or because contact with opponents has jolted it from his grasp.

There is no debate about that one.

The second type of player is one who is getting possession of the ball but fails to do so. Instead he hits it with hand or arm and it goes forward beyond his control.

In most cases the ball is coming his way from a pass or a kick or it is loose and he seeks to gather it.

It's the ball that comes his way from a team-mate's pass or from a kick that is of interest.

For a knock-on to occur in both of these cases the ball needs to go forward from the catcher's hand or arm.

Forward: Towards the opposition's dead-ball line.

It is what the hand or arm does to the ball that counts, not what the ball does because it is oval. If the hand or arm does not knock the ball forward, but it bounces forward, it is not a knock-on.

For a knock-on, the ball must come off hand or arm, not any other part of the body - not the head, not the chest, not the stomach, not the thigh, not the knee.

It is on catching kicks that things often go wrong, especially if the catcher is out in the open, on his own and waiting to catch the ball. If the ball goes to ground, you can be sure that a knock-on will be blown.

If the referee did not whistle for a knock-on, the crowd would roast him - even if the ball went behind his hands and slipped to ground and bounced forward, even if the ball hit his body and went straight down, even if the ball rebounded off his chest, even if there was no knock-on terms of the law's criteria for a knock-on.

The crowd expects the scrum and the referee delivers. It's not the same with the head as the referees have consistently not whistled for a knock-on and have an easy gesture to explain their silence, and the crowd have grown to accept it.

Perhaps, with a bit or bravery, the crowd and the players could be taught that failure to catch a ball is not necessarily a knock-on.

Ata Rangi wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 6:53 pm It’s an interesting discussion because most of us assume we understand the law.

My reaction was that he wasn’t in control, so the initial juggling of the ball meant it travelled forward before he slapped it down and backwards. He dropped it forward of where he first touched it and never had control, so knock on.

Then looking at the definitions, it is about possession, not control. Possession is control of, or attempting to control, the ball, so he lost “possession” with his last touch which knocked the ball back, or at least not clearly forward. The initial juggle means little for the actual analysis.

Here is an article fro SA Refs which I expect they may build on with some analysis on this actual example.

Law Application: Knock-on
The knock-on would probably be regarded as the easiest of law applications, bread-and-butter stuff for a referee.

By Paul Dobson, Moonsport

This may well not be the case and it may just be that the knock-on may be the most abused law in the book - the one that regularly produces wrong decisions which lead to stoppages when there should be none.

Let's start with the definition of a knock-on.

Knock-on: 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.

There are two different players involved in the definition. The first is the player who has the ball and then loses it forward, whether because of his own carelessness or because contact with opponents has jolted it from his grasp.

There is no debate about that one.

The second type of player is one who is getting possession of the ball but fails to do so. Instead he hits it with hand or arm and it goes forward beyond his control.

In most cases the ball is coming his way from a pass or a kick or it is loose and he seeks to gather it.

It's the ball that comes his way from a team-mate's pass or from a kick that is of interest.

For a knock-on to occur in both of these cases the ball needs to go forward from the catcher's hand or arm.

Forward: Towards the opposition's dead-ball line.

It is what the hand or arm does to the ball that counts, not what the ball does because it is oval. If the hand or arm does not knock the ball forward, but it bounces forward, it is not a knock-on.

For a knock-on, the ball must come off hand or arm, not any other part of the body - not the head, not the chest, not the stomach, not the thigh, not the knee.

It is on catching kicks that things often go wrong, especially if the catcher is out in the open, on his own and waiting to catch the ball. If the ball goes to ground, you can be sure that a knock-on will be blown.

If the referee did not whistle for a knock-on, the crowd would roast him - even if the ball went behind his hands and slipped to ground and bounced forward, even if the ball hit his body and went straight down, even if the ball rebounded off his chest, even if there was no knock-on terms of the law's criteria for a knock-on.

The crowd expects the scrum and the referee delivers. It's not the same with the head as the referees have consistently not whistled for a knock-on and have an easy gesture to explain their silence, and the crowd have grown to accept it.

Perhaps, with a bit or bravery, the crowd and the players could be taught that failure to catch a ball is not necessarily a knock-on.