Dunbar

As long as they don't mention the Canterbury Balmain score!

I was watching the Salford Wigan game and thought Sky have not given out any scores so maybe they are listening. Then I remembered it was Thursday.

I always enjoy watching Salford, they are a really well coached team and move the ball quickly ar speed.

I was watching the game this morning (spoiler alert johnny!) and Souths had made a break and Mitchell was too knackered to get to first receiver and so the second row had to step in. I maintain that Latrell Mitchell is the best talent of his generation, he can do anything. But he is never fit enough and that is the fault of both him and his coaches. It's difficult to say that a player who has played State of Origin and won World Cups has wasted his talent, but I think he has. He could have been an all time great.

I'm currently about half way through the 1986 Winfield Cup Preliminary final between Canterbury and Balmain on YouTube. If we could hold off mentioning the score until I finish it tomorrow that would be great.

You are going to have to be more specific.

Winners: Broncos: Sharks, Panthers, Raiders, Cowboys, Storm, Roosters, Dolphins Points: 354 Away wins: 2 Poll: Sea Eagles vs. Roosters

I really don't mind either way whether they show the score updates for the other live games or not. What really bothers me though is that I feel I am missing out on a good 12 page argument on here by not having an opinion. And that's killing me.

About 33%.

I started out happy with how things are but over the duration of this debate I have been persuaded (by myself) that the current situation is a travesty and must change. Nah, I'm good. It's been a very interesting discussion, thanks for your views.

See, you keep talking about the law being about the player in possession but there is no such statement in the laws of the game.

I guess the main one is feeding at the scrum which hasn't been done as per the laws of the game for at least 25 years. And unlike the play the ball, it leaves little open to subjectivity.

To be fair, the NRL manage this and I am sure it can be done with a bit of planning so clubs don't have the Sunday to Thursday turnaround.

I am enjoying the coverage and the choice. From a purely personal perspective, I would like us to get to a point where we have 6 weekend timeslots for games and every round is played in those slots. This could be Thursday evening, Friday evening and then an afternoon and early evening slot on Saturday and Sunday (or an early afternoon and late afternoon if that works better). This way, there are no clashes and everyone gets used to the game schedule. One of those, the early Saturday could be the terrestrial game every week. I accept that this is not ideal for fans who like to go to the game every week and prefer a regular kick off time, but I think it would take our coverage and exposure to the next level. As for the product on the pitch this year. I am really enjoying it.

I will give it one more try as well. The problem with this is that it perfectly and reasonably describes why the deliberate knock on was introduced as a law. To be clear, I do not know if this is true or not, but I will take your word for it. But it doesn't take into account the fact that game play evolves over time. The laws say that a deliberate knock on is a penalty. That may have been written with one type of deliberate knock on in mind but surely it also extends to all types of deliberate knock on's. As I say, I was on board with your argument that all attempts to intercept a pass could be argued to be accidental knock on's but as soon as you said blocking a pass as well then I think this extends into the deliberate attempt to block/disrupt a pass with no intention of trying to catch it. So... 1. Blocking or batting a pass with no attempt to catch it is a deliberate knock on 2. However it was originally conceived, the law states that you cannot deliberately knock a ball on. So, it is a penalty. By the laws of the game as written.

And a place in the NRL.com team on the week. https://www.nrl.com/news/2024/03/11/new-recruits-sizzle-in-round-1-team-of-the-week/

I mean, if we applied the laws as written, they would be treated differently, one would be a knock and scrum / turn over and one would be a knock on and penalty. There is a clear distinction, I just don't care that this distinction is applied or not... although this being the internet, I am starting to care more and more!

OK, maybe not treated differently. Seen differently. The deliberate block of a pass without the intention to try and catch it should absolutley be seen as a deliberate knock on. I think that is so self evident, it amazing me that others see it differently. But, as I said in my first post, I don't care if it isn't penalised, it just amuses me that it isn't.

I thought our pedantic but unapologetic friend was doing a great job arguing the case that intercepts in defensive situations should always be considered accidental if they became knock-on's. He was winning me over with his logic. But then when he said that blocking a pass was in the same category, I think he lost the narrative. There is a difference between attempting to catch (intercept) a pass and blocking a pass to disrupt the play with no attempt try and catch it. The latter should absolutely be treated differently.

Not really, I was just pointing out a peculiarity. But, if we were to amend the laws, I would remove the clause for a deliberate knock on and a deliberate forward pass being a penalty, as we never enforce them anyway, and keep those as a scrum/turnover Then, to ensure this wasn't abused, introduce a law that says a player cannot deliberately propell the ball forward with the intention of regathering the ball himself. A juggled pass or an intercept would be OK, it would need to be determined that it was a deliberate action to not to try and catch the ball but to propel it forward with the intention to then regather at an advantage. If, as has been claimed, this was the original intention of the deliberate knock on law, then it should be easy enough to replicate. And would be less confusing as a knock on is negated by the player recovering the ball anyway and so what people are calling a deliberate knock on in that circumstance is not even a knock on.

I don't remember saying that writing a new law is easy. I don't even remember saying we should actually write one.

I think it depends on how you use the numbers. If it is to calculate average attendances then you use the number for each game. There are two games and therefore two crowd figures... one for each game. But if you are recording aggregate attendances then I think you count once because it is the same people at both games.

Indeed. And this 'it's not what the original law was written for' is also a red herring. That may be true (I don't know) but if I started to break the laws of Rugby League, my defence should not be that this was not the intention of the law. If I contravene a stated law then I have contravened that law

It is stated in the laws that if you block a kick then it is not a knock on. No equivalent law is stated that if you deliberately block a pass it is not a knock on and therefore if you block a pass and the ball travels forward then it is a knock on. If you do it deliberately then it is a deliberate knock on. Someone is trying very hard to extrapolate meaning from one line in the laws. But if you block a pass with no intention to catch the ball it is a deliberate knock on. Whether we choose to enforce that or not is a different matter.

But they are deliberately knocking on if they block a pass, that's the whole point.