Deliberate Knock on?

[Wakefield Ram]

8 hours ago, POR said:

That's right 

If the referee decides a player has intentionally knocked on or thrown the ball forward, a penalty is awarded to the other team.

And if the referee decides the other team would have scored a try if the intentional knock-on had not taken place, a penalty try is awarded.

RL prefers to reward professional fouls which stop a team scoring by a deliberate knock on. Penalty law should be applied with yellow card if it prevents a try as in RU.

[GUBRATS]

10 minutes ago, Wakefield Ram said:

RL prefers to reward professional fouls which stop a team scoring by a deliberate knock on. Penalty law should be applied with yellow card if it prevents a try as in RU.

But surely that's one of RL greatest assets , that one team can be on the verge of scoring , but if they aren't careful enough , they can ' gift ' the opposition a potential intersection and a length of the field try , which is one of THE most exciting parts of the sport 

[Tonka]

18 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Why? It's bad attack to allow a pass to get knocked down. You get the ball back still, but why should you be further rewarded with a penalty for taking the wrong option in attack?

I don't agree with that.  As a defender, if you can intercept that's preferable because you get possession.  If you can't, another option is to play for the ball knowing you'll frustrate the attack by knocking it on and stopping play.  If you don't punish this behavior, it's lessens the incentive of the defence to go for a clean take and knock it down whenever there's a threat.  This would create an ugly spectacle.  So it's a policy decision to keep play clean, and in my view the right one.

On the "wrong option" point, I think: pass where defender intercepts = wrong option.  Pass where defender could intercept, but accidentally knocks on = wrong option.  Pass where defender can't intercept, but deliberately knocks on = right option (or at least not a wrong option!).  There are fine lines between the three though.

(BTW I'm not narky about this just because we've a different view, it's an interesting discussion )

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Tonka said:

I don't agree with that.  As a defender, if you can intercept that's preferable because you get possession.  If you can't, another option is to play for the ball knowing you'll frustrate the attack by knocking it on and stopping play.  If you don't punish this behavior, it's lessens the incentive of the defence to go for a clean take and knock it down whenever there's a threat.  This would create an ugly spectacle.  So it's a policy decision to keep play clean, and in my view the right one.

On the "wrong option" point, I think: pass where defender intercepts = wrong option.  Pass where defender could intercept, but accidentally knocks on = wrong option.  Pass where defender can't intercept, but deliberately knocks on = right option (or at least not a wrong option!).  There are fine lines between the three though.

(BTW I'm not narky about this just because we've a different view, it's an interesting discussion )

I think this hinges on the decision the referee has to make between accidental and deliberate.

A defender, (if asked) could always claim that he was attempting to intercept the ball, therefore if he is unsuccessful, the knock-on is accidental.

If it is at all possible, an interception is always preferable to simply, frustrating the attack by deliberately knocking the ball to the ground. Who in their right mind would deliberately chose to knock-on rather than gain possession?

So it is difficult to decide that a player has ''deliberately'' knocked on, when the more likely explanation is that he was attempting an interception (unsuccessfully) and therefore ''accidentally'' knocked on.

If the referee concludes that it was ''accidental'' then its not a penalty offense. 

[Tonka]

5 minutes ago, Saint 1 said:

If you knock the ball on, you get punished because you have to defend for another set. There is already an incentive to go for a clean take, they get the ball instead of having to defend - in a game where repeat sets often result in tries, there is a huge incentive to go for a clean take. 

For a defender to be able to deliberately knock on, one of two scenarios must occur:

1 - The pass has been delayed too late and the defender can reach it while still drawn to the ball carrier - poor attack

2 - The pass was early enough, but the defender has not been attracted to the ball carrier and therefore dummying was the correct option - poor attack

Either scenario is a result of poor attack. They still get the ball back, but why should the attack be rewarded further because they have failed to execute a simple 2 v 1?

I see your point of view, same answer as before really, to discourage players disrupting play when they've no chance of an intercept.  These things are all about checks and balances and my feeling is that the deliberate knock on merits an additional penalty over and above the six again.  They don't happen often.

Also, I don't think it's the job of attackers to make passes that could never be intercepted or knocked on deliberately.  Sometimes a little opening just pops up where you can risk threading a pass through.

[Wakefield Ram]

If a deliberate knock on is a penalty and players deliberately knock on, just apply the law. The decision for the ref (and I did it reffing RU) is did the player make a genuine attempt to intercept i.e. try to catch the ball (knock on) or did he stick a hand out just to knock the ball down (penalty and if it stops a try yellow card). 

In RL, both just end in a scrum. 

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Wakefield Ram said:

If a deliberate knock on is a penalty and players deliberately knock on, just apply the law. The decision for the ref (and I did it reffing RU) is did the player make a genuine attempt to intercept i.e. try to catch the ball (knock on) or did he stick a hand out just to knock the ball down (penalty and if it stops a try yellow card). 

In RL, both just end in a scrum. 

Couldn't a man claim, no matter how inept his attempt, that he was trying to intercept, simply because that's the best possible (most desirable) outcome for him and his team. How could a referee not give him the benefit of the doubt? There's only one way. 

If the ref decides he deliberately knocked it on, he's also concluding that the bloke is a complete idiot.

I admit that that is quite probable if the chap is a front five RaRa forward but we all know it is highly unlikely in a 13-a-side team, hence the prevalence of these decisions in Rugby Union. 

[unapologetic pedant]

9 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Couldn't a man claim, no matter how inept his attempt, that he was trying to intercept, simply because that's the best possible (most desirable) outcome for him and his team. How could a referee not give him the benefit of the doubt? There's only one way. 

If the ref decides he deliberately knocked it on, he's also concluding that the bloke is a complete idiot.

I admit that that is quite probable if the chap is a front five RaRa forward but we all know it is highly unlikely in a 13-a-side team, hence the prevalence of these decisions in Rugby Union. 

When a player extends an arm towards an opposition pass, he self-evidently would rather the ball stuck in his hand or he were able to catch the rebound. As you say, only a complete idiot would prefer the ball to go to ground, or be indifferent either way.

Maybe in Union they think a deliberate knock-on is the work of a cad or a bounder. Not strictly deliberate, but still bad form.

The same upper-crust code of honour that underpins the Beyond the Fringe sketch where Peter Cook asks Johnathan Miller to lay down his life as a "futile gesture that will raise the whole tone of the war".

[fighting irish]

4 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

When a player extends an arm towards an opposition pass, he self-evidently would rather the ball stuck in his hand or he were able to catch the rebound. As you say, only a complete idiot would prefer the ball to go to ground, or be indifferent either way.

Maybe in Union they think a deliberate knock-on is the work of a cad or a bounder. Not strictly deliberate, but still bad form.

The same upper-crust code of honour that underpins the Beyond the Fringe sketch where Peter Cook asks Johnathan Miller to lay down his life as a "futile gesture that will raise the whole tone of the war".

I  was merely pointing out that they have such a high proportion of them (cads, bounders, buffoons and  ejits (in Ireland)) that the only way they can reduce the numbers of incidents is to punish the innocent. A tactic that raises no qualms amongst the RaRa hierarchy. 

[ojx]

I agree, this shouldn't be penalized more than a knock on. The defending player is making a split second decision, probably doesn't know himself if the the intercept is on or not. Simplify the rules, don't have referees try to interpret players intent.

[arcticchris]

Managng to get in the way of the attack and deflect the ball is a good piece of defence when outnumbered so I have always found the Union rule stupid that they penalise this.