Deliberate knock on

[Dunbar]

I was just catching up with the Dolphins Cowboys game from this morning. 

Something happened that has happened many many times in our game.  The Dolphins had a clear 2 on 1 overlap with a successful pass to the winger giving him a walk in.

Kyle Feldt stuck out a hand to disruptive the pass and knock the ball down.  He had no chance of taking the ball so as deliberate a knock on as you are likely to see.

But, as always, just a scrum is given.

The laws say a player who deliberately knocks on should be penalised so that situation should be a penalty try or a penalty and sin bin.

I'm not particularly advocating change, just weird how we don't bother applying some laws and yet we are so laser focused on others.

[Spidey]

18 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I was just catching up with the Dolphins Cowboys game from this morning. 

Something happened that has happened many many times in our game.  The Dolphins had a clear 2 on 1 overlap with a successful pass to the winger giving him a walk in.

Kyle Feldt stuck out a hand to disruptive the pass and knock the ball down.  He had no chance of taking the ball so as deliberate a knock on as you are likely to see.

But, as always, just a scrum is given.

The laws say a player who deliberately knocks on should be penalised so that situation should be a penalty try or a penalty and sin bin.

I'm not particularly advocating change, just weird how we don't bother applying some laws and yet we are so laser focused on others.

It’s one of those rules that is a hangover when we had one code. RU still had it in place, we’d have less interceptions in our game if it was enforced. 

[N2022]

Funny this, because when I was playing tag and I tried for an interception, if I just got fingers to it trying to catch it, it would usually get given as a penalty. I remember asking the ref why not treated just as knock on and he said that was the RL way and I was viewing it from an RU perspective / background.

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, Spidey said:

we’d have less interceptions in our game if it was enforced.

We'd also have more tries as overlaps would be exploited without opposition defenders throwing out their hands to block a pass.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

I don't think I've ever seen a deliberate knock on given either when watching or playing.

Personally I have no issues with a deliberate knock on as a defensive tactic, as on a overlap the advantages lie with the attacking team, if they fail to convert that advantage then they haven't earned the score.

[Barley Mow]

As often with these discussions, there are two separate conversations:

1. Why is the law as written not enforced.

2. Should the law be changed.

Some people are saying they are happier that a deliberate knock on is invariably given as accidental (and therefore a scrum rather than penalty). If that is our collective position as a sport, then surely the solution is to change the law rather than not enforce it?

[Damien]

I've never seen a deliberate knock on given in Rugby League or anyone even call for one, it's just not a thing. It seems strange that it's still even in the laws, however that isn't exactly uncommon in RL.

Obviously in Union it is something they are incredibly strict on and I've seen yellow cards even for fairly legitimate attempts to go for the ball.

I'm happy enough with the way it is in RL.

Edited March 10 by Damien

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

I don't think I've ever seen a deliberate knock on given either when watching or playing.

Personally I have no issues with a deliberate knock on as a defensive tactic, as on a overlap the advantages lie with the attacking team, if they fail to convert that advantage then they haven't earned the score.

I don't particularly have a problem with the way the game is played.  I just find it amusing that as a sport we have so may laws that we have decided to just ignore.

[Cumbrian Fanatic]

Just now, Dunbar said:

I don't particularly have a problem with the way the game is played.  I just find it amusing that as a sport we have so may laws that we have decided to just ignore.

Being honest, I never knew it was still a law until quite recently

[Damien]

I think another issue with using the Union interpretation is that it opens up another subjective can of worms when I think the sport is better staying away from. The attacking nature of Rugby League will mean that refs have to make these type of calls far more frequently than in Union and it would become another needless source of contention.

[Blind side johnny]

And don't even mention voluntary tackles.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Cumbrian Fanatic said:

Being honest, I never knew it was still a law until quite recently

Me neither.

But as I say, I just find it amusing.

Every now and again there is a penalty try decision that we pour over for about 20 pages on here when, by the letter of the laws, the batting down a ball to stop an overlap from being exploited is a much more clear cut case.

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Kyle Feldt stuck out a hand to disruptive the pass and knock the ball down.  He had no chance of taking the ball so as deliberate a knock on as you are likely to see.

I'm not sure that a reflex reaction gives a player time to assess in depth the probability of catching the ball.  A second would be generous.  How long did you think about it before posting the query?   

[Griff]

17 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

And don't even mention voluntary tackles.

Voluntary tackles should've been abolished once limited tackle rugby arrived.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

I'm not sure that a reflex reaction gives a player time to assess in depth the probability of catching the ball.  A second would be generous.  How long did you think about it before posting the query?   

How long did you take to read my post as there was no query?

[Griff]

Just now, Dunbar said:

How long did you take to read my post as there was no query?

Fair enough.

But if you don't answer the point, the natural assumption will be that you take it as valid.

[N2022]

4 minutes ago, Blind side johnny said:

And don't even mention voluntary tackles.

As an occasional RL spectator, only heard this mentioned for the first time very recently. In tag, though, there's a rule against 'surrendering' your tag, something quicker teams try when someone is in support and defence would be offside. Is this the thinking on voluntary too?

[Enkidudu]

17 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Me neither.

But as I say, I just find it amusing.

Every now and again there is a penalty try decision that we pour over for about 20 pages on here when, by the letter of the laws, the batting down a ball to stop an overlap from being exploited is a much more clear cut case.

I would say the game is best defined by upholding the laws and how they are adhered to rather than the laws themselves. It is strange that sometimes strict interpretation of something as inconsequential as how PTB is delivered, deliberate knock-on can be hard to interpret,  should be upheld by refs of removed from the law book. 

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

Fair enough.

But if you don't answer the point, the natural assumption will be that you take it as valid.

Have you seen the incident I was referring to?

[Griff]

46 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Have you seen the incident I was referring to?

No.  But then, I wouldn't be thinking of changing the laws of the game - or the accepted interpretation of them - based on one incident.   That's what RL tends to do and it usually has unintended consequences.  Refereeing's hard enough, referees don't need to be coerced into making value judgments on players' intentions.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

No.  But then, I wouldn't be thinking of changing the laws of the game - or the accepted interpretation of them - based on one incident.   That's what RL tends to do and it usually has unintended consequences.  Refereeing's hard enough, referees don't need to be coerced into making value judgments on players' intentions.

I am not advocating for change.  I made that very clear in my first post.

And as I said in my first post, it is hardly isolated as it happens a lot.

And you haven't seen the incident before you even comment on my interpretation of it.

I started this thread for a conversation, not an argument.  If that's what you want then argue with someone else.

 

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, N2022 said:

Funny this, because when I was playing tag and I tried for an interception, if I just got fingers to it trying to catch it, it would usually get given as a penalty. I remember asking the ref why not treated just as knock on and he said that was the RL way and I was viewing it from an RU perspective / background.

Some aspect of this is the wrong way round. Do you mean he (the ref) was viewing it from a RU perspective?

 

[N2022]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Some aspect of this is the wrong way round. Do you mean he (the ref) was viewing it from a RU perspective?

 

He said the fact I didn't understand why he was giving penalties reflected the fact my background is Union. That in League it's always interpreted as deliberate ...

[unapologetic pedant]

36 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I started this thread for a conversation, not an argument.  If that's what you want then argue with someone else.

I'll give you an argument. If you want a conversation, talk to someone else.

This carries the shameful proviso that I haven't seen the incident either -

In general, the suggestion that a defender attempting to intercept a pass would rather not catch the ball before it hit the ground is utterly absurd. Why would he wish to concede extra possession to the opposition? 

The reason we retain the deliberate knock-on rule in RL is to prevent a player in possession, or contesting possession, deliberately knocking the ball forward, to collect himself, beyond or over defenders.

At the start of the 2024 NRL season, Annesley announced a further relaxation in application, instructing officials to give more latitude in contests for the ball.

[unapologetic pedant]

39 minutes ago, N2022 said:

He said the fact I didn't understand why he was giving penalties reflected the fact my background is Union. That in League it's always interpreted as deliberate ...

In which case, you or he have got it completely the wrong way round.