Deliberate knock on

[Dunbar]

17 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

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? 

I not not talking about a player trying to intercept a pass.  I am talking about when they deliberately knock the ball down to stop the pass (usually the pass is centre or sweeping full back to winger).

The ball is knocked down almost immediately it leaves the hand of the passer and a catch is pretty much impossible (and not attempted).

As for your question, why would he wish to concede extra possession to the opposition? Well, if it's a choice between an extra set or conceding a try, the answer is obvious.

Edited March 10 by Dunbar

[Worzel]

2 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

And don't even mention voluntary tackles.

Chris Joynt enters the chat... 

[Hopie]

28 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

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? 

Players concede extra possession to the opposition to avoid conceding points all the time. 

In most cases a defender will be going for an interception, but if it is obvious they are not then the option to give a penalty has to be there, particularly as awarding a penalty means the game does not end as it would if time has run out and a knock-on is signaled by the ref.

[Dave T]

It's weird, lazy and is just typical RL. 

We don't punish deliberate knock ons, but we are too lazy to change the rules. 

[N2022]

29 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

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

My understanding from union was that it could be called either way. Genuine attempt to catch and you spill it equals accidental knock on and a scrum. Cynical hitting it down equals penalty and often a yellow. 

So I think he had it wrong, but hey I'm no expert.

[unapologetic pedant]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I not not talking about a player trying to intercept a pass.  I am talking about when they deliberately knock the ball down to stop the pass (usually the pass is centre or sweeping full back to winger).

The ball is knocked down almost immediately it leaves the hand of the passer and a catch is pretty much impossible (and not attempted).

A defender does not deliberately knock the ball down to the ground. He cannot know for certain how the ball will consequently behave when he impulsively sticks out an arm. The act can only be plausibly deemed a deliberate knock-on if we assume he does not want to catch the rebound before it touches the ground. An outcome which is manifestly not in his interest.

 

30 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As for your question, why would he wish to concede extra possession to the opposition? Well, if it's a choice between an extra set or conceding a try, the answer is obvious.

I don't recognize that as the relevant choice. The options are the ball touching the ground or not touching the ground.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

A defender does not deliberately knock the ball down to the ground. He cannot know for certain how the ball will consequently behave when he impulsively sticks out an arm. The act can only be plausibly deemed a deliberate knock-on if we assume he does not want to catch the rebound before it touches the ground. An outcome which is manifestly not in his interest.

 

I don't recognize that as the relevant choice. The options are the ball touching the ground or not touching the ground.

I'm not sure what sport you are watching but the one I watch, defenders deliberately stop the flight of the ball in an overlap situation with no chance of catching the ball or the rebound and then get congratulated by their teammates for preventing a try.

The next time I see it happen on a TV game I will reply and tag you so you can see it for yourself. 

[unapologetic pedant]

39 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It's weird, lazy and is just typical RL.  

Nothing of the sort.

The League application is rational and coherent.

The Union application is rooted in whimsical 19th century notions of dishonourable conduct. 

[unapologetic pedant]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not sure what sport you are watching but the one I watch, defenders deliberately stop the flight of the ball in an overlap situation with no chance of catching the ball or the rebound 

How does a defender know how the ball will ricochet or that he has no chance of catching it before it touches the ground?

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

How does a defender know how the ball will ricochet or that he has no chance of catching it before it touches the ground?

Can I clarify. 

Your stance on this thread is that a player has never batted the ball without the hope of re-catching it, every such situation is one where he has hoped to secure the ball as an interception?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 hours ago, Griff said:

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

Unless we abolish the offside rule, it is imperative that we keep the voluntary tackle rule.

Otherwise you'll see players in possession playing the ball randomly to trap players in offside positions (a bit like the "dumping" tactic in touch rugby).

 

As for the deliberate knock on rule, could it possibly be that the interpretation may players who are actually in possession of the ball deliberating throwing it to the ground?

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Unless we abolish the offside rule, it is imperative that we keep the voluntary tackle rule.

Otherwise you'll see players in possession playing the ball randomly to trap players in offside positions (a bit like the "dumping" tactic in touch rugby).

 

As for the deliberate knock on rule, could it possibly be that the interpretation may players who are actually in possession of the ball deliberating throwing it to the ground?

Yeah to me it's quite obvious we need a rule around voluntary tackles. I would hate a RU type situation where players just dive towards the ground and try and get quick play the balls.

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

As for the deliberate knock on rule, could it possibly be that the interpretation may players who are actually in possession of the ball deliberating throwing it to the ground?

I am sure that situation would be penalised.

The only circumstance I was referencing when I started the thread is the defender getting his hand / arm in the way of a pass to stop an overlap.  It is done to prevent a try scoring pass and probably should be determined a deliberate knock on in the wording of the law.

But again, to stress, I am OK with how we play the game, I just consider it one of the peculiarities of Rugby League as one of the those laws we don't enforce.

[Dave T]

46 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Nothing of the sort.

The League application is rational and coherent.

The Union application is rooted in whimsical 19th century notions of dishonourable conduct. 

Having it written in the rules but not adhering to it is not rational and coherent. 

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Hopie said:

Players concede extra possession to the opposition to avoid conceding points all the time. 

They don't concede extra possession in preference to regaining possession.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Having it written in the rules but not adhering to it is not rational and coherent. 

We do adhere to it.

Edited March 10 by unapologetic pedant
syntax

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

5 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

And don't even mention voluntary tackles.

In over 50 years of watching I've only ever seen one penalised: late 80s David Hobbs at Oldham.

Other laws that seem to usually/regularly ignored:

- The ref not having to actually see the ball being grounded to give a try

- calling held as soon as a second player from the side in possession joins the tackle 

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Can I clarify. 

Your stance on this thread is that a player has never batted the ball without the hope of re-catching it, every such situation is one where he has hoped to secure the ball as an interception?

Hardly outlandish to say a defender will always prefer to gain possession rather than concede extra possession. As he flies up and flings his arm in the way of a pass, he will not be hoping the ball goes straight to ground.

In Union the defender is not conceding extra possession. The opposition had the ball with unlimited possession and, after the knock-on, would have it again with unlimited possession.

This has echoes of your blind spot regarding the role of limited possession in the charge down rule. 

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Hardly outlandish to say a defender will always prefer to gain possession rather than concede extra possession. As he flies up and flings his arm in the way of a pass, he will not be hoping the ball goes straight to ground.

You are artificially creating a false choice here by making it sound like a binary outcome.

I will concede your point that a player would always prefer to regain legitimate possession in that situation, but to offer it as a binary choice is wrong.

A player faced with a 2 on 1 defensive role will have the following...

1. Get his hand in the way of the pass and hope that he regains possession (they rarely do).

2. Get his hand in the way of a pass, have no chance of regaining possession but they have stopped a score.

3. Allow the pass to be executed and concede a try.

The primary goal of that play is to stop the opposition move.  That is all.

Your suggestion is that they are always looking to achieve number 1 but in reality it is outcome 2 that will happen 99.9% of the time and they will be recognised by teammates and coaches that as having executed a try saving play.  Every player knows this which is why they execute a play that has almost zero chance of securing possession but has a good chance of stopping a try.

It seems to me that this is so obviously self evident that I cannot believe you don't see it.  But I guess we all see things differently. 

Edited March 10 by Dunbar

[Dave T]

41 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

We do adhere to it.

We don't. 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Unless we abolish the offside rule, it is imperative that we keep the voluntary tackle rule.

Otherwise you'll see players in possession playing the ball randomly to trap players in offside positions (a bit like the "dumping" tactic in touch rugby).

 

As for the deliberate knock on rule, could it possibly be that the interpretation may players who are actually in possession of the ball deliberating throwing it to the ground?

Playing the ball randomly isn't a voluntary tackle. A voluntary tackle needs to have a tackler involved.

The deliberate knock on rule was brought in because Albert Goldthorpe made a successful ploy of punching the ball over an opponent's head before running round him and catching it.  It wasn't about attempted interceptions.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

Playing the ball randomly isn't a voluntary tackle. A voluntary tackle needs to have a tackler involved.

The deliberate knock on rule was brought in because Albert Goldthorpe made a successful ploy of punching the ball over an opponent's head before running round him and catching it.  It wasn't about attempted interceptions.

Would that be punished? How is that different to knocking the ball forward from an intercept and regathering it. That would be deemed legal (as long as it doesn't touch anything else).

[Griff]

3 hours ago, Worzel said:

Chris Joynt enters the chat... 

Well, again, for there to be a voluntary tackle, there has to be a tackle. Not just a few defenders waving their arms in the air.

[Griff]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Would that be punished? 

Dunno. Nobody's done it for over a century so far as I know.

[Dave T]

Just now, Griff said:

Dunno. Nobody's done it for over a century so far as I know.

They have however stuck an arm out in a 2 v 1 situation and intentionally knocked the ball forward. The way the laws are written that is a penalty and can't even be regathered to cancel it out, only an accidental knock on can be. 

The way things are written are not fit for purpose.