Deliberate knock on

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

When I started this thread, I fully expected that most people wouldn't want to see the knock on penalised in those situations, but I am surprised how vigorously people are arguing that the players are not deliberately knocking the ball on when they clearly are.

[DavidM]

We see with many things that there are laws , and then there’s the way laws are actually enforced or ignored . Some also seem more scrutinised than others . And how individual competitions introduce their own protocols in terms of how officials are instructed to operate . I could mention taking out a marker ( in the nrl go back and play the ball ) , moving off the mark ( ignored , go back , do it better next time ) , moving off the mark kicking drop outs , penalties , goal line droputs . Off side at kick offs …. Etc etc

[Dave T]

14 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

When I started this thread, I fully expected that most people wouldn't want to see the knock on penalised in those situations, but I am surprised how vigorously people are arguing that the players are not deliberately knocking the ball on when they clearly are.

Agreed. I don't like Unions approach, if you are 2 v 1 you have every advantage, so I'm OK with sticking an arm out to block a pass. But as you say, to claim that isn't an intentional knock on is weird. 

[unapologetic pedant]

35 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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).

Intent is the decisive factor. Your assertion that we don't adhere to the rule is simply wrong. 

The relaxation in NRL application I cited earlier is worth a look. It relates to where the ball is airborne and a player taps it over the head of an opponent as both compete for possession. If this is done with intent it's a deliberate knock-on and will be penalized. 

Perversely, the example given of a disallowed try on the very first play of last year's Warriors/Dragons game where Zac Lomax tapped the ball from the opening kick-off over a Warriors defender, caught it and scored, would be unaffected by the change Annesley announced. The Bunker can be heard ruling that the ball touched the fingertips of a Warriors player before Lomax collected it. The incident is on the YouTube highlights package.

[unapologetic pedant]

36 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

When I started this thread, I fully expected that most people wouldn't want to see the knock on penalised in those situations, but I am surprised how vigorously people are arguing that the players are not deliberately knocking the ball on when they clearly are.

When a defender flings out his arm he is intending to block the pass. He is not intending the ball to go to ground.

I reiterate - Intent is the decisive factor.

Edited March 10 by unapologetic pedant

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

When a defender flings out his arm he is intending to block the pass. He is not intending the ball to go to ground.

I reiterate - Intent is the decisive factor.

Where is he expecting the ball to go?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

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

I don't think that's true.

For it to be a voluntary tackle, a player must play the ball without being called held. There doesn't need to be any tackler involved (hence the voluntary part).

Example: I recall (whilst at Huddersfield) Stanley Gene getting penalised for throwing himself to the ground before making contact with the defenders and playing the ball as if he'd been tackled. I assume he was anticipating contact within that maneuver and attempting a quick PTB to catch them offside. It's the exact type of play the rule is designed to prevent.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

 

 

Edited March 10 by Wellsy4HullFC
Double post

[Griff]

2 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I don't think that's true.

For it to be a voluntary tackle, a player must play the ball without being called held. There doesn't need to be any tackler involved (hence the voluntary part).

Example: I recall (whilst at Huddersfield) Stanley Gene getting penalised for throwing himself to the ground before making contact with the defenders and playing the ball as if he'd been tackled. I assume he was anticipating contact within that maneuver and attempting a quick PTB to catch them offside. It's the exact type of play the rule is designed to prevent.

Ok. I disagree.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

When a defender flings out his arm he is intending to block the pass. He is not intending the ball to go to ground.

I reiterate - Intent is the decisive factor.

He is blocking the pass with absolutely no intention of catching it. He couldn't care less where the ball goes as long as he doesn't concede a try. The very nature of that action means that 99.9% of the time the ball will go to ground.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Where is he expecting the ball to go?

Expecting is not the same as intending. A defender doesn't exactly have the time to make a balance of probabilities  assessment of how likely the ball is to end up on the floor.

We could run a "What happened next" experiment. Show several similar incidents and freeze the action at the point where the arm contacts the ball. You would have to guess which rebounds are caught, which go to ground. Needless to say, these would be judiciously selected with the aim of proving that intent remains unaltered by outcome.

[unapologetic pedant]

15 minutes ago, Damien said:

He is blocking the pass with absolutely no intention of catching it. He couldn't care less where the ball goes as long as he doesn't concede a try. The very nature of that action means that 99.9% of the time the ball will go to ground.

So if the ball flies up off his arm. he'll make no attempt to catch it?

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Expecting is not the same as intending. A defender doesn't exactly have the time to make a balance of probabilities  assessment of how likely the ball is to end up on the floor.

We could run a "What happened next" experiment. Show several similar incidents and freeze the action at the point where the arm contacts the ball. You would have to guess which rebounds are caught, which go to ground. Needless to say, these would be judiciously selected with the aim of proving that intent remains unaltered by outcome.

That's a lot of words.

But your main argument is that a player throwing out his arm to block a pass (not to catch it, block it) is not a deliberate knock on, and that's a ridiculous stance to take.

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

So if the ball flies up off his arm. he'll make no attempt to catch it?

Players stick their hand out to block the ball and in the type of situation Dunbar refers to it falls to the floor and is a knock on. If they can get their arm to the ball then they can almost certainly try and catch it. That's obviously a very different situation.

You just seem to be on the wind up on this thread to be honest.

Edited March 10 by Damien

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

37 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I don't think that's true.

For it to be a voluntary tackle, a player must play the ball without being called held. There doesn't need to be any tackler involved (hence the voluntary part).

Example: I recall (whilst at Huddersfield) Stanley Gene getting penalised for throwing himself to the ground before making contact with the defenders and playing the ball as if he'd been tackled. I assume he was anticipating contact within that maneuver and attempting a quick PTB to catch them offside. It's the exact type of play the rule is designed to prevent.

Not really

Voluntary tackle 4. A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow themselves to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball they shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if they have time to regain his feet and continue play.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

That's a lot of words.

But your main argument is that a player throwing out his arm to block a pass (not to catch it, block it) is not a deliberate knock on, and that's a ridiculous stance to take.

Defender flings arm out, ball hits arm, ball goes upward, defender catches ball.

Defender flings arm out, ball hits arm, ball goes downward, ball hits ground.

These two scenarios are identical up to the point the ball contacts the arm. There is no difference in intent.

[unapologetic pedant]

9 minutes ago, Damien said:

You just seem to be on the wind up on this thread to be honest.

Frivolous comment. Won't waste time on you in future.

[Dunbar]

24 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Defender flings arm out, ball hits arm, ball goes upward, defender catches ball.

Defender flings arm out, ball hits arm, ball goes downward, ball hits ground.

These two scenarios are identical up to the point the ball contacts the arm. There is no difference in intent.

Agreed. In both scenarios the defender deliberately knocks the ball on.  But in the first scenario (about 0.1% of the time), he gets lucky and catches it.

Although there is an argument to say it is still a deliberate knock on even if he catches it again. But that's by the by, I am talking about the 99.9% of cases where the defender deliberately knocks the ball on and doesn't regather.

Edited March 10 by Dunbar

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Agreed. In both scenarios the defender deliberately knocks the ball on.  But in the first scenario (about 0.1% of the time, he gets lucky and catches it).

Although there is an argument to say it is still a deliberate knock on even if he catches it again. But that's by the by, I am talking about the 99.9% of cases where the defender deliberately knocks the ball on and doesn't regather.

I think the difference between an intentional block, and by extension a deliberate knock on if it hits the floor or opposition player, and a legitimate attempt to intercept the ball is fairly clear to anyone that has played and watched the game.

[Dunbar]

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

I think the difference between an intentional block, and by extension a deliberate knock on if it hits the floor or opposition player, and a legitimate attempt to intercept the ball is fairly clear to anyone that has played and watched the game.

I would have thought so, yes.

[unapologetic pedant]

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Agreed. In both scenarios the defender deliberately knocks the ball on.  But in the first scenario (about 0.1% of the time, he gets lucky and catches it).

Although there is an argument to say it is still a deliberate knock on even if he catches it again. But that's by the by, I am talking about the 99.9% of cases where the defender deliberately knocks the ball on and doesn't regather.

The relevant clause in the rulebook is -

"A player shall be penalized if they deliberately knock on or pass forward"

It's essentially the same rule that distinguishes an accidental forward pass from a deliberate forward pass. 

It is not designed to stop defenders blocking passes or punish failed interception attempts.

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The relevant clause in the rulebook is -

"A player shall be penalized if they deliberately knock on or pass forward"

It's essentially the same rule that distinguishes an accidental forward pass from a deliberate forward pass. 

It is not designed to stop defenders blocking passes or punish failed interception attempts.

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

[Dave T]

Union does apply it, and it's relatively straight forward, or as much as any other rule. 

I'd rather we just amend the wording if we are cool with this, but as has been pointed out, there are probably a fair few rewrites needed, and that'd need some effort. 

[Sports Prophet]

The most recent “deliberate knock on” penalty I have seen applied in RL was by the Bunker in an NRL match 5 yrs ago against the Sharks. video is in the link below.

I have no problem with a defensive player spoiling the attack by deliberately sticking his hand or arm out to meet the ball.

From an attacking viewpoint, I definitely have an issue with players deliberately tapping the ball over a defensive player’s head or the even more obvious school yard passing forward over the head of a defender to yourself as you run past them and catch it.

As such, I feel there is definitely a place for the law in our game, but I am happy with the interpretation that sees it not applied to defensive spoils or attempted interceptions.

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/rugby-league/news/nrl-highlights-cronulla-sharks-intentional-knock-on-sione-katoa-josh-dugan/z7toxwt5iom21r0od3jd9sog0

Edited March 10 by Sports Prophet

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Sports Prophet said:

The most recent “deliberate knock on” penalty I have seen applied in RL was by the Bunker in an NRL match 5 yrs ago against the Sharks. video is in the link below.

I have no problem with a defensive player spoiling the attack by deliberately knocking the ball forward.

From an attacking viewpoint, I definitely have an issue with players deliberately tapping the ball over a defensive player’s head or the even more obvious school yard passing forward over the head of a defender to yourself as you run past them and catch it.

As such, I feel there is definitely a place for the law in our game, but I am happy with the interpretation that sees it not applied to defensive spoils or attempted interceptions.

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/rugby-league/news/nrl-highlights-cronulla-sharks-intentional-knock-on-sione-katoa-josh-dugan/z7toxwt5iom21r0od3jd9sog0

I can understand where that kind of play becomes problematic, but I think that's a harsh call tbh (in the context of we allow deliberate knock ons in defensive situations).