Deliberate knock on

[Sports Prophet]

10 hours 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. 

This exactly. I’ve challenged the notion of deliberate knock ons in Union by defenders and the exact notions of “spoiling”, “negative” and “dishonourable” style of play has been acknowledged by those defending the RU interpretations. At which point I laugh and tell their pompous southern English ***** to F O  

Edited March 11 by Sports Prophet

[Griff]

1 hour ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

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.

You're right, of course.

To be honest, Les, I'm fed up with folks making ex cathedra statements instead of just reading the laws of the game.

I' m leaving this thread. Despite the OP not wanting an argument, there are some very provocative statements being made on here.

Edited March 10 by Griff

[Sports Prophet]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

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). 

It comes down to interpretation. I too agree with @unapologetic pedant, the intention after any point of spoiling an attacking play like this will be to catch the ball before it hits the floor to avoid a knock on. Therefore I am happy with the RL interpretation that a spoiling tactic is an attempt to intercept and is therefore not subject to the necessary law around deliberate knock-ons.

I also dispute this 99.9% narrative being thrown around, I expect it is a far more favourable percentage of balls which are retained by the spoiler.

Edited March 11 by Sports Prophet

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

It comes down to interpretation. I too agree with AP, the intention after any point of spoiling an attacking play like this will be to catch the ball before it hits the floor to avoid a knock on. Therefore I am happy with the RL interpretation that a spoiling tactic is an attempt to intercept and is therefore not subject to the necessary law around deliberate knock-ons.

I also dispute this 99.9% narrative being thrown around, I expect it is a far more favourable percentage of balls which are retained by the spoiler.

I do think we are capable of differentiating between intentional and accidental. Unfortunately it's not easy to find examples on YouTube as its just a scrum! 

[Sports Prophet]

51 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do think we are capable of differentiating between intentional and accidental. Unfortunately it's not easy to find examples on YouTube as its just a scrum! 

As has been made clear before, there is no denying the intention of a charge down and the physics that a ball is knocked forward. It is however not deemed a knock on by law which is a lot easier than writing it as a law in this case.

What people here agree on is the spoiling tactic of the defensive team per the opening thread shouldn’t be penalised. If you are in the camp that believes this spoiling tactic satisfies the definition of “deliberate knock on” and assuming you agree deliberate a knock on by an attacking player should be penalised, I welcome you to draft a law which excludes the defensive action from being penalised (similar to a charge down).

As it stands, I am satisfied that there is an interpretation to the law which is widely understood and complied with.

[arcticchris]

I think the knockdown by the defending side is a fully legitimate tactic and one that I find absurd to be routinely penalised with a yellow card in Rugby Union.

I don’t think I have ever seen a penalty for it in RL nor should there be and would welcome a rewrite of the rules.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

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

 

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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

The intention is to block the pass. If a knock-on ensues, this does not mean that the intention was to knock-on. Therefore it's an accidental knock-on. I agree with the reasoning but it doesn't belong to me as you appear to think. This is what RL rule-makers have chosen for our game. RU have always had other ideas.

It's entirely mistaken for the OP and others to claim that the relevant rule is not enforced. The RL deliberate knock-on rule was introduced to negate attempts to circumvent the prohibition on promoting the ball in a forward direction by any part of the body above the knee. We do not have a rule against blocking passes.

In 1990, big John Harrison headed the ball forward for a Saints try in a game against Sheffield. The RFL consequently outlawed deliberate headers. As with the deliberate forward pass and deliberate knock-on, the act is judged on primary intent.

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

As has been made clear before, there is no denying the intention of a charge down and the physics that a ball is knocked forward. It is however not deemed a knock on by law which is a lot easier than writing it as a law in this case.

What people here agree on is the spoiling tactic of the defensive team per the opening thread shouldn’t be penalised. If you are in the camp that believes this spoiling tactic satisfies the definition of “deliberate knock on” and assuming you agree deliberate a knock on by an attacking player should be penalised, I welcome you to draft a law which excludes the defensive action from being penalised (similar to a charge down).

As it stands, I am satisfied that there is an interpretation to the law which is widely understood and complied with.

The really simple solution here is to draft something in line with the charge down law. That's how you make it make sense. 

I think, everyone appears to be comfortable with no penalty being given and it being a valid defensive tactic, but rather the point being why we have so many things in the law as that either don't make sense or are just ignored. 

We are just really lazy in not making our lawbook reflect how rules are applied. 

Edited March 11 by Dave T

[Dave T]

5 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

 

It's entirely mistaken for the OP and others to claim that the relevant rule is not enforced. The RL deliberate knock-on rule was introduced to negate attempts to circumvent the prohibition on promoting the ball in a forward direction by any part of the body above the knee. We do not have a rule against blocking passes.

This makes zero sense. The law could have been written explicitly like that, people shouldn't have to understand that this was apparently brought in because some guy did something over a century ago. 

This law makes no reference to the interpretation that a couple of you are stating as factual. There is nothing that differentiates a deliberate knock on from a pass or in any other passage. That does happen with a kick charged down. 

The written laws should make sense. 

Edited March 11 by Dave T

[Dunbar]

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.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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.

The kick charge down clarification is the perfect example of why this isn't just as a couple are describing as factual. 

It would be so easy to have line in that a knock on from an opponent pass would always be treated as accidental knock on. 

Edited March 11 by Dave T

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The kick charge down clarification is the perfect example of why this isn't just as a couple are describing as factual. 

It would be so easy to have line in that a knock on from an opponent pass would always be treated as accidental knock on. 

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

[Dave T]

30 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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

Like you, I didn't really expect any controversy around this thread. I did rather expect it to go down the route of highlighting how poor the laws are written across many things. 

I must admit to not knowing any more when we use scrums or taps etc. The lawbook is no help whatsoever in clarifying that. 

Edited March 11 by Dave T

[Sports Prophet]

On the contrary @Dave T and @Dunbar, I don’t think writing a new law is as easy as you think it is. I am happy for you to give me an example of any proposed law or by law that allows what we all think should be an action which does not draw a penalty.

As it stands, I am happy with the theory and the argument that player is not “deliberately” knocking the ball on and that they are in fact “deliberately” attempting to intercept the ball. That the result is the ball is either retained or knocked-on is a subsequent result to the player’s deliberate intent to intercept.

That’s my argument and I am happy to take it all the way to the High Court  

[Dave T]

Just now, Sports Prophet said:

On the contrary @Dave T and @Dunbar, I don’t think writing a new law is as easy as you think it is. I am happy for you to give me an example of any proposed law or by law that allows what we all think should be an action which does not draw a penalty.

As it stands, I am happy with the theory and the argument that player is not “deliberately” knocking the ball on and that they are in fact “deliberately” attempting to intercept the ball. That the result is the ball is either retained or knocked-on is a subsequent result to the player’s deliberate intent to intercept.

That’s my argument and I am happy to take it all the way to the High Court  

See you in court! 

I think the way chargedowns are covered is the perfect example. 

On its own, a kick charge down is absolutely a knock on (and a deliberate one at that), but they simply clarify that a chargedowns is legal. 

[Sports Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Dave T said:

See you in court! 

I think the way chargedowns are covered is the perfect example. 

On its own, a kick charge down is absolutely a knock on (and a deliberate one at that), but they simply clarify that a chargedowns is legal. 

Well, like I say, give me your best worded draft law to help us put this in the law books. I suggest it is not as easy as suggested.

[Damien]

9 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

It comes down to interpretation. I too agree with @unapologetic pedant, the intention after any point of spoiling an attacking play like this will be to catch the ball before it hits the floor to avoid a knock on. Therefore I am happy with the RL interpretation that a spoiling tactic is an attempt to intercept and is therefore not subject to the necessary law around deliberate knock-ons.

I also dispute this 99.9% narrative being thrown around, I expect it is a far more favourable percentage of balls which are retained by the spoiler.

You are conflating two things. The 99.9% narrative you refer to are the instances where someone is plainly just looking to stop a try by blocking the ball with no attempt to intercept.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

This makes zero sense. The law could have been written explicitly like that, people shouldn't have to understand that this was apparently brought in because some guy did something over a century ago. 

This law makes no reference to the interpretation that a couple of you are stating as factual. There is nothing that differentiates a deliberate knock on from a pass or in any other passage. That does happen with a kick charged down. 

The written laws should make sense. 

They should. If you were actually looking to start up the sport in a new country using the laws, and not any shortened quick start version, you'd have a very different type of game being played.

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Well, like I say, give me your best worded draft law to help us put this in the law books. I suggest it is not as easy as suggested.

I'm a clumsy writer, at work I have a copy writer to sort that stuff!

But it's pretty easy to have a note/condition along the lines of:

A knock on as a result of a charge down of an opponents pass, or attempted intercept of a pass will be treated as an accidental knock on. 

Tweak as appropriate, but the above is similar to the chargedown exception. 

[Dunbar]

32 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

On the contrary @Dave T and @Dunbar, I don’t think writing a new law is as easy as you think it is.

I don't remember saying that writing a new law is easy.

I don't even remember saying we should actually write one.

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

You are conflating two things. The 99.9% narrative you refer to are the instances where someone is plainly just looking to stop a try by blocking the ball with no attempt to intercept.

No I’m not.

[Sports Prophet]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I don't remember saying that writing a new law is easy.

I don't even remember saying we should actually write one.

Pardon, I figured that’s what you wanted when you find it strange that we don’t apply our laws as they are written.

Edited March 11 by Sports Prophet

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I'm a clumsy writer, at work I have a copy writer to sort that stuff!

But it's pretty easy to have a note/condition along the lines of:

A knock on as a result of a charge down of an opponents pass, or attempted intercept of a pass will be treated as an accidental knock on. 

Tweak as appropriate, but the above is similar to the chargedown exception. 

A “knock on” is defined, so it wouldn’t be a knock-on as you say.

What if the attempted intercept included the non-passer to deliberately, in the same touch, tap the ball over an opposing player’s head?

If we must have the law in writing, I think you are on the right track though in similarly replicating the exemption of a charge down. 

I prefer to take it to court and have barristers thrash out whether it’s a “deliberate knock-on” or a “deliberate attempted interception”  

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

No I’m not.

You are. If you think that every block is an attempt at an interception that is your prerogative but others don't and are not referring to legitimate attempts to intercept when they say that.

Again I am fine with RL's interpretation. It is pretty naive though to think that every block is an attempt to intercept, it plainly isn't.

[Dunbar]

19 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Pardon, I figured that’s what you wanted when you find it strange that we don’t apply our laws as they are written.

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.