Deliberate knock on

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Final final pop. I missed the significance of the above quote yesterday.

It illustrates a distinguishing characteristic of the deliberate knock-on in RL i.e. whether the knock forward is subsequently caught should be completely immaterial.

It is a penalty offence for a player in possession to knock or throw the ball forward irrespective of whether the ball is caught before it touches the ground.

See, you keep talking about the law being about the player in possession but there is no such statement in the laws of the game.

[Dave T]

50 minutes ago, Griff said:

What do you mean by "feeding" ?

This is the law on the scrum.

"Scrums Both prop forwards on the side where the ball is put into the scrum, MUST have their outside feet forward and the halfback must feed the ball into the scrum using the space between their feet. All players must remain in the scrum until the ball is out of the scrum."

Note that there's no obligation to feed the ball parallel to the goal-lines.

If you watch an RL scrum you'll note that the props do not put their outside foot forward. The Wire Scrum for the try the other night is a good example of it. By the receiving teams prop being able to put his foot back the ball is then fed between his legs, well away from the 'tunnel' that would be formed by the props feet being forward. 

[dkw]

Id love a ref to just randomly penalise a team for feeding the scrum....

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

For my sins, I was reading this earlier and came across a random RU poster who made a point that any deliberate infringement of rules is a penalty. I'd never really considered that point explicitly, are there any other deliberate rule breaks that we don't penalise? 

I also came across some Union YouTube bids which explain how a ref decides on deliberate versus knock on. 

Yeah, I think I prefer the idea of penalising clear knock-downs. I would give benefit of the doubt to the intercepter in  unclear instances though.

RU puts a lot of importance on the position of the hands - whether it's a downward slap or an upwards tip to attempt to regather.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

See, you keep talking about the law being about the player in possession but there is no such statement in the laws of the game.

There has never been a need for one. Why complicate things? The current wording has given us the best outcome on the basis of custom and practice. Everybody's happy. Even you.

My Aussie pal put it very well -

20 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

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

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

There has never been a need for one. Why complicate things? The current wording has given us the best outcome on the basis of custom and practice. Everybody's happy. Even you.

I started out happy with how things are but over the duration of this debate I have been persuaded (by myself) that the current situation is a travesty and must change.

Nah, I'm good.

It's been a very interesting discussion, thanks for your views.

[Sports Prophet]

4 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I guess the main one is feeding at the scrum which hasn't been done as per the laws of the game for at least 25 years.

And unlike the play the ball, it leaves little open to subjectivity.

But why would it be penalised? Seriously, by interpretation of the law we can really see that every feed is being done so compliantly with the laws of the game. Nah just kidding hehe.

[unapologetic pedant]

Edifying illustration in the Dolphins/Sea-Eagles game.

Euan Aitken stuck out a mitt in the direction of a DCE pass. Ball could have gone anywhere. Luckily for the Dolphins, it popped up high, Aitken collected and scored.

Had he not caught the rebound before it touched the ground, deliberate knock-on dogma would have seen him penalized (and binned in Union). Utter absurdity.

 

[StandOffHalf]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Edifying illustration in the Dolphins/Sea-Eagles game.

Euan Aitken stuck out a mitt in the direction of a DCE pass. Ball could have gone anywhere. Luckily for the Dolphins, it popped up high, Aitken collected and scored.

Had he not caught the rebound before it touched the ground, deliberate knock-on dogma would have seen him penalized (and binned in Union). Utter absurdity.

 

He popped it up, rather than slapping it down.

Not sure, but I think it would just have been a scrum in RU - had the ball gone to ground.

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Edifying illustration in the Dolphins/Sea-Eagles game.

Euan Aitken stuck out a mitt in the direction of a DCE pass. Ball could have gone anywhere. Luckily for the Dolphins, it popped up high, Aitken collected and scored.

Had he not caught the rebound before it touched the ground, deliberate knock-on dogma would have seen him penalized (and binned in Union). Utter absurdity.

 

Interesting you have used the one example in the last month to illustrate your point.  I decided not to point out the dozens of examples I have seen of defenders deliberately slapping the ball down with no chance of retrieving it as I thought there was no point reopening the discussion.

[Sports Prophet]

7 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Interesting you have used the one example in the last month to illustrate your point.  I decided not to point out the dozens of examples I have seen of defenders deliberately slapping the ball down with no chance of retrieving it as I thought there was no point reopening the discussion.

I would love to see more examples of this, because I am also in the camp that believes there is no such thing as a deliberate knock on.

[Dunbar]

20 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

I would love to see more examples of this, because I am also in the camp that believes there is no such thing as a deliberate knock on.

I really don't know what to tell you.  If you watch Rugby League but you don't think that players outnumbered on a shift play don't deliberately stop the passage of the ball to save a try scoring situation then I am not sure I can convince you.

You may be in the camp that doesn't think their only priority is to break the play down and stop the attack - and in fact they are always going for a genuine intercept.  If that's the case, good luck to you.

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I really don't know what to tell you.  If you watch Rugby League but you don't think that players outnumbered on a shift play don't deliberately stop the passage of the ball to save a try scoring situation then I am not sure I can convince you.

You may be in the camp that doesn't think their only priority is to break the play down and stop the attack - and in fact they are always going for a genuine intercept.  If that's the case, good luck to you.

Aye, I think it's perfectly valid to think it shouldn't be illegal, but it absolutely happens. I'm surprised that is even being debated! 

[gingerjon]

29 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm surprised that is even being debated! 

For six pages.

[sam4731]

I actually don't agree that players deliberately slap the ball down for the most part. When you see the ball go in a downward direction it is usually the players hand catching the ball going in for a tackle. 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

For six pages.

So far

[Dave T]

Just now, sam4731 said:

I actually don't agree that players deliberately slap the ball down for the most part. When you see the ball go in a downward direction it is usually the players hand catching the ball going in for a tackle. 

They are a completely different thing. They would never be deemed intentional knock ons. 

[sam4731]

That's what I mean. I just don't think a deliberate knock on is very common.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, sam4731 said:

I actually don't agree that players deliberately slap the ball down for the most part. When you see the ball go in a downward direction it is usually the players hand catching the ball going in for a tackle. 

For the most part means you think they do though. No one that is saying players deliberately knock on to block a pass, with no intention of intercepting, do so every time. However on the other side of the fence people say that that every one is an attempt to intercept and it is that what people disagree with.

[dkw]

If they give a knock on for this then do they also need to give it for charge downs? Otherwise whats the difference?

[Tubby]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

If they give a knock on for this then do they also need to give it for charge downs? Otherwise whats the difference?

A charge down is only from a kick, and I think the ball has to be deemed to have an upward trajectory.

[Damien]

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

If they give a knock on for this then do they also need to give it for charge downs? Otherwise whats the difference?

They do give a knock on though already. It is fundamentally different. 

[dkw]

1 minute ago, Tubby said:

A charge down is only from a kick, and I think the ball has to be deemed to have an upward trajectory.

I`m being pedantic to be fair, just bored at work 

 

[Tubby]

Just now, dkw said:

I`m being pedantic to be fair, just bored at work 

 

Ha ha, pretty much my reason for replying...

[Sports Prophet]

53 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

For six pages.

Like all good threads