Odd Things in RL.

[Pigeon Lofter]

11 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I agree with your main observation, but are you really saying you would be comfortable with a rule change that classed a knock-back as a knock-on?

So that, for instance, a player tapping the ball backward in the contest for a high kick would be guilty of a deliberate knock-on.

No, anything projected backwards by hand or arm is play on. Why the officials consider some backward projection a knock-on makes a mockery of the laws of the game.

There are too many laws that aren't being enforced, particularly at the ruck, PTB, and scrum. A game without proper or selective law enforcement becomes too much of a lottery for players and spectators yet our governing body condones these infractions as being normal play when they are anything but.

[unapologetic pedant]

4 hours ago, The Blues Ox said:

Another odd thing you will see in games is after a kick to touch sometimes a player will get the ball and place it on the sideline before passing the ball to the player who will take the tap. Its a strange one and Ive never understood why players do it.

Been through this oddity on several threads.

Placing the ball on the side-line is ball-boy protocol. Some players appear to think it applies to them.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 minutes ago, Pigeon Lofter said:

No, anything projected backwards by hand or arm is play on. Why the officials consider some backward projection a knock-on makes a mockery of the laws of the game.

In which case, I would recast the following sentiment accordingly -

23 hours ago, Pigeon Lofter said:

If this is what everyone wants then fine, but put it in the rules. 

If this is what every imbecile wants it's not fine, and don't put it in the rules.

Just ignore imbeciles and apply the current rules more intelligently.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 14/07/2024 at 16:31, Pigeon Lofter said:

According to the RFL, "Knock On means to knock the ball towards the opponent's dead ball line with hand or arm."  So, 1mm forward is a knock on, a vertical drop where the ball doesn't move towards the opposition goal line isn't.

The human eye cannot detect margins as tiny as 1mm. Hence, benefit of the doubt has to be applied.

There is a sharp contrast in implementing the knock-on rule between RL and RU. Probably a reflection of our similarly disparate crowd cultures.

In League, unless the ball travels clearly backward, the ref calls a knock-on.

In Union, unless the ball travels clearly forward, the ref plays on.

[Anita Bath]

6 hours ago, johnh1 said:

An odd one was a couple of years ago. Fev v Batley I think. Batley were winning when the final hooter went. A Batley player went to kick the ball into touch, but only succeeded in kicking the ball towards his own try line. Fev scored and converted from touch to win the game. 

Not quite as bizarre but in the Grand Final day play off between NSW cup champions and QRL cup champions Burleigh Bears were leading Newtown Jets. Hooter sounded, Bears had the ball from scrum around half way and half back Jamal Fogarty ( now Canberra Raiders) instead of kicking the ball into touch kicked it downfield. Jets went length of the field to score and take the game.

[Padge]

On 14/07/2024 at 13:32, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

I wholly agree with you, PL.  Indeed, you could delete 'of a knock-on' from your last sentence and your comment would be relevant to a number of things - not least of all various aspects of the PTB - but I fear I am going off-topic to get on a hobby horse!

A lot of people see a player touch the ball and overrun it so it lands behind them but has travelled forward relative to the ground but not relative to the man. Also if the ball has travelled forward in the air but travels back after hit its the ground, it is a knock. It is the opposite to a forward pass were the travel of the ball is relative to the two players involved in the pass and not the ground.

This is what happens on many occasions when fans are screaming it wasn't a knock.

[unapologetic pedant]

32 minutes ago, Padge said:

This is what happens on many occasions when fans are screaming it wasn't a knock.

I would say "some" rather than "many", if "many" implies "most".

There are many knock-ons called in contemporary RL where there is no clear evidence the ball travelled forward relative to the ground. Officials manifestly favour the defending team. Probably due to a belief that when the team in possession has committed an error they do not deserve the benefit of any doubt.

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

1 hour ago, Padge said:

A lot of people see a player touch the ball and overrun it so it lands behind them but has travelled forward relative to the ground but not relative to the man. Also if the ball has travelled forward in the air but travels back after hit its the ground, it is a knock. It is the opposite to a forward pass were the travel of the ball is relative to the two players involved in the pass and not the ground.

This is what happens on many occasions when fans are screaming it wasn't a knock.

I take your point to a degree, Padge, but only to a degree.  I still think there are backwards fumbles which are erroneously deemed to be knock-ons.

ps my spell-checker tells me your spelling of 'travelled' is wrong; yours probably did too.  Thanks for ignoring it!

pps my spell-checker tells me that my spelling of 'knock-ons' is incorrect in that it should have an apostrophe before the final 's'.  I'm ignoring that (of course, really pedantically, it arguably should be 'knocks-on'!)  OK, I'll shut up now!

[Padge]

3 minutes ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

pps my spell-checker tells me

that my spelling of 'knock-ons' is incorrect in that it should have an apostrophe before the final 's'.  I'm ignoring that (of course, really pedantically, it arguably should be 'knocks-on'!)  OK, I'll shut up now!

When speaking in the plural it should knocks-on.. "we have had 3 knocks-on"

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

31 minutes ago, Padge said:

When speaking in the plural it should knocks-on.. "we have had 3 knocks-on"

Agreed, yet never is.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

Agreed, yet never is.

The hyphenated "knock-on" is a compound noun consisting of verb + preposition. So "knock-ons" is correct.

Alternative example -

"push-ups", not "pushes-up"

[Sports Prophet]

On 15/07/2024 at 18:51, The Blues Ox said:

Another odd thing you will see in games is after a kick to touch sometimes a player will get the ball and place it on the sideline before passing the ball to the player who will take the tap. Its a strange one and Ive never understood why players do it.

This will depend on the context I will dare say. I saw this happening in a club game in Serbia. I assumed this was because the players and officials would watch NRL or SL (where the ball is placed at the TJ foot by the ball boy) and players would think the ball needs to be passed into the field of play from the point it crossed the line.

Alternatively, in the context of say amateur footy in England or Australia, where players are maybe more aware, I have seen referees slow down the tap restart because a ball was passed to the man taking the tap by a ball boy or spectator to speed the restart up. So with that in mind, perhaps an amateur player would be seeking a way to legitimately restart the match as quick as possible by placing it on the sideline first.

[Keep The Faith]

On 14/07/2024 at 07:29, The Blues Ox said:

Yeah its not until these strange things happen that it springs up a surprise or a rule that most of us have never heard of.

The crossbar was a funny one as it took the ref having someone in his ear to tell him that it should be a 20m restart because the ball was caught in goal.
The kick for touch one and the amount of abuse the TJ and ref are getting on line for the decision is ridiculous. I still can't find within the rules the correct interpretation from a penalty or kick off restart. From the TJ point of view the ball goes over his head and he is stood on the line, of course he is going to put his flag up.

A remember one at Dewsbury a few years back when Fax were playing and it was called the longest drop out ever. Dewsbury dropped out the wind catches the ball and it ends up bouncing over the Fax dead ball line, something that is so rare that the ref got the ruling wrong and gave a drop out instead of a 20m restart.

It happens and with only a split second to make a decision its no surprise. 

It was the right call with the dewsbury one - drop out to drop out 

Happened at Barrow a few years later with us 

[Griff]

On 13/07/2024 at 22:17, corvusxiii said:

Been watching and since..   1986 but only occasionally amazed at things I'd not noticed before.

Cats v Salford:

Ball bounces off the crossbar- caught by defender....20m restart.

Sounds spot on. Kick caught on the full by a defender in goal? Happens every match.

[bobbruce]

15 hours ago, Sports Prophet said:

This will depend on the context I will dare say. I saw this happening in a club game in Serbia. I assumed this was because the players and officials would watch NRL or SL (where the ball is placed at the TJ foot by the ball boy) and players would think the ball needs to be passed into the field of play from the point it crossed the line.

Alternatively, in the context of say amateur footy in England or Australia, where players are maybe more aware, I have seen referees slow down the tap restart because a ball was passed to the man taking the tap by a ball boy or spectator to speed the restart up. So with that in mind, perhaps an amateur player would be seeking a way to legitimately restart the match as quick as possible by placing it on the sideline first.

The rule was brought in because it took out any inconsistency with how quick the home teams ball boys threw the ball to the hooker compared to the away team. Having to put the ball on the line meant both teams got the same service. 

[Griff]

4 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The rule was brought in because it took out any inconsistency with how quick the home teams ball boys threw the ball to the hooker compared to the away team. Having to put the ball on the line meant both teams got the same service. 

Correct.

[Sports Prophet]

5 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The rule was brought in because it took out any inconsistency with how quick the home teams ball boys threw the ball to the hooker compared to the away team. Having to put the ball on the line meant both teams got the same service. 

Correct

[The Phantom Horseman]

Talking of how the ball gets back onto the field following penalty kicks to touch, this is one of my favourite "odd things in RL" moments.

It's early in the 1983 Challenge Cup Final. Featherstone kick a penalty to touch and decide to run a planned move where Terry Hudson is going to dummy to the open side and pass the ball on the blind side to David Hobbs.

So as the teams line up for the tap, Hobbs starts to jog across towards the far touchline to take up his position for the planned move. It looks obvious with hindsight and you'd think Hull will respond, maybe move one of their bigger players across to mark him...but just after he starts jogging across, the ball is returned to the pitch from some distance away, right where he ends up! So Hull think he's just jogged over to get the ball, and are none the wiser about the plan.

Hobbs crashes through James Leuluai and scores (from about 26:30 on the video)

 

[Pete Grady]

1968 Cup semi at Central Park

Warrington v Salford

Salford's centre Stuart Whitehead in the act of scoring a try with R C showing, as a Warry player is pulling his shorts from behind, whilst the ref., Eric Clay, has tripped and lies fallen on the ground,  pointing for the try.

There was a great photo of the moment in the papers at the time, but can't find it.

Edited July 17 by Pete Grady
creativity

[stookie]

One from the pages of history. ie, 1 hour ago.

"Brawl" spills over the sideline, a player from the bench gets involved. Because it is state of origin it's almost impossible to be sent off, so said player is sin-binned instead. Except, that player is off the field, so some poor random shmuck from the same team gets hoofed for 10 without doing anything wrong, ha ha...

[The Blues Ox]

8 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The rule was brought in because it took out any inconsistency with how quick the home teams ball boys threw the ball to the hooker compared to the away team. Having to put the ball on the line meant both teams got the same service. 

So it is actually a rule then? Is there a reference to it in the rules? If it is then it seems very random as to how it is applied, some games you won't see it at all, Ive watched at least one amateur game each weekend and can't say I have ever seen it in the ones where a kick to touch is taken. Championship games are random although I have seen james Saltonstall do it a number of times for Fax. Taps after a kick to touch seem very much controlled by the refs as to the time taken before blowing their whistle to restart play so you would think it would not really matter.

[The Blues Ox]

1 hour ago, stookie said:

One from the pages of history. ie, 1 hour ago.

"Brawl" spills over the sideline, a player from the bench gets involved. Because it is state of origin it's almost impossible to be sent off, so said player is sin-binned instead. Except, that player is off the field, so some poor random shmuck from the same team gets hoofed for 10 without doing anything wrong, ha ha...

One of the more obvious cases for a red card as you will ever see. 

[corvusxiii]

2 hours ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

Talking of how the ball gets back onto the field following penalty kicks to touch, this is one of my favourite "odd things in RL" moments.

It's early in the 1983 Challenge Cup Final. Featherstone kick a penalty to touch and decide to run a planned move where Terry Hudson is going to dummy to the open side and pass the ball on the blind side to David Hobbs.

So as the teams line up for the tap, Hobbs starts to jog across towards the far touchline to take up his position for the planned move. It looks obvious with hindsight and you'd think Hull will respond, maybe move one of their bigger players across to mark him...but just after he starts jogging across, the ball is returned to the pitch from some distance away, right where he ends up! So Hull think he's just jogged over to get the ball, and are none the wiser about the plan.

Hobbs crashes through James Leuluai and scores (from about 26:30 on the video)

 

That was s happy chance. I used to work in the same office a DH but it would not occur to me to tell him so.

[Gav Wilson]

9 hours ago, bobbruce said:

The rule was brought in because it took out any inconsistency with how quick the home teams ball boys threw the ball to the hooker compared to the away team. Having to put the ball on the line meant both teams got the same service. 

I always thought it was brought in after Lee Jackson's sneaky up the jumper trick play at Headingley... 

[Griff]

2 hours ago, Pete Grady said:

1968 Cup semi at Central Park

Warrington v Salford

Salford's centre Stuart Whitehead in the act of scoring a try with R C showing, as a Warry player is pulling his shorts from behind, whilst the ref., Eric Clay, has tripped and lies fallen on the ground,  pointing for the try.

There was a great photo of the moment in the papers at the time, but can't find it.

That'd be 1969.

The 1968 Final was between Leeds and Wakefield.   Neither Salford nor Warrington were involved.