RWC Aus vs Sco

[davidlandy]

FWIW... I'm 51 years old and lucky enough to be able to remember the heydays of Welsh rugby in the 1970's... (only just!) I'm also old enough to remember many a good try being ruined by someone in the defensive line with no hope of catching the ball, knocking it on with one hand because they could only just reach it and it would stop the opponents scoring - and the only sanction available to the ref was a scrum. It seemed totally unfair.

There was a collective sigh of relief when the intentional knock on law was brought it to stamp out this practice - and that's what it's there for. As far as I can recall it's always been called on a sort of "one hand = intentional" basis, rightly or wrongly.

Perhaps the wording of the Law needs to be changed to clarify? As Ian rightly points out the word "intentional" is used in many other places in the Laws in its normal, natural-English meaning, of "having intent" - and if it's supposed to be different here then it needs to be spelled out, otherwise it's just plain confusing.

 

[crossref]

--------------------.

what did he say?

 

[Dickie E]

"one hand = intentional" basis,

I thought I invented this :wtf:

 

[davidlandy]

I thought I invented this :wtf:

You may well have been the first to mention it here, if so well said, and I apologise for not giving credit where it's due.

For my money, I thought at the time it was a clear penalty and he was lucky to get away with it - until it was called back, that is... it just seemed to me to be consistent with the usual way these incidents are called (rightly or wrongly).

I believe he honestly "intended" to intercept and make the catch, but failed... and given that only one hand made contact I think he was doomed to giving away a PK.

I thought the YC was harsh though... the ref said he'd made no attempt to catch it because of only one hand, which doesn't stack up for me, I think you have to judge on the situation itself to see if it was a slap-down or an interception-gone-wrong.

 

[Dickie E]

You may well have been the first to mention it here, if so well said, and I apologise for not giving credit where it's due.

I certainly got pilloried for it so may as well take the credit

 

[OB..]

FWIW... I'm 51 years old and lucky enough to be able to remember the heydays of Welsh rugby in the 1970's... (only just!) I'm also old enough to remember many a good try being ruined by someone in the defensive line with no hope of catching the ball, knocking it on with one hand because they could only just reach it and it would stop the opponents scoring - and the only sanction available to the ref was a scrum. It seemed totally unfair.

There was a collective sigh of relief when the intentional knock on law was brought it to stamp out this practice - and that's what it's there for. As far as I can recall it's always been called on a sort of "one hand = intentional" basis, rightly or wrongly.

From the 1949 Laws[LAWS]In the case of a throw-forward or a knock-on the ball shall be brought back to the place of infringement and a scrummage formed there, unless:--
(a) A Fair-catch has been allowed.
(b) The opposing team gain an advantage.
(c) In the opinion of the Referee such throw-forward or knock-on is wilful, when he shall award a penalty kick at the place of infringement.
[/LAWS]I suspect it was in the 70s that the guideline about one hand v two hands became common.

It was later realised this was going too far in the other direction.

I suspect that anyone going for the ball one-handed is hoping to make an interception, since we all know a deliberate knock forward is a penalty offence, but the law only makes sense as a disincentive if recklessness is covered . After all the referee has to judge you by what you actually do in the context.

 

[OB..]

Yes it was the same... in both cases, a player passed the ball and an opponent attempted a one-handed intercept, one opponent succeeded, the other didn't.

I reject that approach. It is crucial to consider the differences, not just any similarities.

It matters not a jot where and when the incident took place. Location on the field only comes into consideration AFTER you have decided the knock on was intentional; it should never come into consideration as a factor in deciding intent or lack of intent.

Again I disagree. Context affects the mindset of a player. He is far more likely to take a risk to save a score.

It doesn't matter whether it was realsitic or not, the only thing that matters is what he intended. It did not look intentional to me.

...and a third point of total disagreement. You are insisting on a highly restrictive interpretation of intent which I consider to make the law effectively pointless. As I have said many times, I look to make sense of laws in rugby terms.

By this point it is abundantly clear that we disagree so markedly on the underlying fundamentals that we are going nowhere.

 

[Crucial]

look to make sense of laws in rugby terms.

See, this is the real key to me and I find it quite odd that someone (not getting at the writer of these words) can think they are looking at things in rugby terms and not see things as a player.
I like to think that I look at things as if I was involved eg was that a foul act can translate to whether as a player I would be within reason to be really pissed of that the transgressor had overstepped the mark.
With regard to an intentional knock on situation a referee is asked to guess intentions, which of course puts things into a subjective area and is also open to guessing whether there is an element of cunning.
As a player faced with a two on one and in no mans land. You have the option of either guessing who to tackle and getting your timing and guess correct or delaying and trying to time an intercept. It is a very real and valid defensive option and not automatically a negative play. The risk in this approach is that if you don't regather the ball the ref will judge that you intended to knock the ball forward.
My belief is that 'in rugby terms' the Law is there to try and stop negative play. That means that the offence is one of intentionally knocking the ball forward as a deliberate act. Not one of acting intentionally to go for an intercept but failing and knocking the ball forward. Execution success should not be the deciding factor.
The context of where on the field it occurs is often misunderstood as well. As a defender, you are more likely to go for the intercept closer to the line because you know there is less opportunity for cover or to turn and chase. More intercept attempts will happen closer to the line for this very reason but it is still not necessarily a negative act.
I think that in the Maitland example, the reason the decision was debated was that it was not a C&O intentional knock forward. It was a C&O intentional act that led to a knock forward.
Players are out there to play the game. They should not be hamstrung in acting by the thought that their intentions could be misunderstood by the ref.
It is a very difficult one though as no one wants to encourage play acting or deliberate knock forwards being disguised to look like genuine attempts as then we go down the route of wendyball and diving.

 

[Dickie E]

See, this is the real key to me and I find it quite odd that someone (not getting at the writer of these words) can think they are looking at things in rugby terms and not see things as a player.
I like to think that I look at things as if I was involved eg was that a foul act can translate to whether as a player I would be within reason to be really pissed of that the transgressor had overstepped the mark.
With regard to an intentional knock on situation a referee is asked to guess intentions, which of course puts things into a subjective area and is also open to guessing whether there is an element of cunning.
As a player faced with a two on one and in no mans land. You have the option of either guessing who to tackle and getting your timing and guess correct or delaying and trying to time an intercept. It is a very real and valid defensive option and not automatically a negative play. The risk in this approach is that if you don't regather the ball the ref will judge that you intended to knock the ball forward.
My belief is that 'in rugby terms' the Law is there to try and stop negative play. That means that the offence is one of intentionally knocking the ball forward as a deliberate act. Not one of acting intentionally to go for an intercept but failing and knocking the ball forward. Execution success should not be the deciding factor.
The context of where on the field it occurs is often misunderstood as well. As a defender, you are more likely to go for the intercept closer to the line because you know there is less opportunity for cover or to turn and chase. More intercept attempts will happen closer to the line for this very reason but it is still not necessarily a negative act.
I think that in the Maitland example, the reason the decision was debated was that it was not a C&O intentional knock forward. It was a C&O intentional act that led to a knock forward.
Players are out there to play the game. They should not be hamstrung in acting by the thought that their intentions could be misunderstood by the ref.
It is a very difficult one though as no one wants to encourage play acting or deliberate knock forwards being disguised to look like genuine attempts as then we go down the route of wendyball and diving.

The referee spends a reasonable amount of his time assessing the intent of a potential miscreant (particularly at elite level):
the retiring player who just happens to get in the way of the SH's pass - intentional, reckless or accidental?
the player who bats the ball back towards his own deadball line - intentional, reckless or accidental?
the player "trapped" and lying on the ball at the bottom of a ruck - intentional, reckless or accidental?

There are a number of players (usually with 6 or 7 on their back) that make an artwork of convincing the ref that their intentional acts were accidental.

As others have said "very little happens by accident at the elite level".
Once we all become WC TMOs we can call it the way we see it.

 

[Dixpat]

the retiring player who just happens to get in the way of the SH's pass - intentional, reckless or accidental?

Which raises another question - should [usually the scrumhalf] be awarded a penalty when he purposely passes the ball into a player who is stationary & in a crouched position adjacent to the breakdown. He is usually there waiting for the ball to clear the breakdown so that he doesn't offend by being a "lazy runner"?

Has the scrumhalf acted in the spirit of the game?

 

[Dickie E]

Which raises another question - should [usually the scrumhalf] be awarded a penalty when he purposely passes the ball into a player who is stationary & in a crouched position adjacent to the breakdown. He is usually there waiting for the ball to clear the breakdown so that he doesn't offend by being a "lazy runner"?

Has the scrumhalf acted in the spirit of the game?

IMO no he should not be penalised and play should continue. I think Genia did this at least once vs. Argentina & milked a PK.

 

[crossref]

He wasn't properly crouched, was he, he was in the way blocking one option

 

[Dixpat]

...I think Genia did this at least once...

It is he who I was thinking of as it is something I have noticed particularly him doing & in some cases it almost looks like he has to throw the ball either forward or very low to the ground to achieve the result he is looking for!

 

[Ian_Cook]

See, this is the real key to me and I find it quite odd that someone (not getting at the writer of these words) can think they are looking at things in rugby terms and not see things as a player.
I like to think that I look at things as if I was involved eg was that a foul act can translate to whether as a player I would be within reason to be really pissed of that the transgressor had overstepped the mark.
With regard to an intentional knock on situation a referee is asked to guess intentions, which of course puts things into a subjective area and is also open to guessing whether there is an element of cunning.
As a player faced with a two on one and in no mans land. You have the option of either guessing who to tackle and getting your timing and guess correct or delaying and trying to time an intercept. It is a very real and valid defensive option and not automatically a negative play. The risk in this approach is that if you don't regather the ball the ref will judge that you intended to knock the ball forward.
My belief is that 'in rugby terms' the Law is there to try and stop negative play. That means that the offence is one of intentionally knocking the ball forward as a deliberate act. Not one of acting intentionally to go for an intercept but failing and knocking the ball forward. Execution success should not be the deciding factor.
The context of where on the field it occurs is often misunderstood as well. As a defender, you are more likely to go for the intercept closer to the line because you know there is less opportunity for cover or to turn and chase. More intercept attempts will happen closer to the line for this very reason but it is still not necessarily a negative act.
I think that in the Maitland example, the reason the decision was debated was that it was not a C&O intentional knock forward. It was a C&O intentional act that led to a knock forward.
Players are out there to play the game. They should not be hamstrung in acting by the thought that their intentions could be misunderstood by the ref.
It is a very difficult one though as no one wants to encourage play acting or deliberate knock forwards being disguised to look like genuine attempts as then we go down the route of wendyball and diving.

Excellent post, best of the thread so far!

 

[menace]

Which raises another question - should [usually the scrumhalf] be awarded a penalty when he purposely passes the ball into a player who is stationary & in a crouched position adjacent to the breakdown. He is usually there waiting for the ball to clear the breakdown so that he doesn't offend by being a "lazy runner"?

Has the scrumhalf acted in the spirit of the game?

Yikes....I'm not touching this one. I've had enough this week being attacked by Ian, pegleg and roblev for holding a different opinion to them.

 

[Jarrod Burton]

IMO no he should not be penalised and play should continue. I think Genia did this at least once vs. Argentina & milked a PK.

I think in the case on the weekend the blue player was moving but slow to retire and there were options on that side for the Wallabies. I've played advantage when someone tried it down here, the tackler saw that he was going to be in the way and dropped onto all fours well out of the path of a realistic pass - lead to a try against the team who attempted to milk the penalty when the ball popped up into the hands of big prop who steamrolled the 9's attempt at a tackle. I couldn't stop smiling at the scowl that the 9 had - or maybe at the smile the prop had!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yikes....I'm not touching this one. I've had enough this week being attacked by Ian, pegleg and roblev for holding a different opinion to them.

Come off it menace, you know that is not true.

* * * * *

I think that particular case was fair enough from Genia. The Pumas player was between him and a legitimate receiver. However, I draw the line when Genia pulls some of the crap he does in SR, when the only player he can pass to on one side is back at 45° (and too far away to run onto a flat pass) and he throws the ball laterally on the same side into a retiring player who was nowhere near the direction of any of his team-mates.

I would call play on and give him a bollocking for trying it on at the next stoppage.

 

[Pegleg]

FWIW... I'm 51 years old and lucky enough to be able to remember the heydays of Welsh rugby in the 1970's... (only just!) I'm also old enough to remember many a good try being ruined by someone in the defensive line with no hope of catching the ball, knocking it on with one hand because they could only just reach it and it would stop the opponents scoring - and the only sanction available to the ref was a scrum. It seemed totally unfair.

Simply not true.

 

[Pegleg]

I don't believe Pegleg has a sense of humour. When he was collecting emotions he went to the cranky line first and by the time he got to the humour line they ran out.

Oh dear, no argument so attack the man. That someone does not find your humour funny may actually say something about your sense of humour and not theirs.

Shame you can't actually contribute to the debate.

 

[Pegleg]

Not sure what Pegleg's response means. Need to clarify?

I did not think it funny.