[Law] "Knock-on"

[didds]

Arabcheif, can you comment on this possibility.

My 2p. Surely you can only ever lose possession of the ball if you had it in the first place eg held it. Chesting it or heading it forwards when it is in the air last played by somebody else wouldn't be knocking it on, nor would kneeing the ball in a chase or progressing it via a shin or thigh.

So no touch of the hand/arm can't be losing possession surely? because the player never had possession, but merely progressed the ball via another part of the body

??????????????

didds

 

[Decorily]

My 2p. Surely you can only ever lose possession of the ball if you had it in the first place eg held it.

??????????????

didds

Player does not necessarily have to ' hold' the ball to be in possession of it.

A player 'juggling ' a ball trying to get control of it is deemed to be in possession and is , for instance, tackleable.
A player similarly 'juggling ' who looses it forward is deemed to have knocked on (even if they get a boot to it before it hits the ground etc).
In fact any player attempting to bring the ball under control is in possession.

In OP the player was surely attempting to bring the ball under control when they lost it and it went forward!

Similarly If a player was under a high ball and was attempting to catch it and it didn't touch their hands but went forward off their chest/belly/knees would we not expect it to be deemed a knock on?

 

[thepercy]

@Rich_NL, I hear you mate. And for 90% of the time, i just leave it, I may have a frustrated shake of the head and if somethings unbelievable sometimes I'll frustratingly ask "Really" or say "Oh c'mon." While look up to the sky. I've never had and argument. And when the ref on Saturday disagreed, I simply said I'll speak to you on Monday. Didn't engage in a discussion after that. I did laugh once because there was a very amusing call the he awarded a Pk for hands in the ruck when a) there was no ruck b) the support player of the tackled player picked it up, promptly fell over his team mate, placed the ball back to his 9. He awarded them a PK for us having hands in the ruck even though none of our players were near the twol (tackler had rolled away by then and was on his way back to his feet about 1.5m away).
It was just another one of a long line of rubbish calls. One of which was a YC for a high tackle that he didn't card the player for (that was a player in my team that should've been carded).

I get that refs are human and mistakes happen, no doubt I'll make a whole bunch of them. But again, we're all only human and there's only so much we can take. I've been frustrated with one other ref performance in my time. yeah there's been the odd decision that's been how can he/she call that but not to the point that I've been with this fella from Saturday (and the other one was last season). Like I said refs are human and can make mistakes and I understand this but when the mistakes are more common than the correct calls that's when I start getting frustrated.

Even your small reactions, body language, and snide remarks can be annoying to the referee even if it doesn't rise to the level of abuse, and if you are in a leadership position with your club your slight disrespect of the referee even when they are out of their depth, can rub off on your mates who don't know how when/how to show restraint.

I think you'd be better off if the referee thought you were a good guy and might give you the benefit of the doubt when you need it, rather than thinking your a bit of a dick and being harsh when you transgress.

 

[SimonSmith]

My 2p. Surely you can only ever lose possession of the ball if you had it in the first place eg held it. Chesting it or heading it forwards when it is in the air last played by somebody else wouldn't be knocking it on, nor would kneeing the ball in a chase or progressing it via a shin or thigh.

So no touch of the hand/arm can't be losing possession surely? because the player never had possession, but merely progressed the ball via another part of the body

??????????????

didds

I'd challenge this a bit. No9 throws a bullet. 10 never gathers it, but juggles and ultimately loses it forward. By your logic, because he never had control, he never lost control so no knock on.

Really?

 

[SimonSmith]

@Rich_NL, I hear you mate. And for 90% of the time, i just leave it, I may have a frustrated shake of the head and if somethings unbelievable sometimes I'll frustratingly ask "Really" or say "Oh c'mon." While look up to the sky. I've never had and argument. And when the ref on Saturday disagreed, I simply said I'll speak to you on Monday. Didn't engage in a discussion after that. I did laugh once because there was a very amusing call the he awarded a Pk for hands in the ruck when a) there was no ruck b) the support player of the tackled player picked it up, promptly fell over his team mate, placed the ball back to his 9. He awarded them a PK for us having hands in the ruck even though none of our players were near the twol (tackler had rolled away by then and was on his way back to his feet about 1.5m away).
It was just another one of a long line of rubbish calls. One of which was a YC for a high tackle that he didn't card the player for (that was a player in my team that should've been carded).

I get that refs are human and mistakes happen, no doubt I'll make a whole bunch of them. But again, we're all only human and there's only so much we can take. I've been frustrated with one other ref performance in my time. yeah there's been the odd decision that's been how can he/she call that but not to the point that I've been with this fella from Saturday (and the other one was last season). Like I said refs are human and can make mistakes and I understand this but when the mistakes are more common than the correct calls that's when I start getting frustrated.

I don't think you understand human dynamics very well. Your snide little asides, which you think think are de minimis, are the sort of shit that turns referees against your team. As much as we try to be impartial, these things erode the relationship and get you - and possibly your team - in the target sights.

A decent referee will tell your skipper to shut you the hell up before it starts to impact decision making. A less confident referee will just have his judgmemt swayed - and that means your share of 50/50 calls just went down.
"I'll speak to you on Monday" - why not just say that you think he's a twat and get the code out the way. I know what you're saying, he knows what you're saying, and so do you. There's no point in saying it.

Why do you feel that you have the right to editorialize? I wonder what the referee's ongoing commentary of how you play is? "Mouthy sod, and can't take the pressure from the oppo TH" "Christ he's unfit and buggering up the team's pattern"

We DON'T say that to the players, and with good reason. I think we can expect the same back from players.

I'm going to be frank here: most referees - most, not all - are humble, and want to know what they can do better. They're open to discussion and explaining what they saw. Generally what we're not good with with is snide, smart ass know it alls who may not have had the same angle.

Ask yourself what side of the equation you're on. Because on the basis of your posts, I can think of 14 of your team mates I'd buy a pint for before you.

 

[didds]

Player does not necessarily have to ' hold' the ball to be in possession of it.

A player 'juggling ' a ball trying to get control of it is deemed to be in possession and is , for instance, tackleable.

yes - fair enough there - the Tim Stimpson ruling

Ok - how about actually holding the ball or trying to bring it under control. Kneeing/.shinning/heading the ball presumably though wouldn't count as that? Chesting and stomaching ditto?

In OP the player was surely attempting to bring the ball under control when they lost it and it went forward!

Hmm. we are into angels on pins here really. Frankly if the ball manifestly doesn't touch an arm or hand I'm very loath to call subsequent forward movement a knock on. I do accept though that the definition "When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, " is somewhat ambiguous - because the definition of what constitutes possession includes "An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control" would indeed seem to include an attempt to catch the ball but totally fails. I get the arguments - I'm just not convinced that that is what the law writers intended, while trying to incorporate the Tim Stimpson scenario.

Similarly If a player was under a high ball and was attempting to catch it and it didn't touch their hands but went forward off their chest/belly/knees would we not expect it to be deemed a knock on?

For me no - but as above I can see why some would award it. I'm not convinced that is what the intention of the law is.


So -purely as a moot point... FB is under a high kick and shaping to catch it. It is clear (s)he intends to catch it. But they misjudge it and the ball hits their head, and goes forward. They were attempting to bring the ball under control - and it has gone forward. Knock-on? If not - we are thus saying the head is different to the belly/thigh etc ? (except in anaotomical descriptions obviously!)

didds

didds

 

[crossref]

It's hard to picture a 10 fumbling a pass from his 9 and "manifestly not touching it"

 

[Arabcheif]

Human Dynamics - Bearing in mind this is deep into the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] half. Waaaaaay after the ref has made (in my opinion), error after error after error, been inconsistent irritated the captain already. Hasn’t communicated his decisions (other than with his hand signals), so we don’t know who’s “infringed” for most of the time. I think it human dynamics to get frustrated at this point and natural to show it. Not licence to be abusive or intimidating, but certainly natural to display some form of displeasure.
A decent referee – A decent referee also communicates clearly, who he’s penalised. Also he makes good sound decisions most of the time. He made a correct call that I remember our 10 went to contest the ball after a tackle but lost his feet and went over. Pinged correctly, no problem with that. That seemed to be in the minority though. I’ll speak to you on Monday meant – I don’t want to argue with you here, let’s chat on Monday about it – when we’ve both calmed down. At that point I didn’t think he was a tw*t. I still don’t, just not a good ref.
How is my fitness level/skill level/ability to fit into the teams pattern, impacting his game. Me being slow has zero impact on his own decision making. Your point here in the context of the thread is invalid and has nothing to do with the refs performance or enjoyment of the game. The opposite a poor ref (or at least a poor display), can impact the players enjoyment of the game can be true though. A referee is there to facilitate a game of rugby, not be the main man in the middle that is the main talking point, which he was.
I appreciate the most res are humble and want to improve, I fall into this category. Most of the time the refs have told the capt, I saw you 7 offside or 10 was competing after the ruck formed or something like that. That fine but when asked who was infringing the ref on Sat was either unable to unwilling to disclose this top secret information. I try not to be snide, I really do. But you get to a point, I’m only human after all.
I’m on the side of rugby. I don’t mind (don’t like it but I get accept it), if we get beat by a better team or team who just wanted it more. I’m not gonna lose any sleep over that sleep over that SimonSmith, but if you come over to Arbroath, I’ll still buy you a pint.

 

[Arabcheif]

Arabcheif, can you comment on this possibility.

Ummm - I'm not a mind reader, so obviously not. I think we're just beginning to get a bit ridiculous now. The very brief exchange we had, I believed that the ref was aware that the ball didn't go forward off the hands.

I'd challenge this a bit. No9 throws a bullet. 10 never gathers it, but juggles and ultimately loses it forward. By your logic, because he never had control, he never lost control so no knock on.

Really?

No because it'll have been juggled by his hands or arm. So the definition clearly has a provision for this very situation. So yes knock on.

 

[Phil E]

So -purely as a moot point... FB is under a high kick and shaping to catch it. It is clear (s)he intends to catch it. But they misjudge it and the ball hits their head, and goes forward. They were attempting to bring the ball under control - and it has gone forward. Knock-on? If not - we are thus saying the head is different to the belly/thigh etc ? (except in anaotomical descriptions obviously!)

If the ball hits them on the head, its obvious to everyone that it did so. So its not a knock on.

If the ball hits them on the chest while their arms are spread wide away from their body, then its obvious its not a knock on.

If their arms are in a catching position and the ball goes straight through their arms, then its almost impossible to say it did, or didn't touch the hands or arms. I am going to give the knock on, because that's what everyone is expecting and it was essentially a dropped catch.

You can argue about the angle the ball fell at, or whether it actually touched their skin or not for as long as you like, but everyone is expecting a knock on call and that's what we go for...the clear and obvious.

 

[didds]

If the ball hits them on the head, its obvious to everyone that it did so. So its not a knock on.

If the ball hits them on the chest while their arms are spread wide away from their body, then its obvious its not a knock on.

If their arms are in a catching position and the ball goes straight through their arms, then its almost impossible to say it did, or didn't touch the hands or arms. I am going to give the knock on, because that's what everyone is expecting and it was essentially a dropped catch.

You can argue about the angle the ball fell at, or whether it actually touched their skin or not for as long as you like, but everyone is expecting a knock on call and that's what we go for...the clear and obvious.

I get that. As somebody else stated however, this is a complete reverse of the C&O approach to making decisions. Intriguing.

didds

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

This is very similar to the first thread I contributed to in 2008. I think the scenario was different insofar as the intended recipient "misses" the ball with his/her hands, ball hits his/her gut goes forward and he/she falls on it and scores.

I said I was giving a knock on even if I wasn't sure the ball hadn't hit a hand on the way in or out. There were some who questioned this just like now but others who were in the "expected" decision camp.

My opinion hasn't changed in 11.5 years.

 

[didds]

would your response be the same if it happened on half way and there was no try to be scored ?

(I suspect so and that's fine

didds

 

[ChrisR]

From Definitions:
[LAWS]Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player
hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes
forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can
catch it.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it
under control.
[/LAWS]
I think it's fair to assume that the lawmakers consider possession to be by hand or arm. Therefore the ball going forward from lost possession is assumed to be a ball going forward from hand or arm.

Yes, a player attempting to catch a kick is attempting to take control but if the ball bounces forward off his head then it is clearly not coming off hand or arm. Therefore not a knock-on.

 

[didds]

From Definitions:
[LAWS]Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player
hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes
forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can
catch it.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it
under control.
[/LAWS]
I think it's fair to assume that the lawmakers consider possession to be by hand or arm. Therefore the ball going forward from lost possession is assumed to be a ball going forward from hand or arm.

Yes, a player attempting to catch a kick is attempting to take control but if the ball bounces forward off his head then it is clearly not coming off hand or arm. Therefore not a knock-on.

ditto his guts of course...

didds

 

[ChrisR]

I get that. As somebody else stated however, this is a complete reverse of the C&O approach to making decisions. Intriguing.

didds

I think that it's fair to assume that, unless C & O otherwise, the player is attempting to play the ball with hand or arm. Therefore the default is a knock-on.

That's different from the issue of the ball going forward or not. I see too many calls of knock-on when the ball does not clearly go forward.

 

[crossref]

I get that. As somebody else stated however, this is a complete reverse of the C&O approach to making decisions. Intriguing.

didds

C&O is used in the direction to suit the occasion !

 

[crossref]

This is one of those scenarios where the best answer is not to be found by examining the Law book . The best decision is is along the lines of #9 or #30

 

[OB..]

If their arms are in a catching position and the ball goes straight through their arms, then its almost impossible to say it did, or didn't touch the hands or arms. I am going to give the knock on, because that's what everyone is expecting and it was essentially a dropped catch.

At our club's 50th Anniversary dinner the main speakers were Gareth Chilcott and Tony Swift. Both very entertaining.

TS was at pains to make it clear that his first touch in an international was NOT a knock-on. Apparently he shaped to catch the ball, missed it completely, so it bounced on the ground, came back up, hit him in the balls and went forward. We laughed unsympathetically.

(GC claimed that Topsy Ojo was qualified to play for Wales because his grandfather ate a Welsh dragoon.)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

To give a bit more context. I was playing standing right next to the ref at the LO. He played knock on advantage, they kick the ball - advantage over then it went out of play. I mentioned that it came off 10's stomach any so it wasn't a knock on in that circumstance. (I don't think he knows I'm a ref but if he's at our soc meeting tonight he will lol).

He told me that it was irrelevant that it was off his stomach and advised that a knock on was anywhere between the shins and shoulder This implies that he's aware the ball didn't touch the 10's hands. I replied this isn't what's described in the definitions but said it didn't matter ATM, we can chat on Monday (at the soc meeting). He told me to "shut-it."

That's not went down well. I'll def not be shutting it this evening.

During the game "Shut it" is exactly whay you should do! - Although he could frame his words carefully. Ref makes the call - NOT YOU! You are a player (in this situation) accept it mnd move on. Nothing worse than a ref playing the game.

1. I'm sure he'd say I was a gobby tw*t. The impression I got was that he was aware the ball didn't touch the 10's hands and was telling me that it didn't matter, as it was a knock on anyway.
2. Fair enough but it still doesn't make me wrong.
3. I've never seen a ref keep his opinions to himself when playing (or even watching). That must mean I've never seen a good ref lol (btf, this might be true and I might not even be a good ref but I'll be consistently good or bad for both teams).

1: You were! Remember Law 6.5.A
2: It does for the 80 minutes! Remember Law 6.5.A
3: Irrelevant. Remember Law 6.5.A

AFTER the game discuss politely. In the Society meeting engineer a question so that a senior guy "corrects" him if he was wrong

Oh and as a reminder whe you are playing and NOT reffing and if you can't remember check whick on of you is holding the whistle, Remember Law 6.5.A.