[In-goal] 22 drop?

[The Fat]

A knock forward is not necessarily a knock-on.

Are you in the Dickie/Pegleg camp who believe that if the player who loses the ball forward, across the plane-of-touch, then manages to run/jump/fly/teleport to a point in-touch and regather the ball before it touches the ground, has effectively removed the scrum option and a lineout is the only possible restart?

 

[Pegleg]

Are you in the Dickie/Pegleg camp who believe that if the player who loses the ball forward, across the plane-of-touch, then manages to run/jump/fly/teleport to a point in-touch and regather the ball before it touches the ground, has effectively removed the scrum option and a lineout is the only possible restart?

Excuse me. If the ball is caught by a player in the FOP its is play on. There is no knock on. If the player regathers the ball before it goes dead then there is not necessarily a knock on. It would depend on the individual situation. (a bit like knocking the ball over a players head anf catching after it has gome past him. I'm not allowing that).

 

[OB..]

Are you in the Dickie/Pegleg camp who believe that if the player who loses the ball forward, across the plane-of-touch, then manages to run/jump/fly/teleport to a point in-touch and regather the ball before it touches the ground, has effectively removed the scrum option and a lineout is the only possible restart?

The law defines a deliberate knock forward (it does not use the term "knock-on") as a penalty offence. One of the few cases where I think the actual wording is significant. In other words if you knock it forward deliberately you cannot avoid sanction by catching it again.

A knock-on occurs when the knock forward ends with the ball hitting the ground. If it lands in touch, the ball is simultaneously in touch. In the past it was deemed that the knock-on came first (the knock forward preceded crossing the touchline) but now the law allows a choice.

If the ball is knocked forward accidentally, you can avoid a knock-on by catching it again. I see no reason for saying that crossing the touchline makes any difference.

 

[Camquin]

Pegleg
In the new laws throw forward is defined by movement of hands, not movement of the ball.
So if the hands do not go forward what law will you pull them up on?

 

[Pegleg]

Pegleg
In the new laws throw forward is defined by movement of hands, not movement of the ball.
So if the hands do not go forward what law will you pull them up on?

Firstly, its not a new law. Secondly if the ball is not thrown forward why would I be looking to penalise him?

 

[Camquin]

It has never been worded that way in the law book.

 

[Taff]

Pegleg. In the new laws throw forward is defined by movement of hands, not movement of the ball.
So if the hands do not go forward what law will you pull them up on?

Firstly, its not a new law. Secondly if the ball is not thrown forward why would I be looking to penalise him?

I could be wrong here, but I suspect that Camquin is suggesting that momentum be taken into account - eg where the throw may be vertical, but the forward momentum of the BC takes the ball forward.

 

[Dickie E]

Are you in the Dickie/Pegleg camp who believe that if the player who loses the ball forward, across the plane-of-touch, then manages to run/jump/fly/teleport to a point in-touch and regather the ball before it touches the ground, has effectively removed the scrum option and a lineout is the only possible restart?

The most likely scenario is the winger who receives a passes, juggles the ball forward and regains it at about the same time that he puts his foot on the touch line. That will always be a lineout for me - irrespective of whether the juggle came first or the foot in touch.

 

[Pegleg]

Indeed, Why? because he has not knocked on.

 

[Pegleg]

I could be wrong here, but I suspect that Camquin is suggesting that momentum be taken into account - eg where the throw may be vertical, but the forward momentum of the BC takes the ball forward.

I completely understand that. It does not change things. For a player to throw the ball backwards and for it to travel forward over the head of a defender would take some doing. I'll put it in the box with the rocking horse crap and the hen's teeth.

 

[Pegleg]

It has never been worded that way in the law book.

The interpretation has been around for many many years with guidence from the IRB / WR etc. There are a number of threads on here concerning it. It is also basic physics.

 

[OB..]

For a player to throw the ball backwards and for it to travel forward over the head of a defender would take some doing.

If the ball carrier is doing 15 mph, then the ball is also doing 15 mph. If he throws the ball up vertically, it will continue forward at 15 mph (but getting slowed down by air resistance). In theory that means he could run past a defender and catch the ball on the other side of him.

However that is not the real point. If passage over the ground were what matters, then a player would have to give sufficient backward force to the ball to counteract his own forward speed. When players and referee are running hard, that simply does not happen, and is not penalised because the point has been well understood for many years.

 

[Pegleg]

If a player was throwing the bal over a player his direction and intention would be foward.


So we go back to the juggling issue and can a player be tackled. We either take a view that he is in possession and therefore can be tackled or he is not in possession and can't be. If it is the latter then sorry he's lost possession and its a lnock / throw / pass forward (delete a you like). I'm not going to allow him two bites of the cherry and hang the defender out to dry.

 

[Taff]

If the ball carrier is doing 15 mph, then the ball is also doing 15 mph. If he throws the ball up vertically, it will continue forward at 15 mph (but getting slowed down by air resistance). In theory that means he could run past a defender and catch the ball on the other side of him.

Which is exactly what I thought a "throw forward" was.

And if it's deliberate, it's a PK offence.

 

[crossref]

for me juggling is about trying your best to get an out of control ball safely into your hands where it belongs, it's not a legitmate technique to get past a opponent

 

[OB..]

If a player was throwing the bal over a player his direction and intention would be foward.

No. The ball initially has a forward speed of its own (the same as that of the carrier). Unless the player adds to that speed, he has not propelled the ball forward.

So we go back to the juggling issue and can a player be tackled.

That is a separate issue, created by the lax definition of a knock-on - specifically the part in red [LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]A knock-on occurs 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 [/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular]the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/FONT][/LAWS] If the ball is accidentally knocked forward, this caveat allows him to regather it after rounding an opponent. The only sensible way to deal with the situation is to allow the player to be tackled, being deemed to be in possession. If he does manage to catch the ball, you cannot award a knock-on (though you may still be able to award a deliberate knock forward).

 

[Pegleg]

I agree with most of what you say BUT if a player propells a ball over the head of a player to get an advantage then I'd taking that as deliberate. I can't accept that it is anything but a deliberate act. Sorry.

 

[OB..]

I agree with most of what you say BUT if a player propells a ball over the head of a player to get an advantage then I'd taking that as deliberate. I can't accept that it is anything but a deliberate act. Sorry.

Many years ago I was playing in a game when it happened. The opposition had a ruck near our goal line. As the ball became available the flanker came racing up calling for a pop pass, at the same time as the scrum half tried to pass the ball wide to the fly half. As a consequence it was far too hot for the flanker to handle and it shot up in the air off his hands over the defenders. He ran round them, failed to catch it cleanly, and was still juggling it as a bemused full back looked on. The flanker eventually found the handle and scored under the posts. The referee's comment was "You could have tackled him."

 

[Dickie E]

(though you may still be able to award a deliberate knock forward).

I agree with most of what you say BUT if a player propells a ball over the head of a player to get an advantage then I'd. taking that as deliberate. I can't accept that it is anything but a deliberate act. Sorry.

You guys are probably in furious agreement.

 

[Pegleg]

Many years ago I was playing in a game when it happened. The opposition had a ruck near our goal line. As the ball became available the flanker came racing up calling for a pop pass, at the same time as the scrum half tried to pass the ball wide to the fly half. As a consequence it was far too hot for the flanker to handle and it shot up in the air off his hands over the defenders. He ran round them, failed to catch it cleanly, and was still juggling it as a bemused full back looked on. The flanker eventually found the handle and scored under the posts. The referee's comment was "You could have tackled him."

So the direction of travel off the hands is clearly forward. The ball has travelled far enough away from the ball carrier to clear the opposition player. for me that is scrum time. The latter juggling is secondary. I'll disagree with you on this one.