another knock on Law question

[BikingBud]

Six all. I’ll break the deadlock. I’m in the knock-on camp. If for no other reason than it stops issues over whether you can knock-it on over anyone’s head/arms and re-catch it etc, etc, etc, and so on. Interpret it as a knock-on and it stops many other debates. Plus I started playing and refereeing in the days when you were not permitted even a slight ‘juggle’ so I am biased and stuck in my ways!

What a bizarre response:

• If for no other reason......
• To stop other debates.......
• Started refereeing in the days when.......

Nothing about the interpretation of current law.

Do you still award 3 points for a try?

 

[BikingBud]

I never gave my reasoning

Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control

I don't think she was attempting to bring the ball under control, so she wasn't in possession (and wasn't juggling)

She lost possession the moment the ball left her hands, and it went forwards

When this happens I don't think you can 'save' a KO by subsequently kicking or slapping the ball before it hits the ground .

So knock on

(I do accept it's not wholly clear cut so ymmv)

Whilst you are free to interpret what you observe, (the player attempting to bring the ball under control, or not) it does seem that you have Nigel's issue and are making things up (I don't think). Please can we stay within the Laws.

I would again offer as the ball went backwards then the level of control that the player wished to apply has been achieved. If it doesn't hit the ground or another player then it does meet the test case for a knock on. No mention about limitations on how you can prevent that occurring.

I have asked a couple of times; If the player had juggled, dived, caught, rolled and popped what then? Would that be acceptable?

 

[crossref]

I have asked a couple of times; If the player had juggled, dived, caught, rolled and popped what then? Would that be acceptable?

Bud, why not make up a good scenario (or better still find a clip) that illustrates your point, and start a thread ?

It can be harder than you might think, but I love those sorts of threads and would be first to contribute my answer

If it's a good scenario, I am sure other people will join in

 

[Stu10]

So you are happy to take his perspective even after he has introduced new elements to the law?

Whilst I agree the try in discussion by Nigel was a KO from Rees-Zammit, it was because it was dropped and then kicked and then hit the ground in front. I offered a perspective with three examples on this previously, see #12:

• Player claiming intent when trying to make the best of a dropped ball = Smile at player and offer "not quite, thanks mate" > knock on.

If Rees-Zammit had dropped then caught the ball and then popped it then no KO and in your OP the ball did not travel forward and hit the ground, or another player, so no KO.

I think you should watch the LRZ knock on again.

The ball was lost forward from his hand, hit his leg, went backwards and then hit the ground behind him. Nigel Owens said this was a knock on, after the game Pascal Gauzere said it was a knock on, and Joel Jutge said it was a knock on. Joel Jutge explained, "There was a loss of control and the ball went forwards, so it was a knock-on." It is clear from this that additional contact on the ball between the loss of control and the ball hitting the ground is irrelevant.

In the OP, the ball was lost forward, it was not regathered, it did subsequently hit the ground... Knock on.

So you arbitrarily decide to consider actual material facts as irrelevant?

You have to deal with the presentation of the facts and consider them on their own merit.

Did the ball go forward and hit another player or the ground? No.

Therefore no requirement to consider the conditional aspect, therefore no knock on.

In the same manner in cricket if the ball pitches outside leg then no other arguments are required. It is not LBW.

The fact that Sir Nigel is adding elements to the law, that are not written, does not make it correct.

So you arbitrarily decide to consider immaterial facts as relevant?... See what I did there?

Did the ball go forward and hit another player or the ground? Yes, the ball was lost forward, and yes it subsequently hit the floor before the player regathered the ball.

 

[Balones]

What a bizarre response:

• If for no other reason......
• To stop other debates.......
• Started refereeing in the days when.......

Nothing about the interpretation of current law.

Do you still award 3 points for a try?

At least 3. But usually 5 nowadays.
Underpinning my position is my interpretation of the current law otherwise I would not have made my position clear PLUS how I want the laws interpreted so as to prevent further debate/argument about the subject. If we take your interpretation then we basically can bat the ball about all over the place and as long as it doesn’t hit the ground we play on. It’s not what I want to see in the game. My reference as to when I started refereeing/playing was to emphasise that we had much clearer guidance as to what was acceptable. We did need to relax the restrictions a little bit because the standard set was very high and led to too many stoppages for scrums etc. What we don’t need is a relaxation or interpretation of the laws to such an extent that the game becomes akin to a circus juggling act. I am in the Nigel Owens camp.
I hope this clarifies any degree of bizarreness you may have observed in my post.
Like nearly everyone on here I would appreciate greater clarity in the laws so there is no room for such wide interpretation of the laws and seemingly endless debate and discussion on this matter. I am much more on the ‘tighter’ interpretation of the relevant laws.
In all if this I feel sorry for the players who do not know what to expect from one week to the next. If you play in one particular area of the country you should know what to expect. I do know that because of the NO video in the matter and his role within the WRU there does seem to be less disparity between interpretation from one game/referee to another in that area. The Wayne Barnes video contradicts this position so perhaps it is here we have the nub of the issue.

 

[Stu10]

Because the statements are simple and able to be assessed on their own merits.

I asked earlier "If the player had juggled, dived, caught, rolled and popped what then?"

In both circumstances the ball did not touch an opponent or the ground (my main indicator) before it was played backward. How small do you want to be able to resolve so that you can determine what was a flip or a slap or a pop and what was a pass?

Was the ball in the possession of the attacking team?

Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

It doesn't say if it must it be caught and held for fractions of a second, a whole second or multiple seconds. We don't put a time limit on passing, on the contrary we praise quick hands, the slight adjustment sideways to hold the defender coupled with the deft offload to a runner on an incisive attacking line as being a skill that can unlock defences and lead to well crafted and executed tries. We, well I, certainly love that, it's the awesome part of the game.

The attacking team were in possession, the ball although fumbled didn't touch an opponent or the ground before being passed/popped/tipped backwards so no KO.

In every game there may be many occurrences when you could blow the whistle but do you? Always?

To me it is straightforward and clear and without having to introduce additional factors to justify the decision, like Nigel did, I can make a judgment based upon what I saw, step through the process consider there was no offence and allow play to continue.

Going back to the basics of the game and the Charter, the aspects of enjoyment and entertainment come clearly into focus:

The laws provide the framework for a game that is both enjoyable to play and entertaining to watch. If, on occasions, these objectives appear to be incompatible, enjoyment and entertainment are enhanced by enabling the players to give full rein to their skills. To achieve the correct balance, the laws are constantly under review.​

If that doesn't do it for you then not sure what to recommend as again you appear to want to dissect everything into minutiae rather than developing an understanding and feel that will show empathy with the players and enable a good game.

"In both circumstances the ball did not touch an opponent or the ground (my main indicator) before it was played backward. How small do you want to be able to resolve so that you can determine what was a flip or a slap or a pop and what was a pass?"

"The attacking team were in possession, the ball although fumbled didn't touch an opponent or the ground before being passed/popped/tipped backwards so no KO."

Why do you keep adding "before being played backwards"... these words, or similar, are not included in the definition of a knock-on and have no relevance. The definition of a knock-on states, "... and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it." The definition does NOT say "... and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it or knock it backwards."

 

[Stu10]

Whilst you are free to interpret what you observe, (the player attempting to bring the ball under control, or not) it does seem that you have Nigel's issue and are making things up (I don't think). Please can we stay within the Laws.

I would again offer as the ball went backwards then the level of control that the player wished to apply has been achieved. If it doesn't hit the ground or another player then it does meet the test case for a knock on. No mention about limitations on how you can prevent that occurring.

I have asked a couple of times; If the player had juggled, dived, caught, rolled and popped what then? Would that be acceptable?

The definition for a knock-on does define how you can prevent a knock-on following the loss of possession... "and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."

The original player catching the ball and regaining possession is the only way to prevent this being a knock-on. Batting the ball backwards is not stated as a method to prevent a knock-on. Doing a cartwheel before the ball hits the ground also is not listed in the definition and would not prevent a knock-on.

 

[Stu10]

I have asked a couple of times; If the player had juggled, dived, caught, rolled and popped what then? Would that be acceptable?

If the player caught the ball after the juggle then it is not a knock on... the definition very clearly states this.

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.

 

[tim White]

The Laws definition of a knock on states;' CATCH'. Not 'POSSESSION'. Surely a catch needs some amount of time in contact with the ball rather than just striking it in another direction? Technical knock on but I can understand why anyone would play on -we would have a discussion about this after the game.