another knock on Law question

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
So I think we have, so far (please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Try
zebra1922
Biking bud
Dickie E
Ciaran Trainor

Knock on
Smeagol
Crossref
Rich NL
Phil E
Stu10
Nigel Owens

Posted, but hasn't expressed a verdict (yet?)
Simon Smith
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
377
Post Likes
88
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
So I think we have, so far (please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Try
zebra1922
Biking bud
Dickie E
Ciaran Trainor

Knock on
Smeagol
Crossref
Rich NL
Phil E
Stu10
Nigel Owens

Posted, but hasn't expressed a verdict (yet?)
Simon Smith
Sir Nigel is adding his own interpretation to the law.

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.

As you are always asking, @crossref show me where it says "or even travels back afterwards" in the laws?

High esteem does not equal always correct 🤷‍♂️
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
Well, speaking generally I certainly wouldn't cite St Nige as a Law Expert ! (his brilliance lay elsewhere)

But, since we have his clear opinion, it's fun to list him along with the other votes.
😀
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
377
Post Likes
88
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
It went forward from the hands (it then got juggled and knocked backwards) then hit the ground/another player.

The bit in brackets is irrelevant. The main thing to note is that the original player did not regather it.
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.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
377
Post Likes
88
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Well, speaking generally I certainly wouldn't cite St Nige as a Law Expert ! (his brilliance lay elsewhere)

But, since we have his clear opinion, it's fun to list him along with the other votes.
😀
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.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
bud, if you search back thorough the site you will find I have a long (and contraversial) history of dissing St Nige
This one time he happens to agree with me :sneaky:

But don't forget .. I regard the Law on this one to be unclear. So if WR were ever to opine on the incident and/or issue a clarification I would not be upset if it went the other way. Who knows ?
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
377
Post Likes
88
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
bud, if you search back thorough the site you will find I have a long (and contraversial) history of dissing St Nige
This one time he happens to agree with me :sneaky:

But don't forget .. I regard the Law on this one to be unclear. So if WR were ever to opine on the incident and/or issue a clarification I would not be upset if it went the other way. Who knows ?
Did Nigel directly pass comment on this thread and specifically the video in your OP? If so I must have missed it, I understood he was discussing LRZ KO in the England v Wales game.

Each circumstance has to be viewed on its own facts, how it presents, how it unfolds. Hence my point in the other thread about teaching kids how to attack in a 2v1 situation. Whilst you may have similarities to the previous experience you need to assess each and every case on its own merits, consider the law "as written" and apply your judgment. Saying Nige said this or said that when he was also introducing new aspects to the law is not accurate and therefore should not be trusted.

I would offer this extract from the World Rugby Charter prohibits making law up:
The laws must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the game is played according to the principles of play. The match officials can achieve this through fairness, consistency, sensitivity and, when appropriate, management.​

If WR are asked to clarify then no doubt some of us will have to consider any clarification and we may have to change our responses but as it currently stands nothing to change.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
We have four vote for try and five votes for knock on, advantage rugby is similarly divided.
I can understand the argument for both sides
I can understand you are convinced you are "right"

I can't understand why you would be convinced that the Law is clear?

If it's so clear, how is it so many people are "wrong" ?
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
377
Post Likes
88
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
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.
 

Locke


Referees in America
Joined
Jan 23, 2022
Messages
88
Post Likes
42
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
@BikingBud, I do not see that the law or definition indicates that touching the ground or another player must be the next thing to happen after the ball is lost forward. In OPs clip, for me, it satisfies the definition of a knock on. The ball was lost forward and touched the ground or another player before being caught by the original player. There are two elements to the definition and I see them as both being satisfied.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
So I think we have, so far (please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Try
zebra1922
Biking bud
Dickie E
Ciaran Trainor

Knock on
Smeagol
Crossref
Rich NL
Phil E
Stu10
Nigel Owens
Locke

Posted, but hasn't expressed a verdict (yet?)
Simon Smit

Scanning quickly through the Facebook comments I think they are about 2:1 in favour of a try (happy to be corrected if someone wants to count carefully?)


Any more for any more ?
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,072
Post Likes
1,177
It seems to me to be well established in practice that a player juggling the ball is held to be in possession - see Stimpson et al.

If that is the case, that's where the clause about touching another player or the ground becomes important - because until then, if the player is juggling, it hasn't been lost yet.

It's a try for me as I don't feel all the conditions necessary for k/on have been met.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
It seems to me to be well established in practice that a player juggling the ball is held to be in possession - see Stimpson et al.
Stimpson was trying to get possession of a ball that came his way (the usual scenario)
This player had the ball, lost it, and was not trying to get possession back (she knocked deliberately away)

Doesnt that make a difference?

Was she even juggling?
 
Last edited:

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,542
Post Likes
448
So I think we have, so far (please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Try
zebra1922
Biking bud
Dickie E
Ciaran Trainor

Knock on
Smeagol
Crossref
Rich NL
Phil E
Stu10
Nigel Owens
Locke

Posted, but hasn't expressed a verdict (yet?)
Simon Smit

Scanning quickly through the Facebook comments I think they are about 2:1 in favour of a try (happy to be corrected if someone wants to count carefully?)


Any more for any more ?
I don't see it C&O lost forwards, so try.

If she'd clearly lost it forward and juggled it for a few paces, or dived to knock it back, I'd sayKO.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
o I think we have, so far (please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Try
zebra1922
Biking bud
Dickie E
Ciaran Trainor
Rich NL
Simon Smith

Knock on
Smeagol
Crossref
Phil E
Stu10
Nigel Owens
Locke

Scanning quickly through the Facebook comments I think they are about 2:1 in favour of a try (happy to be corrected if someone wants to count carefully?)


Any more for any more
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
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)
 
Last edited:

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,237
Post Likes
349
o I think we have, so far (please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Try
zebra1922
Biking bud
Dickie E
Ciaran Trainor
Rich NL
Simon Smith

Knock on
Smeagol
Crossref
Phil E
Stu10
Nigel Owens
Locke

Scanning quickly through the Facebook comments I think they are about 2:1 in favour of a try (happy to be corrected if someone wants to count carefully?)


Any more for any more
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!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
20,403
Post Likes
2,500
So I think we have, so far (please correct me if I have misunderstood)

Try
zebra1922
Biking bud
Dickie E
Ciaran Trainor
Rich NL
Simon Smith

Knock on
Smeagol
Crossref
Phil E
Stu10
Nigel Owens
Locke
Balones

Scanning quickly through the Facebook comments I think they are about 2:1 in favour of a try (happy to be corrected if someone wants to count carefully?)


Any more for any more?
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
377
Post Likes
88
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
@BikingBud, I do not see that the law or definition indicates that touching the ground or another player must be the next thing to happen after the ball is lost forward. In OPs clip, for me, it satisfies the definition of a knock on. The ball was lost forward and touched the ground or another player before being caught by the original player. There are two elements to the definition and I see them as both being satisfied.
Because it says "and" that indicates both things have to happen. Anything that occurs in between means it not a simple "And".

In the OP it was juggled and batted backwards and before hitting the ground or another player. Ball and arms clearly beyond the oppo's 5m line after being batted backwards it hits the ground behind the oppo's 5m line. Ergo it wasn't lost forward and hit the ground.

If the player had juggled, dived, caught, rolled and popped what then?
 
Top