[Law] "Can't intentionally knock the ball back"

[ChrisR]

Auckland vs. Otago

https://youtu.be/yvNEWjB7hww?t=30

"Can't intentionally knock the ball back. Off you go"

:wtf:

 

[Phil E]

Would have been better to say he deliberately knocked it dead.

[LAWS]UNFAIR PLAY
7. A player must not:
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the
playing area.[/LAWS]

 

[Decorily]

Seems harsh to me.
I didn't think he deliberately knocked it dead.
He knocked it back legally and it bounced dead.

 

[dave_clark]

where's the TMO when you need it?

tough one in full speed, but i can certainly see where the ref was coming from. that close to the line, any bat back has a good chance of going dead.

 

[OB..]

"Can't intentionally knock the ball back. Off you go"

:wtf:

England v Scotland 1884
At that time, each side provided an Umpire and teams had to appeal to the Umpires on infringements. If the Umpires agreed, the appeal would be allowed. If they didn't, the recent innovation of a neutral referee would decide.

In the days when only goals counted, England had a try to nil (effectively a draw) when a Scot knocked back the ball in a lineout near his own line. An Englishman was first to ground it and claimed a try, but there followed some ten minutes or more of discussion over the laws since the Scots claimed that knocking the ball back was illegal, so it should have been a scrum against them.

There was no advantage law as such in those days. Eventually the referee allowed the try, and what proved to be the the winning goal was duly kicked.

However you could also appeal to your Union on points of law, and the result of a game could be changed as a consequence, so the Scots pursued their case. There was a waspish exchange of letters. At the time the Scots had their own "Green Book" of laws which did indeed disallow knocking the ball in any direction. However the game was played in England and therefore under English laws, which allowed such a play.

The referee was Irish (and had played against both countries the previous year). When asked for a formal opinion he wrote:
"It seems to me frivolous to say that the interpretation of the rule has anything to do with settlement of the point. For, if the knocking back were lawful there is no ground for an appeal; if unlawful the English team had a right to take advantage of the mistake."

The Scots dug their heels in and refused to play England the next year unless their argument was accepted, so no game was played. In 1886 a meeting of the four Home Countries was held before the internationals and Scotland agreed to accept the referee's verdict "for the good of the game".

Wales and Ireland were also in dispute and did not play each other in 1885 or 1886, This all led to the setting up of the International Board a few years later.

 

[Decorily]

where's the TMO when you need it?

tough one in full speed, but i can certainly see where the ref was coming from. that close to the line, any bat back has a good chance of going dead.

A "good chance of going dead" and intentionally doing so surely aren't the same!

 

[mcroker]

Well - it's one of those awkward laws that require the ref to judge what the player intended, rather than the far more matter of fact of what they did. It certainly wasn't positive play, he waved one arm out with very little chance of the ball - and seemed to me to knock it clearly in the direction of touch.

For me - an offence against the above quoted law, but I wouldn't grumble too much if a 5M attacking scrum was given instead.

 

[ChrisR]

A "good chance of going dead" and intentionally doing so surely aren't the same!

My view exactly. And, to add injury to insult, a YC for the non-offense. Oy vey! Enough already with the yellow cards!

 

[mcroker]

My view exactly. And, to add injury to insult, a YC for the non-offense. Oy vey! Enough already with the yellow cards!

You're thinking red would have been more appropriate? That's a tad harsh..

 

[dave_clark]

A "good chance of going dead" and intentionally doing so surely aren't the same!

ok, that's the english in me... that close to the line, any bat back with that force is likely to go dead so you have to consider whether or not it was deliberate.

but like i said - tough one in full speed, and where's the TMO when you need it...

 

[Taff]

I thought he said

You can't intentionally knock the ball dead. Off you go.

Which is true.

 

[Decorily]

Yes, that I believe is what he said.
But is that a fair interpretation of what the player did?

 

[Ian_Cook]

PK & YC all day long, and twice on Sundays. I would argue that could be a PT as well.

Blue 15 knew exactly what he was doing. If he didn't knock it back hard enough to put it dead in goal, he would end up leaving it IN the in-goal, with White 15 and White 9 right there to pounce on it.

(and I despise Auckland!)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Agree with Ian.

 

[Taff]

So, did the Ref give a Penalty Try or just a Penalty? :chin:

 

[mcroker]

So, did the Ref give a Penalty Try or just a Penalty? :chin:

Just the PK and the Yellow - judging from the score in the next clip

 

[ChrisR]

I thought he said



Which is true.

I replayed several times and still came up with "back", not "dead".

If it clearly was "dead" then I'd still question whether the intent was to make it so rather than just knock it out of the BC's grasp. Still don't like the YC and a PT would really be wrong.

 

[DocY]

If it clearly was "dead" then I'd still question whether the intent was to make it so rather than just knock it out of the BC's grasp. Still don't like the YC and a PT would really be wrong.

The only way a PT could be really wrong is if it shouldn't have been a penalty at all - once you're of the opinion that it was an offence, the severity of that offence doesn't matter w.r.t a PT, only whether it prevented a probable try.

I'd argue that if the referee deemed it was an offence then he was wrong not to award a PT. Either it was an offence and a PT (with an incidental YC for it being cynical) or no offence at all.

 

[Jolly Roger]

PT and YC. Covering defender knocks ball away from attacker and into touch, preventing a certain try.

 

[damo]

I am an Otago man (Shield Country as it is now known) and I am no Auckland fan, but even I think the call was fair enough.

The player deliberately knocked the ball dead, can't get much plainer than that. If it didn't go dead it would have gone into touch. Either way clear PK and YC. Close to a PT.