Deliberate knock on

[Cross]

A attempts to pass the ball to B. Without interference the ball wouldn't have reached B's hand without touching the ground first at X. Pass was backwards, nothing fishy there. However, C deliberately knocks the ball down mid air. No attempt to grab the ball whatsoever. None.
Ref calls penalty only and explains that because the pass couldn't have reached B's hands it's not a YC.

I know the laws state penalty for deliberate knock-on but pretty much every instance I can recall of a pass being deliberately knocked on ends up in a YC, so i have to ask, what's the rationale in general?

The straight lines represent the actual trajectory of the ball, and the dotted line the trajectory it would have followed without interference from C. X marks the spot where the ball would have touched the ground (assume for the sake of this exercise that after the bounce the ball would have gone straight towards B, as it generally happens with spiral passes).

Hope it's clear enough. If not, let me know. Thanks in advance.

 

[crossref]

from the diagram - hasn't C knocked it BACKWARDS from his perspective?

(AIUI - A and B are playing up the screen, South to North, C is playing North to South)
so perfectly legal

 

[Phil E]

Generally speaking, I would only give a yellow card if it was either:
a. Cynical
b. Prevented a line break

 

[Cross]

A and B are attacking from left to right. Pass is backwards. C's ingoal is to the right, so when he touches the ball, this one goes towards the left of the screen, hence forwards.
Am i making myself clear?

 

[Cross]

Generally speaking, I would only give a yellow card if it was either:
a. Cynical
b. Prevented a line break

Ok, this helps. I understand you've already answered it by using 'either' but i just want to be sure: Would a) and a) alone result in a YC in your view?

 

[crossref]

A and B are attacking from left to right. Pass is backwards. C's ingoal is to the right, so when he touches the ball, this one goes towards the left of the screen, hence forwards.
Am i making myself clear?

Got it
Perhaps if B was never going to catch the ball anyway, it wasnt so material

 

[Phil E]

Ok, this helps. I understand you've already answered it by using 'either' but i just want to be sure: Would a) and a) alone result in a YC in your view?

Depends, its one of those things you have to see to make your decision, but yes it's possible.

 

[belladonna]

Generally speaking, I would only give a yellow card if it was either:
a. Cynical
b. Prevented a line break

So OF was lucky yesterday not to get carded for his deliberate knock-on vs Fiji?

It seemed arguably cynical, and definitely prevented a line break.

 

[crossref]

I thought that in all the QF, in general, the refs were much more reluctant to get their cards out.

It was almost as if WR had decided that having 14 men on the pitch might ruin the spectacle (as well it might)

Plus in that game, overall, I thought England got the rub of the green in the close decisions.
Curry especially was lucky, and more than once.

 

[didds]

I thoiught YCs had been abolished for "deliberate" knocks ons... a few mopnths ago, well before the RWC?

 

[crossref]

I thoiught YCs had been abolished for "deliberate" knocks ons... a few mopnths ago, well before the RWC?

I think Phil is on the money in post #3

 

[didds]

I think Phil is on the money in post #3

being fair, that seems eminently reasonable. Though ISTR it was following a series of similar cards very very close to the oline that were almost certainly either cunical or prevented a score possibly (PT time?). And there was some hoohah about it all getting "far too sily" and the YCs for that were no longer to happen?

 

[Dickie E]

Generally speaking, I would only give a yellow card if it was either:
a. Cynical
b. Prevented a line break

What does cynical mean in this context?

 

[smeagol]

What does cynical mean in this context?

IMO, cynical would mean the offender either

• had no realistic chance of catching the ball, or
• had a realistic chance, but did not make a genuine attempt

 

[Dickie E]

IMO, cynical would mean the offender either

• had no realistic chance of catching the ball, or
• had a realistic chance, but did not make a genuine attempt

if there is consesnsus that that is the definition of cynical, then I would not YC. I would only YC if it prevents a line break or is a repeat infringement

 

[crossref]

What does cynical mean in this context?

the expression on his face

 

[Volun-selected]

I’ve always been told that the decision is based on whether there was a reasonable expectation the player could regather the ball, no mention of whether it was a good pass or not.

And not always a straight YC for me, but starting with a PK for intentional.

If intentional and there was a potential line break - PK & YC.

If intentional and a probable try - PK, YC, & Penalty try.

Most of the time I see it, it’s pretty much accidental, a Pavlovian response to the ball in front of them - usually followed my a sheepish mea culpa to the team as the PK is awarded.

 

[jdeagro]

One thing I find a little grey that I've seen in practice, but also gather from discussion here, is we're saying if the offender had a realistic chance to catch the ball then it's only a penalty no YC...but if they had a realistic chance to catch the ball and made an honest attempt, why isn't it just a regular knock on at that point? I've seen a few penalized where the offender had a realistic chance of catching the ball, but it just didn't happen, and the ref goes directly to penalty.

 

[Dickie E]

I've seen a few penalized where the offender had a realistic chance of catching the ball, but it just didn't happen, and the ref goes directly to penalty.

Overly zealous refereeing, IMO. If its a realistic chance, scrum only

 

[jdeagro]

Overly zealous refereeing, IMO. If its a realistic chance, scrum only

I've seen it on quite a number of occasions where the ball was literally in the offender's hands, they just couldn't fully secure it with their momentum, but the chance was realistic.

I think probably because of the level of play I'm typically involved in, you don't normally see brilliant enough play that creates a good opportunity as such. So the rare occasion it happens - e.g. last man of the non-throwing team at a lineout times his run well against the throwing team and picks it when the throwing team's jumper taps from the top, that the unexpectedness of it trips up our refs to objectively see they did everything legal, they made a good faith attempt to catch the ball (not swat it forward), and they had it in their hands for a half a second, that it should just be a normal knock on, IMO.