[Law] deliberate knock up

[Rich_NL]

Putting aside the deliberation on whether an attempt at interception (or blocking a pass) that goes forward is in violation of 11.3 let me ask this: Why does 11.3 get an automatic YC?

After all, the offence is not listed under "Foul Play" where other YC worthy infractions are documented. WTF is so heinous about a knock forward? Especially from an attempted catch?

In 7s, because the game is about speed and mobility and spoiling play is penalised heavily. In 15s, usually because it's spoiling an attacking line break.

 

[ChrisR]

In 7s, because the game is about speed and mobility and spoiling play is penalized heavily. In 15s, usually because it's spoiling an attacking line break.

. . . and I guess attempting to intercept the opponent's pass is "spoiling" their game. "Failing to release", whether the ball or the tackled player, is also "spoiling", definitely by intent, definitely disruptive to the flow of the game and quickly gets a PK but not a YC. Please explain that. The YC punishment for 11.3 doesn't fit the crime.

OB, that's one very old and very tired chestnut. You could claim that nearly all actions by players are "intentional" therefore all violations must be "intentional violations".

To violate 11.3 a player's intent must be for the ball to go forward. If his intent is otherwise, such as an interception, then it is not a 11.3 violation.

 

[SimonSmith]

It wasn't an attempt to intercept and you are being disingenuous in insisting on that particular "truth".

It was a deliberate block. It went forward.

 

[Rich_NL]

Yeah, the point is that batting a ball is easier than intercepting, so the onus is on showing a C&O interception.

Failing to release can also easily be a YC if it spoils a good attacking chance (an isolated fullback, for instance)... But it's rare as the ball carrying team fails to release. But e.g. ENG-JAP last autumn saw Jamie George get a YC for defensively killing the breakdown with a scoring chance for Japan.

 

[OB..]

OB, that's one very old and very tired chestnut. You could claim that nearly all actions by players are "intentional" therefore all violations must be "intentional violations".

A player trying to catch the ball and fumbling it is not intentionally knocking on. Clearly the referee has to make a judgement, but the deliberate knock up (and forward) is usually C&O. The genuine fumble in such circumstances might occur.

To violate 11.3 a player's intent must be for the ball to go forward. If his intent is otherwise, such as an interception, then it is not a 11.3 violation.

No. The player needs to knock the ball forward in order to be able to catch it later and claim an interception. You cannot assert that the player has only one intention - he intends both the means and the end.

 

[ChrisR]

It wasn't an attempt to intercept and you are being disingenuous in insisting on that particular "truth".

It was a deliberate block. It went forward.

OK, if as the referee you'd see that as a deliberate block (the block is no violation, but it goes forward) then it can't be a deliberate knock forward. Then it's a simple knock-on and scrum, not a PK and YC.