Drop goal attempt

[Dan_A]

Genuine question and really not trying to be clever but are we 100% sure that every kick includes the ball being "thrown forward".

Don't most punters release the ball more or less straight down rather than forward? If you appliead "direction of hands" would it be a clear and obvious thrown forward?

Edited for typos!

 

[leaguerefaus]

well perhaps not -- it was only a year or two ago that the IRB changed to Laws to clarify that a hand-off is not playing an opponent without the ball. That's very similar. Technically there was an offence - playing the opponent without the ball, with listed excpetions (rucks and maul) but no exception to allow a hand off.
It wasn't a big problem, but nevertheless after 100 years like this the IRB decided it had to clarify it. And I don't remember anyone thinknig they were a laughing stock.

(the reason? I think it had to do with the legal case where that unfortunate person lost the sight in his eye from a hand-off. the legal case started with the problem: what do Laws of the game say about hand-offs. The anwer : they seem to be technically illegal but allowed by custom was tricky to explain)

A drop kick is already mentioned in the law book though.

You've now made me curious about whether or not fending is mentioned in the NRL law book.

 

[crossref]

i think the parallel is the knock on and throw forwards

they are defined in the Law book
[LAWS]A knock-on occurs 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line

Definition: Throw forward
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward. ‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
[/LAWS]


However, there are two actions that fit that definition which are not considered a knock on. The first is a charge-down, and indeed that is listed in the laws
[LAWS]Exception
Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward[/LAWS]

The other is a drop kick, but we all know that drop kicks are allowed.

What we don't know for sure (though we all have our views) is whether a failed drop kick is a knock-on.

I must say that whenever we find a topic where this more than one interpretation of the Laws, it's always funny to have some loudly declaiming 100 posts in, that there can only possibly be one interpretation. Clearly there are two!

Personally I think what I'd give is all wrapped up in the moment : what did the actual example actually look like. I think it would be instinctive call, back up by reason.
- For an unforced air-shot I am sure I would give a knock on.
- For someone unexpectedly tap tackled out of the blue, his right foot knocked into his left ankle just as it went forward to kick the ball. I somehow think I might see that as play on... but TBH I am not sure.

 

[Rushforth]

I agree we have to allow the release forward for a kick - it has been long established as acceptable.

In fact, OB.., there are those who would argue that the ball is not released forwards at all, but dropped vertically relative to a running kicker.

Note that with running kicks (both drop and punt, although not grubber) it may be the aim to transfer as much kinetic energy to the ball as possible.

 

[OB..]

Genuine question and really not trying to be clever but are we 100% sure that every kick includes the ball being "thrown forward".

I have carefully avoided saying "every kick". However in order to get the ball to land in the right place when running forward you do have to release the ball forward. Your foot is going to be further in front of you than your hands.

[Note also that I use the word "release" to emphasize that no real force is used.]

 

[MrQeu]

I'll copy what I wrote on a previous post on the same subject.

The other day I watched Top14's Brive-Toulouse game. There was a grounding that went into TMO's decision because of possible infringements in the play that lead to the grounding and decision over who did ground the ball.

One of them was to review if a player who was tackled while doing a grubber kick did or did not kick the ball before it touched the ground. I saw it quite normal, as I've always understood that not kicking the ball, being it because of a tackle or simply due to lack of skill was indeed a knock-on.

If the rule (or ruling) was that a knock-on does not occur if the player is tackled while dropping the ball to kick, then the review would had no reason as the play would've been legal either outcome.

Here's the video.

PS: As there is some commentary over the ref's voice, I'd say that the ref asks for it directly "touche le pied o pas?" "Does it touch the foot or not?"

Ref was Pascal Gaüzère.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Almost a carbon copy of a video I've previously posted from a Heineken Cup game. This is the only way I have ever seen national/international referees interpret the rule.
SA rugby refs back up our view http://www.sareferees.com/laws/view/2830322/

 

[OB..]

I have said more than once that if there is a clear ruling of some sort, I would of course abide by it. However I will still be of the strong opinion that it is unfair to let an opponent turn a legitimate move into an infringement. I don't understand why people are comfortable with that.

None of these episodes are conclusive.

We are going round in circles. I know where I stand and I see no reason to move, but if nobody wants to join me, tant pis, as they say in China

 

[chbg]

Sorry OB:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOGh_A9CLno&feature=em-uploademail

(but no opponent involved in this mishap)

 

[RobLev]

I have said more than once that if there is a clear ruling of some sort, I would of course abide by it. However I will still be of the strong opinion that it is unfair to let an opponent turn a legitimate move into an infringement. I don't understand why people are comfortable with that.

...

For my part, I don't understand why this is a problem for you. If I am tackled as I pass, with the tackler making no attempt to strip the ball, and the ball goes forward, I will be penalised for knocking on. Why is an attempted kick any different?

 

[OB..]

For my part, I don't understand why this is a problem for you. If I am tackled as I pass, with the tackler making no attempt to strip the ball, and the ball goes forward, I will be penalised for knocking on. Why is an attempted kick any different?

Because you lost the ball forward.

The significant difference with a kick is that the ball is (usually) released forward as a necessary part of making a kick. It is a deliberate act for which there is no exemption except by custom. The argument is whether or not that exemption should extend to the case where an opponent prevents the kick from being effected AFTER the ball has been released ie when the would-be kicker cannot physically do anything about it. A "legitimate" act being converted to an infringement by the opponent?

If you are comfortable with that, we will agree to disagree. I think it would be grossly unfair.

 

[RobLev]

Because you lost the ball forward.

The significant difference with a kick is that the ball is (usually) released forward as a necessary part of making a kick. It is a deliberate act for which there is no exemption except by custom. The argument is whether or not that exemption should extend to the case where an opponent prevents the kick from being effected AFTER the ball has been released ie when the would-be kicker cannot physically do anything about it. A "legitimate" act being converted to an infringement by the opponent?

If you are comfortable with that, we will agree to disagree. I think it would be grossly unfair.

I think we must agree to disagree, then. I can't see any conceptual; distinction between my pass being converted by the intervention of an opponent into an infringement and my kick ditto; I don;t see the fact that I have dropped the ball to kick it as any more irrevocable as my swinging my arms and loosening my grip on the ball as I pass. If I try to stop the pass halfway through I'll drop it anyway.

But I don't think either of us want to spend ay more time on it.

 

[andyscott]

If a player goes to kick the ball and doesn't and the ball hits the ground, everyone in the entire rugby world will expect a knock on!!

Apart from the odd fool . This is basics of rugby fellas

 

[Womble]

If a player goes to kick the ball and doesn't and the ball hits the ground, everyone in the entire rugby world will expect a knock on!!

Apart from the odd fool . This is basics of rugby fellas

Guess I am an odd fool then!:booty:

 

[Camquin]

Most training videos for drop kicks stress dropping the ball vertically - so there is no certainty it will go forward.
Should it go backwards play on - of course I would want to be clear it was backwards.

Camquin

 

[OB..]

I think we must agree to disagree, then. I can't see any conceptual; distinction between my pass being converted by the intervention of an opponent into an infringement and my kick ditto; I don;t see the fact that I have dropped the ball to kick it as any more irrevocable as my swinging my arms and loosening my grip on the ball as I pass.

When you lose the ball due to a tackle, you had possession (real possession ie it was actually in your hands). When you have already released the ball to kick you have no possibility whatsoever of controlling it. That is the distinction. To you it is unimportant. We disagree

But I don't think either of us want to spend ay more time on it.

Fine by me.

 

[OB..]

If a player goes to kick the ball and doesn't and the ball hits the ground, everyone in the entire rugby world will expect a knock on!!

(There is no substantive argument here.)

 

[Taff]

Most training videos for drop kicks stress dropping the ball vertically - so there is no certainty it will go forward.
Should it go backwards play on - of course I would want to be clear it was backwards.

Exactly. Most if not all drop kicks will involve a vertical (not forward) drop, with a slight backward lean.

In fact, when practicing drop kicks as a kid, we were taught not to throw the ball in any direction, but just to hold it at the angle we wanted it to hit the ground (leaning slightly backward) and to just remove the hands, letting the ball drop at the same angle it was held. Gravity will ensure a vertical drop.

 

[menace]

When you lose the ball due to a tackle, you had possession (real possession ie it was actually in your hands). When you have already released the ball to kick you have no possibility whatsoever of controlling it. That is the distinction. To you it is unimportant. We disagree

But the player kicking, also had real possession, it was actually in their hands, they chose the timing of when to release it to kick it. It's no different at all. They f@ck it up and get tackled to let the ball be lost forward... and you want to reward them for their f@ck up (by denying the opposition some advantage for their f@ck up)???? I don't get that.

If you don't want to accept those consequences of losing it forward then don't try to f*cken kick it! (That's why the coach doesn't let the tight 5 kick it in GP).

 

[crossref]

a knock on isn't a technical infringement : unless the other side gain advantage we stop the game every time.