Header leads to try - not something you see every day

[kaypeegee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15593746.stm

 

[Ian_Cook]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/15593746.stm

Now that is what I call great use of the top two inches!!

Quick thinking leading to a fair try.

 

[Ricardowensleydale]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1cgQPwf1ng

 

[kaypeegee]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1cgQPwf1ng

Knock-on in RU - in my opinion. Ball went forward out of his hands before he headed it. :chin:

 

[chopper15]

Knock-on in RU - in my opinion. Ball went forward out of his hands before he headed it. :chin:

Not according to the LoG. :hap: . . . . . often wondered why it's not exploited more often.:clap:

. . . and what if he had been running? I'm thinking about the ball's inherent forward momentum when he threw it to his head. Has to be OK, I suppose?:biggrin:

 

[kaypeegee]

Looking at it again maybe the ball didn't leave his hands in a forward direction before he headed it.
However he did loose possession of the ball and it went forward (via his head admitedly). So still a KO for me as a "header" isn't a "kick".

 

[OB..]

Looking at it again maybe the ball didn't leave his hands in a forward direction before he headed it.
However he did loose possession of the ball and it went forward (via his head admitedly). So still a KO for me as a "header" isn't a "kick".

Roughly the IRB rationale for outlawing the "knee kick".

 

[didds]

Knock-on in RU - in my opinion. Ball went forward out of his hands before he headed it. :chin:

But clearly not in this case. He clearly throws the ball backwards onto his head.

This is why I have a small problem with the "knee ahead" interpretation from the IRB - in its all encompassing ruling it totally ignores any possibility that a player could pop the the ball from in front of the knee onto the knee, while - for those times when the pop onto the knee IS in a forward motion, ignoring the fact that in many cases this is exactly how kicks occur.

In other words somebody somewhere has unilarerally decided that they "don;t like the look of it" and so have used a bit of law to justify a generic interpretation/ban.

YMMV!

didds

 

[didds]

Looking at it again maybe the ball didn't leave his hands in a forward direction before he headed it.
However he did loose possession of the ball and it went forward (via his head admitedly). So still a KO for me as a "header" isn't a "kick".

so if he (in RU etc) loses possesion of the ball, backwards, onto his chest you make the same call? Onto his tummy? groin? thigh? shin?

If so he can lose possession backwards into the ground and bounce forwards and that's OK, but not if it hits some part of his body (aside from hands and arms and for the sake of argument shoulders) ? How sensible/logical is that?

didds

 

[chopper15]

so if he (in RU etc) loses possesion of the ball, backwards, onto his chest you make the same call? Onto his tummy? groin? thigh? shin?

If so he can lose possession backwards into the ground and bounce forwards and that's OK, but not if it hits some part of his body (aside from hands and arms and for the sake of argument shoulders) ? How sensible/logical is that?

didds

. . . . Isn't it?:sad:

 

[kaypeegee]

so if he (in RU etc) loses possesion of the ball, backwards, onto his chest you make the same call? Onto his tummy? groin? thigh? shin?

If so he can lose possession backwards into the ground and bounce forwards and that's OK, but not if it hits some part of his body (aside from hands and arms and for the sake of argument shoulders) ? How sensible/logical is that?

didds

My view is if a player loses possession, it hits part of his body (e.g. chest, tummy groin, thigh, shin) and travels forward (other than via a conventional kick) then Knock On.

***
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, ...

***

Ball that is not thrown forward and it hit the ground or another player and then bounces forward is not considered a throw forward or a knock-on (by definition)


"How sensible/logical is that?"

Well everyone will have a view. My own is that it is consistentent with the LotG.

From various bits of the book

The object of the Game is that two teams, each of fifteen players, observing fair play, according to the Laws and in a sporting spirit should, by carrying, passing, kicking and grounding the ball, score as many points as possible.

The Laws ensure that Rugby’s distinctive features are maintained through scrums, lineouts, mauls, rucks, kick-offs and re-starts. Also the key features relating to contest and continuity - the backward pass, the offensive tackle.

A match is started by a kick-off.
After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it.
Any player may throw it or kick it.
Any player may give the ball to another player.
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.
Any player may fall on the ball.
Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout.
Any player may ground the ball in in-goal.
A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.
Whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game.

I don’t see "heading", "chesting" or "kneeing" after losing possession of the ball included.

Heading the ball in open play isn't specifaclly mentioned but does seem to be accepted by most. I imagine because the player doesnt' have possession.

Just my opinion of course.

 

[chopper15]

Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout.

ANY player? What about the front row?

And although the forward pass is determined by the direction the ball is delivered by the upper arms, does the inherent forward momentum of a running ball-carrier apply to a recovered fumble even if it drops vertically?

 

[OB..]

This is why I have a small problem with the "knee ahead" interpretation from the IRB - in its all encompassing ruling it totally ignores any possibility that a player could pop the the ball from in front of the knee onto the knee, while - for those times when the pop onto the knee IS in a forward motion, ignoring the fact that in many cases this is exactly how kicks occur.

Particularly since the same action is by convention (only) allowed for a proper kick.

I agree. I did not like their rationale, but I do agree with them that it should not be allowed.

 

[Toby Warren]

Could you head it to a player infront of you?

 

[OB..]

Could you head it to a player infront of you?

If he is in front of you, he is offside.

 

[SimonSmith]

I'd have played on.
he heads it from his hands, and to say he "lost" possession would stretch the definition of "lose" beyond anything I'm comfortable with.

Peter Brown did it in an International (headed the ball) - play on was the call. well, actually, a PK as he got clattered and the opposition got nailed for playing him without the ball.

 

[didds]

I'd have played on.
he heads it from his hands, and to say he "lost" possession would stretch the definition of "lose" beyond anything I'm comfortable with.

Peter Brown did it in an International (headed the ball) - play on was the call. well, actually, a PK as he got clattered and the opposition got nailed for playing him without the ball.

I now recall heading (accidentally) a ball into touch from a KO... I just cocked up my catch completely (why was I a prop catching the thing? where the proverbial was my 2nd row I was supporting?!! GRRR!) and it hit my head and went into touch.

Lineout awarded...

didds

 

[chopper15]

I assume that altho' it specifically states in law19 ' a player in touch may kick or knock', it will also embrace head to allow play on?:biggrin:

 

[Robert Burns]

But clearly not in this case. He clearly throws the ball backwards onto his head.

This is why I have a small problem with the "knee ahead" interpretation from the IRB - in its all encompassing ruling it totally ignores any possibility that a player could pop the the ball from in front of the knee onto the knee, while - for those times when the pop onto the knee IS in a forward motion, ignoring the fact that in many cases this is exactly how kicks occur.

In other words somebody somewhere has unilarerally decided that they "don;t like the look of it" and so have used a bit of law to justify a generic interpretation/ban.

YMMV!

didds

I disagree here, I think it's fairly clear, if it hits a knee while they are not in possession, then it is play, if the ball goes forward in any way other than a kick, from a player in possession, it's a knock on (or possibly penalty if you deem worthy).

 

[scarletjack]

so is it a try or not? i would have said try