Intentional Knock-on?

[ChrisR]

[LAWS]3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.[/LAWS]

Did the player really intend to "knock the ball forward"? Yes, it was a deliberate attempt to play the ball but nothing in the OP indicates his intent to make it go forward. And, since he regathered it, it wasn't a knock-on. Play on!

I think the YC for an attempted intercept is just plain wrong.

 

[damo]

Law 11 is titled "Knock-on or thrown forward", should the laws under this section be read in that context?

Why did you post 11.4 if you are going to ignore it? Shouldn't points 3 and 4 be read in conjunction? He actually did gain possession, and he only needed a reasonable expectation that he would to avoid the PK.

I am not really sure what you are saying.

11.3 and 11.4 deal with different situations. 11.3 refers to intentionally knocking the ball forward, whereas 11.4 specifically requires it to be an attempt to catch the ball.

The scenario in the OP is a a bit murky, without seeing it I am not sure how to rule it. I was agreeing with the proposition that if one deliberately knocks the ball forward (with no attempt to catch it) then it doesn't matter if that player subsequently catches it.

 

[OB..]

[LAWS]3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.[/LAWS]

Did the player really intend to "knock the ball forward"? Yes, it was a deliberate attempt to play the ball but nothing in the OP indicates his intent to make it go forward. And, since he regathered it, it wasn't a knock-on. Play on!

It can only be a knock-on if accidental (which includes juggling). Deliberately knocking the ball forward up in the air so you can try to run under it and catch it is not a knock-on. It is a deliberate knock forward under 11.3.

This is a rare case where the actual wording of the law is crucial.

 

[ChrisR]

It can only be a knock-on if accidental (which includes juggling). Deliberately knocking the ball forward up in the air so you can try to run under it and catch it is not a knock-on. It is a deliberate knock forward under 11.3.

This is a rare case where the actual wording of the law is crucial.

Was his intent for the ball to go forward? I don't think so, best I can tell.

 

[SimonSmith]

I can't find the Angus Gardner video on this, which (IIRC) was less about the knock forward but more about the "was the player in a position to make a catch? And if yes, play on..."

 

[OB..]

Was his intent for the ball to go forward? I don't think so, best I can tell.

I think this is the slippery slope. Why did he knock the ball up in the air? If it was deliberate, then his aim was to set it up for a possible catch. That would be illegal.

The old guideline that a one handed interception attempt that went forward was a penalty, was perhaps a little harsh, but I applaud the thinking. The last thing we want is people trying to intercept by knocking the ball up in the air. For me at least, that contradicts the ethos of the game.

 

[crossref]

.

This is a rare case where the actual wording of the law is crucial.

Aside .. ** no longer rare **

They have just completed an exercise where they carefully reviewed the wording of the entire Law Book , and made multiple changes.

I think we are entitled to conclude that with this Law Book all the wording is carefully considered and we can rely on it meaning exactly what it says.
Thats the point of the rewrite

 

[OB..]

Aside .. ** no longer rare **

They have just completed an exercise where they carefully reviewed the wording of the entire Law Book , and made multiple changes.

I think we are entitled to conclude that with this Law Book all the wording is carefully considered and we can rely on it meaning exactly what it says.
Thats the point of the rewrite

It would be nice to think so, but I still refuse to treat the wording as if it were statute law. Because it isn't.

 

[thepercy]

It would be nice to think so, but I still refuse to treat the wording as if it were statute law. Because it isn't.

except for this case?

 

[ChrisR]

I think this is the slippery slope. Why did he knock the ball up in the air? If it was deliberate, then his aim was to set it up for a possible catch. That would be illegal.

The old guideline that a one handed interception attempt that went forward was a penalty, was perhaps a little harsh, but I applaud the thinking. The last thing we want is people trying to intercept by knocking the ball up in the air. For me at least, that contradicts the ethos of the game.

I guess this is where we think differently. If a player is genuinely attempting to intercept the ball (and not just intentionally knocking it down with no attempt to catch it) then it should be "Play on!". What gets tricky is the most common event where the player just sticks out an arm, doesn't make the catch and the ball goes forward. To me he makes a play for the ball, fails and it's a knock-on so order up the scrum.
The PK and the obligatory YC are too much and distort the seriousness of the offence.

 

[OB..]

I guess this is where we think differently. If a player is genuinely attempting to intercept the ball (and not just intentionally knocking it down with no attempt to catch it) then it should be "Play on!". What gets tricky is the most common event where the player just sticks out an arm, doesn't make the catch and the ball goes forward. To me he makes a play for the ball, fails and it's a knock-on so order up the scrum.
The PK and the obligatory YC are too much and distort the seriousness of the offence.

It is very difficult to make a one-handed intercept. If a player tries to improve his chances of stealing the ball by knocking the ball up in the air, hoping to be able to catch it, for me that is a deliberate knock forward contrary to 11.3

Why do you say a YC is obligatory?

 

[ChrisR]

Why do you say a YC is obligatory?

A definition from the net:" so customary or routine as to be expected of everyone or on every occasion."

A touch of sarcasm on my part. Personally I don't believe that even a deliberate knock-on deserve a YC but it seems like it's automatic now. I reserve the YC for more consequential offences.

 

[Drift]

I agree. If the player has intentionally knocked the ball forward it does not matter if he subsequently catches it.

Yeah it does, isn't the trigger for us "are you in a realistic position to catch the ball?", if the player catches the ball then he's in a realistic position to catch the ball. Play on for me.

 

[damo]

Yeah it does, isn't the trigger for us "are you in a realistic position to catch the ball?", if the player catches the ball then he's in a realistic position to catch the ball. Play on for me.

So if a player deliberately bats the ball 10m upwards and 20m forward then runs forward and catches it you are going to say play on? Clearly he was in a realistic position to catch the ball again when it comes down (since he does).

I would not play on in that situation.

 

[Camquin]

In that case the ball is in the air for nearly three seconds.
In which case I hope I would have blown before they regathered.

It is the grey areas where referees need to make judgement calls.
Was that a genuine attempt to catch?
Was the arm raised to wrap in a tackle or were they blocking the pass?

And you always need to see it on the day.

But, once the referee makes the call, the players need to abide by it and play on.
They can moan in the bar over a pint later.

 

[crossref]

It would be nice to think so, but I still refuse to treat the wording as if it were statute law. Because it isn't.

That's a much higher bar. I am not suggesting you treat the Laws like Statute Law

I am suggesting that , post the comprehensive 2018 rewrite we can treat the Laws as being carefully worded, and saying what they mean

(Ie the wording is no longer outdated results of historical development and accident )

I mean .. isn't that the whole point of the re write

 

[OB..]

Yeah it does, isn't the trigger for us "are you in a realistic position to catch the ball?", if the player catches the ball then he's in a realistic position to catch the ball. Play on for me.

You are choosing to ignore the fact that he deliberately knocked the ball forward.

The caveat about catching ONLY applies to an accidental knock forward in a genuine attempt to catch the ball - often referred to as juggling, and quite distinct from a deliberate knock forward.

 

[Flish]

You are choosing to ignore the fact that he deliberately knocked the ball forward.

And that's the human decision element we have to make with what's in front of us, did he deliberately 'knock the ball forward' or did he attempt to intercept and as a result the ball went forward, there's a 1000 different permutations of ball, arm, player movement that end with us making that decision.

In the OP I read it as being knocked upward (not deliberately knocked forward) so play on.

 

[Rich_NL]

That's a much higher bar. I am not suggesting you treat the Laws like Statute Law

I am suggesting that , post the comprehensive 2018 rewrite we can treat the Laws as being carefully worded, and saying what they mean

(Ie the wording is no longer outdated results of historical development and accident )

I mean .. isn't that the whole point of the re write

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2QDTqHp9W7WIJXlC/giphy.gif

 

[OB..]

And that's the human decision element we have to make with what's in front of us, did he deliberately 'knock the ball forward' or did he attempt to intercept and as a result the ball went forward, there's a 1000 different permutations of ball, arm, player movement that end with us making that decision.

Yes.

In the OP I read it as being knocked upward (not deliberately knocked forward) so play on.

Unless the interceptor was actually stationary I consider your view unrealistic.