Is it a knock-on?

[ChrisR]

From the Lienster v. Ulster game 1/3/2015

Ball is grubbed in behind the defenders. Attacking player seeks to collect the ball but instead it comes off his shin forward. Another dribble and the player dives on it in goal for the "score".

On the replay it may have touched his finger tips as it rebounds off his shin. Referee asks the TMO: Did it touch his hands?" (Pretty sure those were his exact words) TMO replies "Yes, it touched his hand(s))"

Peeep! "No try, knock-on."

I have a problem with this call. What happened did not meet the definition for a knock-on as the ball was not played forward by the hands but by the shin. I know the definitions also add "... or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward .... etc, etc." I believe that it is not a KO unless the propulsion forward comes from the hand/arm.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Treadmore]

I saw the incident and agreed with the call. Is propulsion forward by the hand really required for a knock-on?

Another example might be an attempted catch from a high kick: ball lands in would-be catcher's hands bounces/hit backwards towards chest and bounces forwards off chest to ground. Wouldn't you call that a knock-on?

 

[Browner]

I think the call sounds good, if you are instead seeking to dissect hand contact differently then its an added complication that only makes the whole subject more difficult.

So, for the purpose of this, " went forward after contact with the hand" works for me.

 

[Simon Thomas]

Good call by TMO and referee

 

[beckett50]

Good call by TMO and referee

Agreed as, by definition, the player was not in control of the ball with his hands and lost it forward

 

[ChrisR]

I saw the incident and agreed with the call. Is propulsion forward by the hand really required for a knock-on?

Another example might be an attempted catch from a high kick: ball lands in would-be catcher's hands bounces/hit backwards towards chest and bounces forwards off chest to ground. Wouldn't you call that a knock-on?

Disagree on your "another example". If the propulsion forward is from the chest, not the hands/arms, then it's not a KO in my book.

 

[Treadmore]

Disagree on your "another example". If the propulsion forward is from the chest, not the hands/arms, then it's not a KO in my book.

If chest only - hands nowhere near - I agree but with attempt to catch first? I'm sure previous advice on here was call knock-on.

 

[Phil E]

"If you don't drop it, I won't give it."

Simples!

 

[ChrisR]

"If you don't drop it, I won't give it."

Simples!

Ball wasn't dropped. Contact with finger tips after/as it was kicked forward. I know that this is an extremely rare event but the question remains: For a KO does the ball need ti be impelled forward by the hand/arm?

So far: Me = Yes, everyone else = No.

From a local game several years ago: Red FB gets a line break, 2 on 1 with opponent and wing in support, pass to wing goes through his hands and comes off his knee into goal, grounded for the try. Referee rules "No KO, ball bounced off knee, not hands". Would you agree with the call?

 

[crossref]

From a local game several years ago: Red FB gets a line break, 2 on 1 with opponent and wing in support, pass to wing goes through his hands and comes off his knee into goal, grounded for the try. Referee rules "No KO, ball bounced off knee, not hands". Would you agree with the call?

I wouldn't agree --
- if he doesn't try and catch it, but deliberately knees it -- fair enough
- but if he tries to catch it, touches it and it spills forward I'm going to call a knock on

trying to judge which parts of his body it hit, in which order, and what direction is a fools errand, in my mind. It can't be that subtle. Key thing is : he fumbled and it went forwards.

I think that's how people understand the game to be played: and the fac that you remember that particualr decision years later suggests it was a wrong one..

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

So far: Me = Yes, everyone else = No.

Arrrrrrghgarrrrrghghghghghghghghghgh me Laddie!

View attachment 3134

 

[ChrisR]

I think that's how people understand the game to be played: and the fac that you remember that particualr decision years later suggests it was a wrong one..

"understand the game to be played" and who are the "people"??? I understand the game to be played according to the laws. As I interpret the law as a KO occurs when the ball is lost forward from the hands/arms etc. That is the impetus has to come from the hands or arms. It's not a matter of "fine line", it's a matter of "what you see".

In the "local game" incident I described the referee (not I) was well positioned and was adamant that the ball came forward from the knee, not the hands. If you were well sighted and positive that the ball came forward from the knee would you still call the KO??

Yes I remember it well but not for the reason you supposed.

 

[crossref]

every incident is different, and obviosuly I didn't see that particular one so I don't really have a view on the decision (and anyway the referee, from his angles, might have seen it differently from you)

but generally speaking: I think that
- if some one tries to catch a ball
- the ball touches their hands/arms
- they fail to control the ball
- the ball goes forward and hits the ground or another player

then the best decision is a knock on, even if the ball did, on its way, hit some other part of the body as well.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

every incident is different, and obviosuly I didn't see that particular one so I don't really have a view on the decision (and anyway the referee, from his angles, might have seen it differently from you)

but generally speaking: I think that
- if some one tries to catch a ball
- the ball touches their hands/arms
- they fail to control the ball
- the ball goes forward and hits the ground or another player and hits ground/another player and it is not clear and obvious whether it is

then the best decision is a knock on, even if the ball did, on its way, hit some other part of the body as well.

This reminds me of the first thread I contributed to on here.

I maintained that in a scenario where a short fired ball goes forward into in goal and the hands/arms and torso are all in the same vacinity then I'm going to call a knock on even though I can't be 100% sure it didn't just hit the guts. Unless you've got your arms back like the Spirit of Ecstasy I'm going to call knock on.

I got slaughtered and probably will do again.

 

[Phil E]

I have a problem with this call. What happened did not meet the definition for a knock-on as the ball was not played forward by the hands but by the shin. I know the definitions also add "... or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward .... etc, etc." I believe that it is not a KO unless the propulsion forward comes from the hand/arm

I understand the game to be played according to the laws. As I interpret the law as a KO occurs when the ball is lost forward from the hands/arms etc. That is the impetus has to come from the hands or arms. It's not a matter of "fine line", it's a matter of "what you see".

[LAWS]DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
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[/LAWS]

What you believe, and how you interpret the law is wrong. There is no mention in the definition of a KO of propulsion or impetus. The part in bold perfectly covers the OP. The ball hit his fingers and went forward.

There is a reason why you are out of step with everyone else.......and it isn't because you are the only one in step!!

 

[Dave Sherwin]

I also think that once there is such a consensus established, one should bear in mind the advice that calls should be clear, obvious and expected. If everyone on the field expects such an action to be called a knock-on, then you would be making a rod for your own back by determining that your interpretation (where recognized to be at odds with everyone else's) should prevail.

 

[ChrisR]

I agree on the concept of consensus for the purpose of consistency and I have, in the past, brought my view into line with the prevalent opinion. And, in the scenario in the OP, I will go along with that opinion.

Not so for the second event described. If it is C & O that the ball is propelled forward by a body part. no arm/hand, and doesn't touch arm/hand on the way forward, them I think that I'm correct in law to not call the KO.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

I would agree with the latter, and I would twin it with an immediate clarificatory call.

 

[Phil E]

I agree on the concept of consensus for the purpose of consistency and I have, in the past, brought my view into line with the prevalent opinion. And, in the scenario in the OP, I will go along with that opinion.

Or to put it another way.......I was wrong. :wink: :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

.

Not so for the second event described. If it is C & O that the ball is propelled forward by a body part. no arm/hand, and doesn't touch arm/hand on the way forward, them I think that I'm correct in law to not call the KO.

well I think that what you are not saying explicitly, but want us to agree with is the the idea that
- if a catcher is facing forwards and the ball hits the hands, and goes through them, then bounces off the chest to go forward, you are going to call play on (on the basis that it went a few inches backward from his hands).

But no, I am going to call knock on on the grounds that he attempted to catch it, it hit his hands, he didn't control it, and it went forward.


this is not a rare occurence at youth/grass roots level where catchers have not always mastered the technique of standing sideways to the ball, to avoid it, and I reckon it's called as a knock on every time.