[6N] Italy/France

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,939
Post Likes
1,038
Can I get a sanity check?

Dying minutes of the game. Italy are piling on the pressure.

Winger has ball in hand and is haring off to the goal line. Penaud comes in and slaps the ball; winger falls on the ball with his chest, in goal.

Decision: knock on. Scrum France. My instinctive reaction was that the defender punched it loose - so, backwards - and that the subsequent grounding was legit. So try.

What am I missing?
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,939
Post Likes
378
I only saw it in a busy pub, but my initial thought was that the original BC did not get "downward pressure" on the loose ball.
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
Can I get a sanity check?

Dying minutes of the game. Italy are piling on the pressure.

Winger has ball in hand and is haring off to the goal line. Penaud comes in and slaps the ball; winger falls on the ball with his chest, in goal.

Decision: knock on. Scrum France. My instinctive reaction was that the defender punched it loose - so, backwards - and that the subsequent grounding was legit. So try.

What am I missing?

he didn't fall on the ball with his chest

https://youtu.be/DyVp23HibAI?t=238
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
The ball had already hit the ground by then and was ruled lost forward
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,511
Post Likes
432
Nigel Owens recently clarified, if it's in hands then it has to stay in hand all the way to the ground or it's a KO. Dropping your body on the ball is only for a loose ball. It's happened a couple of times of late.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
Nigel Owens recently clarified, if it's in hands then it has to stay in hand all the way to the ground or it's a KO. Dropping your body on the ball is only for a loose ball. It's happened a couple of times of late.

that's not quite what he said. if you lose the ball backwards it's play on.

But if you are not holding it - merely touching it- and it is travelling forwards while you are touching it all the way to the ground, its not a try, he said, it's a knock on.
 
Last edited:

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,939
Post Likes
1,038
My argument is that it looked dislodged by the French player, and therefore not a knock on
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
My argument is that it looked dislodged by the French player, and therefore not a knock on

this is a hazy area to referee (I think)

If the tackler happens to make contact with the ball, and the ball is dislodged, then it is always a knock on (one way or the other)
If the tackler aims for the ball and deliberately rips/knocks it, then it depends which way it goes -- forward from ball carrier, play on, forward from tackler, knock on by tackler.


For that incident, I have only watched it a couple of times, but I would have given a try.
 
Last edited:

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
My argument is that it looked dislodged by the French player, and therefore not a knock on
it was but did contact the Italian afterwards, tough call for KO perhaps but seemed correct in slo-mo
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
8,939
Post Likes
1,038
When his belly landed on part of the ball
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Post Likes
330
My initial opinion was that the referee had got it wrong because as far as I was concerned it was hit backwards and out of the hands of the ball carrier by the tackler and it should have been play on. However, in replay you can see that after the knock back you can see the ball definitely hit the ball carrier’s forearm before it hit the ground. Therefore knock on, correct call.
 

Treadmore

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
405
Post Likes
36
When his belly landed on part of the ball

Quite, by which time the ball had already hit the ground after being in contact with the Italian’s arm following the dislodgement by the french player.

Thus when the ball hit the ground it was already a knock-on (and whether his belly actually grounded it was also moot).
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
3,229
Post Likes
354
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
When nothing here is C&O then I think 5m attacking is an option.
 

Balones

Referee Advisor / Assessor
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
1,205
Post Likes
330
When nothing here is C&O then I think 5m attacking is an option.

Yes. But in this instance it was clearly a knock-on in the replay. His right forearm knocked the ball forward before the ball touched the ground.

At games without TMO I would be satisfied with a scrum 5 attacking ball even if it was incorrect because there would probably not be any other suitable option.
 
Last edited:

Camquin

Rugby Club Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2011
Messages
1,601
Post Likes
278
This is the problem with the TMO - it changes the definition of what is C&O.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
19,851
Post Likes
2,290
This is the problem with the TMO - it changes the definition of what is C&O.

Exactly

And TMO themselves operate with two different definitions of C&O

1 . There is the threshold for proactively intervening. Basically they watch it again on the delay and make a quick decision to either let it go, or intervene.

2 when they are called in to make a judgment and watch the also Mo several time s

Different thresholds are used for those two
 

Taff


Referees in Wales
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
6,939
Post Likes
378
This is the problem with the TMO - it changes the definition of what is C&O.
"Clear and Obvious" means different things to different people surely.

What may be "clear and obvious" to a TMO sitting in a sound-proof room with multiple screens and speeds to choose from may not be so "clear and obvious" to a Ref who will see an incident just once.
 
Top