Knock on "options"?

[beckett50]

Phil

I agree. I'm just saying that I have seen batting the fumbled ball backwards ruled play-on at every level from down in the weeds to elite, and I wonder where this idea is coming from.

(My embolding of Ian's post)

Of course it is play-on.

Think you meant 'forward'? Juggling in itself is not, per se, a knock-on; however, the scenario as described - whereby the player doesn't have control and loses the ball forward and then kicks it is a clear case of losing the ball forward.

As the ball then goes into touch the non-offending captain is given the option of line-out or scrum.

 

[OB..]

Not recent, but

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-koypP7UQLo

and this (40:38 on the YT time if it doesn't go straight there)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=5-DiJvHMXPw#t=2438

I have also seen similar in a couple of Super Rugby matches this year and a local club match here earlier in the year.

Those are not quite what I envisaged from your earlier description

Player receives a pass from a team-mate, but hard hands results in him knocking the ball forwards. However, before it touches the ground, he manages to dive forward and get a hand to it, batting it backwards where a team-mate catches it

They look like juggling that eventually ends in the ball going backwards rather than a desperate attempt to retrieve a ball that has been lost forwards - equivalent to trying cover it up with a kick.

 

[Dixie]

I agree. I'm just saying that I have seen batting the fumbled ball backwards ruled play-on at every level from down in the weeds to elite, and I wonder where this idea is coming from.(My embolding of Ian's post)

Of course it is play-on.

Think you meant 'forward'? Juggling in itself is not, per se, a knock-on; however, the scenario as described - whereby the player doesn't have control and loses the ball forward and then kicks it is a clear case of losing the ball forward.

As the ball then goes into touch the non-offending captain is given the option of line-out or scrum.

I'm not sure it is quite as obvious as you make it sound. Scenario: pass is too far ahead of the intended receiver. Receiver leans forward, makes contact but can't catch the ball, which if left alone will now fall forward of where contact was first made. Realising this, the would-be catcher bats it backwards to prevent it falling to the ground ahead of the point of initial contact. Has he knocked it on?

[LAWS]Law 12 definition: 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]

So here, the initial direction of the ball off the would-be catcher was forward. Does it matter that its direction was changed before it hit the ground?

The first question is whether the orange text covers each scenario, or is limited to the last one? poor drafting, as it can be read either way. I suggest that it is actually intended to apply to each case. It is not, therefore, open to argument that the first two scenarios are met in full before the ball actually hits the ground. But it can still be cogently argued that it doesn't matter if the ball hits the ground behind the point of first contact. In this case, the player played the ball (rather than the ball hitting the player) and it then went forward. It then hit the ground (having been batted backward in the mean time). Did the player hit the ball forward with the hand or arm? Yes. Did the ball hit the ground before the player could catch it? Yes. So the knock-on occurred - even though he managed to bat it backwards in an effort to fool the ref into believing that this was not the case. That scenario is fully analogous to the player putting out a boot to make the ref think a kick was intended and so a knock-on did not occur.

 

[Ian_Cook]

But it can still be cogently argued that it doesn't matter if the ball hits the ground behind the point of first contact. In this case, the player played the ball (rather than the ball hitting the player) and it then went forward. It then hit the ground (having been batted backward in the mean time). Did the player hit the ball forward with the hand or arm? Yes. Did the ball hit the ground before the player could catch it? Yes. So the knock-on occurred - even though he managed to bat it backwards in an effort to fool the ref into believing that this was not the case. That scenario is fully analogous to the player putting out a boot to make the ref think a kick was intended and so a knock-on did not occur.

100% agree

If a player loses/hits the ball forward, the only way he can recover that situation is to catch the ball. Any other action will result on a knock on when the ball touches the ground or another player no matter where that happens.

Those are not quite what I envisaged from your earlier description
They look like juggling that eventually ends in the ball going backwards rather than a desperate attempt to retrieve a ball that has been lost forwards - equivalent to trying cover it up with a kick.

The first one is very close to what I described, but without the dive forward...

...the Gold player fails to catch the ball, it goes forward then he bats the ball back. The ball lands behind him and another Gold player picks it up. Its cleared in the video when you make it full screen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-koypP7UQLo

In the second one, its surely not just juggling.

Black 14 passes to Black 5 who loses the ball forward when he tries to catch it overhead with his left hand, again fails to regather with his right hand, and then back-hands the ball with his left hand to Black 8 who slightly juggles the catch before scoring. I can't see how this was not a knock-on; from the place he first plays the ball to the place he back-hands it to his team mate, the ball makes about 8m forward progress (look at the dashed lines).

 

[ddjamo]

law does not specify that the ball cannot go backwards after the ball going forward off the hands/arms and THEN touching another player or the ground. I think that if a referee wants it to be a knock - you can read that into it. I, as I am sure you all know look for any break in the language that will allow me to NOT blow the whistle. two schools of thought I guess.

interesting question...intentional knock on. we all know the things we say to "sell" an intentional knock pk....palm down, didn't try to catch it, one hand, etc, etc.

chew on this.....what if a defender that had no chance of catching a ball dove and batted at it in an "intentional knock fashion" and totally by accident batted it backwards where it was caught by his teammate? would anyone call that an intentional knock on? probably not, but it did have some components of an intentional knock on.

in the example under discussion - it meets most of the items to call it a knock on - just missing the most important part - the ball being lost forward.

 

[Dickie E]

So the knock-on occurred - even though he managed to bat it backwards in an effort to fool the ref into believing that this was not the case.

Your logic is sound. However there are too many instances of top level referees not calling the knock on for it to really matter in a practical sense.

Law 12 definition: 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.

I think the "goes forward" is a net outcome. 1 metre forward plus 2 metres backwards is no knock on.

 

[OB..]

Here is an extract from an earlier post of mine

For the record, here are some earlier versions of the knock-on law.
1974
[LAWS] A knock-on occurs when a player propels the ball with his hand or arm in the direction of his opponents’ dead-ball line or when the ball after striking the hand or arm of a player travels in that direction.
[it is a knock-on] unless: [...] the ball is knocked on one or more times by a player who is in the act of catching or picking it up and is recovered by that player before it has touched the ground or another player. [/LAWS]

1979
[LAWS] A knock-on occurs when the ball travels forward towards the direction of he opponents’ dead-ball line after:-
· A player loses possession of it, or
· A player propels or strikes it with his hand or arm, or
· It strikes a player’s hand or arm
[It is a knock-on] unless: [...][...] the ball is knocked on one or more times by a player who is in the act of catching or picking it up or losing possession of it and is recovered by that player before it has touched the ground or another player. [/LAWS]

1992
The third bullet point was changed to
[LAWS]
· It strikes a player’s hand or arm and touches the ground or another player before it is recovered by the player.
[/LAWS]

2000 – the modern definition appeared in Law 12.

1974 was the first time a player could prevent a knock-on by regaining possession, but he still had to be "in the act of catching or picking it up". The requirement has gradually become more relaxed and IMHO is now far too lax. Moreover there is no indication as to whether "forward" is measured from the point of first contact, or in relation to the last touch on the ball.

If you allow juggling, then I think you have to allow "forward" to be measured from the final contact. However juggling to me means "within the player's grasp", so kicking a dropped ball or bending down to knock the ball back do not prevent a knock-on.

Note that I am trying to make sense of the law rather than argue about what the wording "means", because that is unclear.

 

[ChrisR]

If you rule that the scenario in the OP is a knock-on then it matters not whether it strikes the ground before going into touch. The scrum or lineout option still applies.

Personally I'd like " before the original player can catch it" removed from the Law 12 definition. This would allow the desperation kick, the final play backwards and the catch by a teammate to save the day. Rewards to the athletic effort and more "Play on!".

 

[Pegleg]

Thanks gentlemen some interesting food for thought there.

 

[winchesterref]

100% agree

If a player loses/hits the ball forward, the only way he can recover that situation is to catch the ball. Any other action will result on a knock on when the ball touches the ground or another player no matter where that happens.




The first one is very close to what I described, but without the dive forward...

...the Gold player fails to catch the ball, it goes forward then he bats the ball back. The ball lands behind him and another Gold player picks it up. Its cleared in the video when you make it full screen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-koypP7UQLo

In the second one, its surely not just juggling.

Black 14 passes to Black 5 who loses the ball forward when he tries to catch it overhead with his left hand, again fails to regather with his right hand, and then back-hands the ball with his left hand to Black 8 who slightly juggles the catch before scoring. I can't see how this was not a knock-on; from the place he first plays the ball to the place he back-hands it to his team mate, the ball makes about 8m forward progress (look at the dashed lines).

If either of those players got tackled we would be ok wih it, so surely they are "in possession" and don't meet the lost possession part of the law?

 

[Ian_Cook]

If either of those players got tackled we would be ok wih it, so surely they are "in possession" and don't meet the lost possession part of the law?

But the player does lose possession the moment that ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

 

[winchesterref]

But that's my point... they lose the ball backwards.

The juggle goes forward, they attempt a regather and they are not in contact with the ball but are tackled - fair tackle? Yes as they are in possession.

Juggle forward then backward during regather attempt, they're still risking being tackled during this act so they must still be in possession.

 

[Phil E]

Saw it happen a few times over the weekend. Not penalised as a knock on.

It does seem that the top boys have been told to officiate it this way??

 

[Ian_Cook]

I agree Phil, if that is the way WR want it adjudicated, then I don't have have a problem with it, but FFS WR, change the Law wording to reflect that!!