Knock-on or Not ?

[RSA Ref]

Was in a positive conversation with one of our assessors and there is now a difference in the following interpretation :

Knock-on :

From a pass the player loses possession and the ball moves forward towards the opponents dead-ball line. However while diving forward the player was able to "clap" the ball back to his team-mate without the ball touching the green deck or any other player.

The question asked : Is it a knock-on or not ?

I said no as it must touch the green deck or any other player.

The counter suggesting was that it's a knock-on as the Law states that the ball must be caught and the emphases was placed on the last part of the definition, namely : "........before the original player can catch it." if I understand him correctly, the ball must be caught after losing possession of the ball, before the next phase of play.

If I understand the IRB interpretation, is that all aspect of the law must be fulfilled before you apply the correct decision.

Example the knock-on : the following, in sequence, must take place before you give a knock-on call, LOSE POSSESSION, FORWARD TO OPPONENTS DEAD BALL LINE AND TOUCH THE DECK OR ANY OTHER PLAYER.

The fact that the first two has taken place, and not the third phase, there is no knock-on and it's irrelevant if he taps the ball back or is able to get foot on the ball before touching the deck or any other player, play goes on. I don't think the law was meant that the ball must be physically caught.

Is this statement correct or not ?

 

[Brian Ravenhill]

I'd agree with you, the ball must hit the groud or any other player for a knock on to have occured. Thus you can tap it, kick it or head it!

 

[ex-lucy]

"Thus you can tap it, kick it or head it!"

but not drop kick it ... inadvertently.

 

[OB..]

I think there has been a subtle, possibly unintended, shift in the law. Here is what it said in 1999, just before the latest re-write:-
A knock-on occurs when the ball travels forward towards the direction of the 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 and touches the ground or another player before it is recovered by the player.

Note the typography/layout. The phrase about touching the ground etc clearly refers only to the third situation. Moreover it uses the word ‘recovered’, which could be taken to include tapping back to a team-mate etc.

The current wording is:-
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.

The earlier layout has gone, so it could well be that the caveat about touching the ground is taken to apply to all three circumstances.

If we are going to assume that this was intended, then surely we should also assume that the change from ‘recovered’ to ‘catch’ was also intended.

Guess what? I think this law also needs revision. As it stands it seems to allow a player to knock the ball up in the air over an opponent (as long as it is unintentional) and catch it the far side of him. If the opponent is not allowed to tackle him, then he gains a significant advantage from his own incompetence. I find that unacceptable.

This actually happened in a game I was playing in a few years ago, and that was followed a few months later by the famous Tim Stimpson/Andre Vos incident in South Africa.

In equity, either it is a knock on when it goes out of the player’s grasp, or he can be tackled. I prefer the former and think the law should be re-written along those lines.

 

[jboulet4648]

I would view it as a knock on...I am in agreement with the assessor, for once!

The player lost control, and in effort to not lose possession of the ball, taps it backward, knowing he/she would not be able to collect it themselves.....thats a knock.....We don't allow it if it is dropped and goes off the boot, why the other way around....definitely a knock in my book.

Would you allow a player to tap, or knock, the ball forward to himself after a pass over an opponents head?

 

[Padster]

I agree that it is a knock on as tapping it back in those circumstances is not recovering it.

 

[RSA Ref]

Thanks for the input. It is quite clear that South Africa English is not the same as my England partners. Along the line we have to understand the dialect of the IRB since every big rugby nation differ in the interpretation of certain grey areas.

 

[OB..]

A South African referee once claimed that the English translation (sic) of the laws was wrong!

 

[Dixie]

I don't think I would give a knock-on in the situation posed. The player remains in possession of the ball (albeit not thoroughly in control of it). I therefore can't see why tapping it backward should be given as a knock-on.

2 other scenarios: Fly half on his own 5m line receives a pass from his SH and shapes to kick. He lets go of the ball, slighly forward to meet his right (kicking) foot, then realises that the charging flanker is too close. With his right hand, he very deliberately nudges the ball to the left (no catch), and kicks it with his left foot. Outstanding skill - would you give a knock-on?

Second scenario - Ben Cohen in attack is racing the full back to the corner. He launches himself at the line, arms outstretched. Covering full back also launches himself, trying to drive the outstretched Cohen into touch. The collision dislodges the ball, but doesn't take Cohen into touch. Like Cohen, the ball is travelling forwards through the air. Cohen places both hands on top of the ball, and pushes it down until it hits the deck. He never caught it, but had it under his control long enough to touch it down. Do you award the try or the knock-on?

In both these scenarios, I don't see the player losing possession. losing control is not to me the same as losing possession - though it would be very helpful to have a definition of possession, as it has proved a key word ion more than one discussion.

 

[jboulet4648]

knock in both cases. player is tackled and loses control of the ball forward, it is a knock.....

 

[OB..]

Dixie - I don't see the first scenario as even remotely possible. When you shape to kick with your right foot, you stand firmly on your left, and release the ball as your right foot starts to come through. There is no way you can suddenly adjust to kick with your left foot unless you re-gather the ball first. By which time the flanker has flattened you.

We can simplify the second scenario. A player fumbles forward in in-goal before touching down for a try (early celebration, maybe). Instead of grabbing the ball, he simply touches it down, applying his hands before the ball hits the ground.

To me that is a knock-on. He did not catch the ball before it hit the ground, which is what the law now requires.

If a player loses the ball forward, he has made a mistake. Why should we give him more latitude than the law demands?

 

[Dixie]

A player fumbles forward in in-goal before touching down for a try (early celebration, maybe). Instead of grabbing the ball, he simply touches it down, applying his hands before the ball hits the ground.

To me that is a knock-on. He did not catch the ball before it hit the ground, which is what the law now requires.

If a player loses the ball forward, he has made a mistake. Why should we give him more latitude than the law demands?

OB - I understand your point of view entirely, but since it is based on the strict interpretation of the current Law, let's look again at that Law:

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.

There are three variations postulated. I don't see a loss of possession (not equating loss of control with loss of possession), so I don't think the first is met. I don't think the player has hit the ball forward with the hand or arm , so I don't see the second as met. And I don't think the ball has hit the hand or arm and gone forward, so I don't see the third as met.

To me, this all comes down to the the first one. Has he lost possession of the ball? If not, play on.

 

[OB..]

This is the possession problem again.

In 1949 the laws made no provision for juggling a catch.

By 1959 the law makers had added the proviso: "provided that a movement of the ball in the player’s grasp which is in the nature of a steadying or re-adjustment of the ball within his possession without loss of control is not a knock-on."

By 1975 this had become: "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."

There it remained until the re-write in 2000, the current version.

The 1975-99 version is more relaxed than that of 1959, but to me a player who has to dive for the ball has lost possession. It is quite clear the player has lost control, and I see no reason to interpret the law leniently.

 

[Dixie]

to me a player who has to dive for the ball has lost possession.

But in a thread elsewhere (not even sure if in this forum), many took the view that while in flight during a pass, possession of the ball had not been lost. This word possession is problematic.

Is it not also the case that the player who is juggling the ball must, by the same token, have lost possession? If that were true, he could not be tackled. I don't see a loss of possession in either case.

 

[Fabio]

But in a thread elsewhere (not even sure if in this forum), many took the view that while in flight during a pass, possession of the ball had not been lost. This word possession is problematic.

I must disagree with you. The word "possession" is not a problem to me:

Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.

While flying during a pass, the team didn't lose possession of the ball, neither did they lose control, as it is going from a player's hands to a teammate's hands, so the ball is clearly under that team's control and possession.

To my understanding, if a player is jugling for the ball and must dive forward to catch it, he must have lost control and, therefore, possession: knock-on.

 

[Davet]

While the ball is in the air from a pass it is in no one's possession.

The passing team are the ones who last played the ball, and have the rights and responsibilities which go with that.

If a player is juggling, then he is in possession, and can be tackled - if he juggles and drops it he has lost possession, and it may be a knock forward. In order to avoid the knock forward the ball must be "Caught" before it touches the ground (or another player).

If the player is juggling the ball, which goes further forward than he intended, and necessitates that player diving to the ground to catch the ball before it strikes the turf - then if he does so recover it, it is not a knock on. If he fails to do so it is.

If such a ball ends up on the floor, in in-goal, before it is caught, then that is a knock on.

And a 5m scrum - defenders put in.

 

[Fabio]

Davet,

I understand your point and wouldn't have much trouble agreeing with it if convinced.

But, playing Devil's advocate, what do you think about a ball on the floor in a scrum clearly won by team A, but no one is touching it. You are saying team A is not in possession, but were just the last who played it, right?

I understand that during a pass it is hard to argue that the ball is under their possession, but it surely is under their control: the pass is a controlled move and must be recognized as such.

The remainder about the definition of knock-ons I totally agree with you.

 

[Davet]

The law talks of the team in possession in relation to a scrum.

In open play then the law talks about the team who last played the ball.

 

[Fabio]

But the law also defines possession happens "when (...) a team has the ball in its control".

I don't believe many of us would say a pass is not a controlled move. So I believe during a pass the team has the ball under their control and, therefore, it is under their possession.

Of course it all would be untrue if my knowledge of the English language is not as good as I like to believe.

 

[Davet]

If the ball is travelling in the air it is under no-one's control.

The passer had control of it (to some degree), the receiver will (hopefully) have control.

Though of course the passer may have simply chicked it randomly trusting to luck; the receiver may not catch it; it may be intercepted...lots of scenario's.

In the air, it's like Schroedinger's cat in the box. In an indeterminate state.