Knock on or penalty?

[Dickie E]

There are 3 possible outcomes:

1. if Black have a reasonable chance of getting advantage (eg they pick up ball, they rip ball or they drive Blue backwards) then play advantage and see what develops

2. if Blue do not offend further and Black are unlikley to gain an advantage (eg ball is wrapped up in a static maul) - scrum Black

3. if Blue do offend further (eg do not release ball while on ground) - penalty Black

 

[Browner]

Heres one for you all, if the player who had knocked on (BLACK) had regathered whilst stood up as per Balones scenario and the arriving opposition player (BLUE) ripped the ball out of his arms because he soft held it expecting the knock on to be called, who would play on??

Always.
Unless Blue didnt get the ball away from that location.

 

[The Fat]

Always.
Unless Blue didnt get the ball away from that location.

So black player drops the ball forward and stoops to regathering the bouncing ball whilst still on his feet. Blue player then comes into contact and rips the ball and you're saying that you are going to play on and not play the knock on.
Hmmmm......

 

[Dickie E]

So black player drops the ball forward and stoops to regathering the bouncing ball whilst still on his feet. Blue player then comes into contact and rips the ball and you're saying that you are going to play on and not play the knock on.
Hmmmm......

TF, I'm with Browner but I think I'm missing your point. Can you elucidate please (or, failing that, clarify your point)?

 

[menace]

So black player drops the ball forward and stoops to regathering the bouncing ball whilst still on his feet. Blue player then comes into contact and rips the ball and you're saying that you are going to play on and not play the knock on.
Hmmmm......

Yeah..why not? Blue have possession of the ball after a minor infringement by black, they have an opportunity to gain and advantage so why would you blow the whistle to stop play to set a blue scrum?

 

[The Fat]

Yeah..why not? Blue have possession of the ball after a minor infringement by black, they have an opportunity to gain and advantage so why would you blow the whistle to stop play to set a blue scrum?

I've seen instances where a player has lost the ball forward and tried to regather but not regain possession before an opposing player gets control of the ball. Playing advantage for the knock-on and play on when the non-offending team gain the normal level of advantage.

I am yet to see a player who has knocked on and regained possession, then have an opposition player grab him and rip the ball away and the referee call play on. 99% of the time the ref would have blown for the knock-on when the infringing player regained possession.

I am not theorising, just stating what I see happens in practice at all levels.

 

[Dickie E]

Yeah, the rip would have to be pretty instantaneous. Any prolonged wrestling would be a scrum.

 

[Balones]

I've seen instances where a player has lost the ball forward and tried to regather but not regain possession before an opposing player gets control of the ball. Playing advantage for the knock-on and play on when the non-offending team gain the normal level of advantage.

I am yet to see a player who has knocked on and regained possession, then have an opposition player grab him and rip the ball away and the referee call play on. 99% of the time the ref would have blown for the knock-on when the infringing player regained possession.

I am not theorising, just stating what I see happens in practice at all levels.

Yes, what 'could' happen and what does actually happen in reality is is different. In such circumstances I would be reluctant to suggest a delay because of player, coach, supporter expectation in such circumstances. It could lead to a decrease in ref credibility and conflict - both verbal and possibly physical. That was part of my reasoning behind the original post.

OB
Interesting point. Should it be a penalty in one part of the pitch and not another? If both scenarios happened in one match and the ref awarded a penalty for one and not the other would there be some concern over consistency?

 

[OB..]

The key to this seems to be the fact that the player that knocked on went to ground to gather the ball. If he had remained on his feet and gathered the ball then no advantage could be applied could it?
In both scenarios the player knocking on gathered the ball and prevented the opposition getting the ball. It seems a little strange to me that one would result in a scrum and the other in a penalty (or even YC?)
Just a question - why would you play advantage when he gathers the ball by going to ground and not when he gathers the ball when standing up? In both scenarios he has prevented quick access to the ball by the opposition.

OB, maybe some slight confusion in the reading of the post.

I was replying to #10, not #15.

 

[OB..]

OB
Interesting point. Should it be a penalty in one part of the pitch and not another? If both scenarios happened in one match and the ref awarded a penalty for one and not the other would there be some concern over consistency?

There seems to be some feeling that re-gathering the ball after a knock on should be penalised. I was arguing against that by reduction ad absurdum. (Well, I thought it was absurd.)

 

[beckett50]

In which case we would have an interesting post match de-brief Phil

Don't be too quick to blow, let it run and see if he does release of not.

Absolutely. And not only for this situation, but think tackle/ruck too

 

[Browner]

I've seen instances where a player has lost the ball forward and tried to regather but not regain possession before an opposing player gets control of the ball. Playing advantage for the knock-on and play on when the non-offending team gain the normal level of advantage.

I am yet to see a player who has knocked on and regained possession, then have an opposition player grab him and rip the ball away and the referee call play on. 99% of the time the ref would have blown for the knock-on when the infringing player regained possession.

I am not theorising, just stating what I see happens in practice at all levels.

I'm often frustrated when watching at how quick some referees will blow for advantage over without allowing a reasnable ' event development time' . i acknowledge that a prompt possession turnover isn't always achieved but in general i get no problem provided its accompanied with a Clear call of Advantage Knock-on.

Recently I had a match where Gold knocked on, I shout "advantage blue-knock on " as Gold then dives to gather the ball, he immediately pops the ball up off the deck ( toward a teammate ) , whereupon the nearest blue player catches/intercepts the floated pass and zips off down field. I immediatedly shout "advantage over" as everyone gives chase , Blue score as he the draws the fullback to a supporting winger teammate.

Not one gold player complained that we should go back for their knock on.

I agree TF that a player then "ripping ball" isn't as, (or very) common ( indeed I can't recall the last occasion) , but I guess Its part of a not whistling immediately mindset, and any player who doesn't " play til the whistle" gets no sympathy, generally.

 

[Browner]

Yeah, the rip would have to be pretty instantaneous. Any prolonged wrestling would be a scrum.

Yep, agree, just give it a 'second or two' to ... breathe

 

[crossref]

I'm often frustrated when watching at how quick some referees will blow for advantage over without allowing a reasnable ' event development time' ..

on the other hand I am frustrated watching referee hang on too long for some sort of advatage to be snatched from thin air. because every fule kno : advantage is cool.

if blue knock on, and then regain possession then 99% of cases no advantage gained, scrum.
I hate seeing time wasted while referees hope that red will somehow win back the ball.

 

[Balones]

In the incident I watched the advantage came from the referee awarding the penalty and not from the knock on itself. The only way the penalty is justified is by saying that the player should not be playing the ball on the ground while off his feet.

OB
I was not in any way disagreeing with you. I am in accord with your point of view in the main. It was a case of pondering to myself by asking a question!

 

[Browner]

on the other hand I am frustrated watching referee hang on too long for some sort of advatage to be snatched from thin air. because every fule kno : advantage is cool.

if blue knock on, and then regain possession then 99% of cases no advantage gained, scrum.
I hate seeing time wasted while referees hope that red will somehow win back the ball.

I agree , that protracted unnecessary "hope" isnt smart, but Its a question of length CR , If your frustration boils so quickly that you cant spare 2\3 seconds per knock-on-regather incident , then I'll wholeheatedly apologise in the bar for deliberately wasting your c.6s per match ....

 

[crossref]

2-3 seconds is quite a long time, but sure I take your point, in certain situations where blue have regathered but red are there as well, and blue clearly don't have secure possession, and perhaps it's close to blue line ... hang on a moment...

on the other hand blue #15, in acres of empty space, knocks on, leaps forward and regathers and hares off... I am not going to wait.

 

[The Fat]

In the incident I watched the advantage came from the referee awarding the penalty and not from the knock on itself. The only way the penalty is justified is by saying that the player should not be playing the ball on the ground while off his feet.

OB
I was not in any way disagreeing with you. I am in accord with your point of view in the main. It was a case of pondering to myself by asking a question!

The ref must have penalised him for not releasing rather than playing the ball on the ground. A player is allowed to go to ground to gather a ball that is on the ground

 

[Browner]

2-3 seconds is quite a long time, but sure I take your point, in certain situations where blue have regathered but red are there as well, and blue clearly don't have secure possession, and perhaps it's close to blue line ... hang on a moment...

on the other hand blue #15, in acres of empty space, knocks on, leaps forward and regathers and hares off......I am not going to wait.

Nor would I.

However, consider..

....blue #15, under pressure from two Red chasers inside his 22 - attempts catch, knocks on, (start your count now) B15 picks up immediately (1.5s) and adjusts his footwork to shape to kick to touch (2.5s) but as he kicks the ball ( we have now reached 4s) the ball is charged down by Red#14 who then unopposed gathers it ( we are now on 6s) as i shout ADVANTAGE OVER & crosses GL and scores a Try .

In essence, I am waiting to see the outcome of the regather and 'pressured' clearance, before i whistle.

Conversely, if blue15 isnt under pressure then as he shapes to kick - I whistle , then its KnOn scrum & no advantage achieved, and we've forever lost those 6s , ( although its worth noting that we might even then lose another 25s as we fetch the ball that he booted away in frustration of his handling error!)

 

[didds]

The key to this seems to be the fact that the player that knocked on went to ground to gather the ball. If he had remained on his feet and gathered the ball then no advantage could be applied could it?

Que? If he has knocked on, black has the KO (scrum) advantage.
It makes no difference at that moment whether the blue knocker-onner falls on the ball, picks it up or flyhacks it into row Z.

In both scenarios he has prevented quick access to the ball by the opposition.

Que? The only sanction regarding preventing opposition access to a ball that is knocked on is if an offside blue player did it. The ball carrier that knocks on cannot by definition be in front of the ball carrier and so if not offside - and neither is he a team mate of the player that knocked on because he IS the player that knocked on.

didds