Knocking from touch . .

[Davet]

Chopper

I understand the point you make.

I disagree with it.

You are suggesting that the knock is separate from the catch, whereas I think most of the rest of us see it as part of the catching process.

Perhaps we may consider what your analysis would do in practice, would it make for a better game, would it make life easier for the ref? Would it make things simpler fir players and spectators? Would it create more controversy than we already have?

My answers to these questions are; no, no, no, and yes.

On those grounds I would not support the change in practice you suggest, and would oppose it if anybody serious proposed it.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper. Are you pissed?:chin:

Nope, Lee, just took the dog for a walk and am now drinking a cup of Tetleys with a Rich Tea bikkie.:hap:

So you all reckon the fielder is allowed 'two bites of the cherry'?

The first 'bite' being the 'knock', which altho' permissable would be penalised if it went forward in the FoP or into touch should the ref consider it to be deliberate.

And the second 'bite' the catch which followed and was retrieved by the fielder still standing in there which is, in effect, touch aka ball intentionally knocked into touch . . . a PK. :clap:

 

[OB..]

I think the LoG's literal interpretation [...]

Try looking at it from the perspective of the game, rather than scrying the entrails of the law to find an unusual viewpoint.. A much more sensible interpretation is that it is a catch. That is how it would be treated anywhere in the FoP.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Tetleys but not tea!:biggrin:

 

[chopper15]

So, Davet & Co, are you suggesting a player can reach over from in-touch, 'knock' a stationary ball in the FoP to get it moving, then pick it up and claim the LO throw?:hap:



Any refs out there accept this 'two cherry bites' scenario? :horse:

Accepting a preliminary 'knock' to deflect the ball to the fielder's advantage is a No-No and you're obviously takin' the piss from this learned ol' terrace ref. Shame on you.:sad:

You just wait until your cronies read your opinions, I've got a strong feeling in my water that they're gonna agree with me.:clap:

 

[crossref]

you guys!

 

[Davet]

Opponent kicks ball.
Ball is in FoP, stationary.
Player stood in touch knocks the ball.

Fine so far.

Ball goes forward, knock on

Otherwise, ball stays in FoP, now moving, play on.

Ball goes into touch (not forward). Player has knocked the ball, keeping it alive, but it then has gone into touch. Surely this would be throw to opponents, and closer to players goal line than if the player had simply placed a hand on the ball rather than knock it - and by placing his hand on it to make it dead he would get the throw, by knocking it and keeping it momentarily alive he concedes the throw. So stupid.

I suspect you will next try to argue that such a knock which goes onto touch should be a PK. Possible, but highly unlikely. It is not the deliberate knock that creates a PK, but the act of deliberately putting the ball in touch by knocking it there. A player would be very unlikely to knock the ball nearer his own goal line and deliberately aim to put it in touch.

Ball goes TIG, 5m scrum opponents put in.

 

[chopper15]

you guys!

:biggrin: . . . . 'fraid to commit yourself eh, cr?

 

[chopper15]

Opponent kicks ball.
Ball is in FoP, stationary.
Player stood in touch knocks the ball.

Fine so far.

. :clap:

. . . . . not forward, Davet, he only wants to move it a bit so's he can pick it up and get the throw-in which you refs reckon he should be allowed according to your surprising 'two bites of the cherry'' interpretation and combination of Laws 19 Def. Last para. and 19.5 (a) and (b).

. . . I do think you're all pushing it a bit . . . But what the 'ell.:biggrin::clap:

Your scenarios and comments seem interesting. I'll digest and come back to you if you don't mind, Davet?:hap:

 

[chopper15]

Opponent kicks ball.
Ball is in FoP, stationary.
Player stood in touch knocks the ball.

Fine so far. V

(a)Ball goes forward, knock on

Otherwise, ball stays in FoP, now moving, play on.

Ball goes into touch (not forward). (b)Player has knocked the ball, keeping it alive, but it then has gone into touch . Surely this would be throw to opponents, and closer to players goal line than (c) if the player had simply placed a hand on the ball rather than knock it - and by placing his hand on it to make it dead he would get the throw, by knocking it and keeping it momentarily alive he concedes the throw. So stupid.

I suspect you will next try to argue that such a knock which goes onto touch should be a PK. Possible, but highly unlikely. It is not the deliberate knock that creates a PK, but the act of deliberately putting the ball in touch by knocking it there. A player would be very unlikely to knock the ball nearer his own goal line and deliberately aim to put it in touch.

Ball goes TIG, 5m scrum opponents put in.

(a) Deliberately, Opp. PK: Accidentally, Opp. scrum.

(b) Deliberately, Opp. PK: Acc. Opp. LO.

(c) He has to pick ball up to get throw; by placing hand on ball grounding it he has deliberately put the ball into touch. Opp.PK.

 

[Davet]

It is not an offence to deliberately put the ball in touch.

What is illegal is the act of deliberately throwing the ball into touch, or deliberately knocking the ball into touch.

Note that it is the intent to put the ball in touch that is penalised. A player may well deliberately knock or throw the ball and the ball may end up in touch without there being an offence.

Deliberately standing in touch and then catching the ball or placing a hand on a stationary (or moving) ball in FOP, in order to put the ball into touch, is NOT an offence. Nor is picking up the ball while you are stood in touch, nor holding the ball and running into touch with it. Nor is kicking the ball into touch.

 

[chopper15]

I understand and appreciate what you are all telling me. What I'm trying to do now is to use the info to get an answer to each of my specific scenarios.

Two of my 'second cherry bite' scenario being:

A. Can a player reach over from in-touch, 'knock' a stationary ball in the FoP to get it moving, then pick it up and claim the LO throw?

B. To claim the three options from a restart kick falling into the FoP can a fielder with his foot in touch reach out, knock the ball in an arc thro' the plane of touch then catch it?

From your info I suspect and accept a resounding NO for the former . . . not so sure about the latter, however, but suspect a YES?

C. Regarding being in touch (say, slid there on the ground) then reaching out to place a hand on a stationary ball. You state is NOT an offence. My interpretation of the LoG suggests putting the ball deliberately in touch with the hand IS an offence, particularly if the intent is to frustrate an on-coming opponent.

 

[Pinky]

Chopper, you have two of them right, well done. (but why anyone would deliberately do either is beyond me) On C, the player is off his feet so is not the ball carrier, so it does not matter if he is in touch, touching the ball does not put it in touch.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper, you have two of them right, well done. (but why anyone would deliberately do either is beyond me) On C, the player is off his feet so is not the ball carrier, so it does not matter if he is in touch, touching the ball does not put it in touch.

Thanks, Pinky, for your answers.

But allowing B?

A player in touch of course can knock a direct kick falling into the FoP. Laterally, back or up, play on. Accidentally forward in the FoP or into touch, scrum or LO.

BUT . . . . allowing a fielder to deliberately knock the ball back into touch to perhaps deprive a fast approaching opponent the chance of fielding a well judged kick falling into the FoP a few metres short of your GL, has got to be unlawful . . . it would have to be a PK or even a PT if the ref saw fit. And to aggravate that decision even further, should he then catch the ball in touch, you then award his side the throw in.

I'm sorry, but with respect to you as refs, your interpretation just doesn't make sense.

And your opinion on C, Pinky. Again with respect, are you sure should a player in touch reach into the FoP and ground the ball there, static or moving, he did not deliberately put that ball into touch, and it's play on?

 

[Pinky]

I have a bad feeling about this . . .

Chopper, your situations are getting more and more rediculous. Re B, the player who knocked the ball was standing in touch. He could knock the ball to keep it in play, but in your scenario, he knocked it into the air and then caught it. I don't see that that is denying his opponent unfair access to the ball. At a kick off the attacker would have to be very fleet of foot to get to the ball near the goal line. His side gets the throw-in because he was in touch when he played the ball as part of catching it whilst in touch.

As for C, what I said was true that the action of the player lying on the ground did not put the ball in touch. It is specifically allowed forin law for a player in touch to ground the ball for a try (22.4 (g)). But in the FOP the player would be liable to be penalised for playing the ball whilst off his feet.

 

[Davet]

Chopper

Taking legal actions to deprive opponents of an advantage is a big part of the game.

There used to be picture in the law book of a player scoring a try when he was laid on the ground, in touch, and simply placed a hand firmly down on the ball. Such an act wad shown to be specifically lawful. Seems to me that the principle would cover putting the ball in touch.

 

[chopper15]

Chopper

Taking legal actions to deprive opponents of an advantage is a big part of the game.

There used to be picture in the law book of a player scoring a try when he was laid on the ground, in touch, and simply placed a hand firmly down on the ball. Such an act wad shown to be specifically lawful. Seems to me that the principle would cover putting the ball in touch.

. . . and if he placed a hand firmly on the ball resting in the FoP to frustrate a fast approaching opponent, Davet? Or if he knocked it over the TL into his chest?

Is it simply a LO? Pinky?

 

[Dickie E]

. . . and if he placed a hand firmly on the ball resting in the FoP to frustrate a fast approaching opponent, Davet? Or if he knocked it over the TL into his chest?

Is it simply a LO? Pinky?

Yes in the same way a ball carrier can simply step into touch if he wants to avoid being tackled.

 

[OB..]

A. Can a player reach over from in-touch, 'knock' a stationary ball in the FoP to get it moving, then pick it up and claim the LO throw?

Of course not. How could he?[LAWS]Law 19.4 Who Throws In. The throw-in is taken by an opponent of the player who last held or touched the ball before it went into touch[/LAWS]

B. To claim the three options from a restart kick falling into the FoP can a fielder with his foot in touch reach out, knock the ball in an arc thro' the plane of touch then catch it?

Who put the ball into touch?

C. Regarding being in touch (say, slid there on the ground) then reaching out to place a hand on a stationary ball. You state is NOT an offence. My interpretation of the LoG suggests putting the ball deliberately in touch with the hand IS an offence, particularly if the intent is to frustrate an on-coming opponent.

[LAWS]Law 10.2 (c) Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push, or throw the ball with the arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead-ball line.[/LAWS]No mention of putting a hand on the ball when you are in touch.

 

[chopper15]

A. Understood. . . . and thanks.

B. He put it into touch. The law allows a player in touch to knock a ball, which is in the FoP, with his hand. If he knocks it into touch with the sole objective to better facilitate the catch, he will then be deemed to have deliberately knocked the ball into touch. Sanction, PK.?

If, however, Blue accidentally knocks it into touch in an attempt to catch it, the sanction will be a Red LO even if he should be successful with the catch?

C. So, by temporarily placing his hand on the ball, did he, in effect, 'put' the ball deliberately into touch?