[Law] Law Change Proposal - Elminate accidental knock-ons

[CrouchTPEngage]

In a bid to increase "ball-in-play" time and reduce the frequency of scrums ( and the consequential number of reset-scrums, scrum-penalties ) there has been some discussion recently about an interesting law-change to allow accidental knock-ons.
Fans of the "EggChasers podcast" will be familiar with this, and on first impression it sounds ridiculous.
But upon further inspection, it could be something worth a trial.

Deliberate knock-ons and throw-forwards are still penalised.
An accidental knock-on, can still put a team-mate offside so, that would still be penalised. But the idea is that accidental offsides are rarely beneficial to the perpertrator. The ball is lost towards the opposition. If a player does manage to re-gather the ball after losing it then "play-on"!

There were some other suggestion about penalising knock-ons only in your opponents 22 but I can see big problems with that particular idea.

But in general, what are the pros/cons ?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I can see the argument but it "dumbs down" the game. I can see more of an argument to use "material effect" in the case of a knock on. So Red hoof the ball down field and Blue 15 knocks on and regathers with no red player within the "preverbial "country mile" of him. Why let red gains from a speculative kick producing a knock on that only disadvantaged the "offender"? I can see merit in that argument.

 

[crossref]

I think it's an intriguing idea (not a new one) that would be worth a trial to see what happens

NB lots of age grade rugby is played this way in England under the RFU NROP

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

It is not so crazy. I remember watching a vintage highlight reel somewhere on this website, and was shocked at the number of accidental knock ons with play continuing.

TBH the game need to be dumbed down. Laws have become to numerous and to specific. i.e. binding requirements at scrum and line outs lifting. It is a physical game; it is not a game of who read the law book and who did not.

 

[didds]

worth a trial somewhere I reckon indeed.

It would have to be really thought hard about though... eg scrumhalf at the base of a slow ruck stops to pick up just as the oppo counter-ruck/shove hard and cause him to knock on. It was accidental from the s/half perspective but by the same token was the result of pressure created by the oppo and/or rubbish play by his ruckers.

Similar stuff could be a knock-on in the centre where a shovelled pass from #10 in the face of an onrushing defender causes pressure on the catcher etc.

didds

 

[Rich_NL]

"But the idea is that accidental offsides are rarely beneficial to the perpetrator" - which is why we play advantage...

I can understand increasing considerations of materiality, but can't see scrapping it as a good move, let alone jntroducing another level of subjective decision-making as to whether it was accidental or not. Even so, you're lowering the technical level of the game.

 

[crossref]

We already have to judge whether knock ons are deliberate or not, because deliberate ones are a PK (and would remain so )

 

[Pablo]

Any sport's set of rules are fundamentally arbitrary; the choices about what will or won't be allowed give each sport its own unique character. Rugby has, for as long as anyone can remember, always considered a knock-on illegal - there's no law of nature that says it must be so, but it's part of what gives rugby its rugby-like character.

Changing the status of the knock-on would be an unnecessary change to the game - this isn't a safety issue, it's just an arbitrary thing. If we go down this path, then why not other changes? Why don't we start limiting the number of tackles a team can keep the ball for? Perhaps we could reduce the number of players, allow forward passes, permit contact with non-ball carriers, give the players more padding, and go to unlimited rolling subs? Or maybe we outlaw handling the ball, make the ball rounder, hang a net off the back of the posts, and cut the uprights off at the crossbar? Make the ball really small and give the players sticks? Play on ice?

Yes, these are arguments ad absurdam - but at what point would rugby stop being rugby?

 

[Dickie E]

I'd like to see it trialled - a knock-on being its own disadvantage makes some sense.

You'd have to guard against players paddling the ball along the ground in front of them under the guise of trying to pick it up.

 

[crossref]

It would be very odd for someone to knock on in the process of scoring, and be awarded a try

 

[Taff]

At first glance I like the suggestion.

 

[Pablo]

It would be very odd for someone to knock on in the process of scoring, and be awarded a try

You are Dave Casper, and I claim my five pounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roller_(American_football)

 

[Zebra1922]

I like the idea, unfortunately I can’t see it ever being adopted.

 

[L'irlandais]

... arguments ad absurdam - but at what point would rugby stop being rugby?

I suspect Rugby stopped being Rugby once «*shamateurism*» crept into the sport. Definitely, professionalism and ideas like pros must improve win rates year on year, have led to this crash-ball/concussion situation where 115kg players start complaining they cannot manage to add two further kgs of muscle, despite hours of weight lifting and endlessly eating protein. Rugby has reached the limits of genetic engineering.

For me one of the basic things in rugby was it was a sport for all sizes, with professionalism this is no longer the case. If we eliminate accidental KOs then the pros will quickly find a way to exploit the Law change, à la deliberate fumble, gather and break the gain line.

 

[Taff]

Just a thought, but how about play on provided the opposition got the ball. :chin:

 

[crossref]

Just a thought, but how about play on provided the opposition got the ball. :chin:

well that's not a change, you play on today when that happens!

 

[Taff]

well that's not a change, you play on today when that happens!

Well, sort of. At the moment, it depends on the quality of the possession.

If the opposition get the ball, but are under pressure straight away or don't make any headway, we go back for a scrum. I suppose, what I'm suggesting is that just getting possession is advantage enough - regardless of how much pressure they're under.

 

[Dickie E]

Well, sort of. At the moment, it depends on the quality of the possession.

If the opposition get the ball, but are under pressure straight away or don't make any headway, we go back for a scrum. I suppose, what I'm suggesting is that just getting possession is advantage enough - regardless of how much pressure they're under.

This is why zero tackle was introduced in RL. Player would knock on and opposition would decline to pick up the ball, preferring a scrum.

 

[SimonSmith]

I think Didds highlighted one critical practical point - determining which k/o to ping and which not to could get tricky depending upon the criteria used.

That to one side, I do have a philosophical issue with it. Rugby has always had some core beliefs. One of them was that there were particular ways that the ball could be propelled, and this proposed change flies in the face of that. What next, marginally forward passes because the opposition were nowhere near? It's the thin end of the wedge.

Every so often, ideas come up. Solutions in search of a problem to fix. And I am reminded of Falkland's dictum "Where it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change."

You tell me what problem this fixes, and I'll think about it. Until then, it's cosmetic tinkering and not worth the candle.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can see an argument for ignoring accidental knock-ons while not attempting to play at the ball e.g. when the ball the ball is kicked into a player's forearm, but I object to a player's lack of skill being ignored, i.e. if a player playing at the ball, knocks the ball on, it should be an infringement.

However, we this would add another subjective judgement to referees, who already have plenty of subjective judgements to make.