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

[Rich_NL]

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

True, but both lead to a sanction now, so we have guidelines whether someone only gets a scrum against, or when it's C&O killing the play and deserves a penalty (hand up/hand down, is there a line break, etc).

If there's no sanction, you have to decide whether that fumbled catch that bobbles the ball past the defender, gets gathered/chipped on and scores is a try, or was the fumble a ploy and worthy of a penalty? Did the ball come loose forward in the tackle because of the strength of the tackle, or because the support player can run onto the ball and gather it? Do we assume that any knock-on in a 2-on-1 attacker situation is intentional?

I think that the amount of ill-will towards referees (talking about only the ones who are honestly doing their best to make fair calls) will skyrocket if only a quarter of knock-ons could be seen by one-eyed coaches and fans as controversial, and any guidelines will add a layer of obfuscation for the lay spectator who finds on-field decisions baffling enough already.

 

[Dan_A]

A couple of weekends ago, my son's u14 team played a real mis-match of a game and were soon 30+ points up. The referee was from our club and decided to 'go easy' on the losing team and ignored a few knock-ons. My son's coach and I have an interesting chat about this in the bar afterwards. My son's coach was adamant that our team were not being "rewarded for the effort that they were putting into their line speed". He happily removed our most potent try scorer to even things up. He has previously started to take players off and not replace them, to make the game closer. But his basic point is that skill errors often happen because of good defensive pressure. Having thought about this a lot, I really don't like the idea of doing away with accidental knock-ons.

 

[didds]

Dan_A - I entirely see your coach's point... but as well as removing the points scorer he could have also (as he was obviously inclined to "evening up" the game) to move his defensive line around which may have reduced some of the pressure? Also providing some live practice for players' secondary positions etc ?

Merely saying this as a debating point not necessarily something I expect you to take back to him

didds

 

[Dan_A]

Dan_A - I entirely see your coach's point... but as well as removing the points scorer he could have also (as he was obviously inclined to "evening up" the game) to move his defensive line around which may have reduced some of the pressure? Also providing some live practice for players' secondary positions etc ?

Merely saying this as a debating point not necessarily something I expect you to take back to him

didds

He has previously played people out of position. So second rowers are in the centres or wingers moved to flanker. To be fair, he's a v good coach and is 100% more interested in developing the players than piling up the points and victories. In the end our opposition finished that game with a prolonged period of pressure and walked off feeling that they had achieved some level of parity, despite the scoreline.

 

[didds]

sounds to me as if he certainly has his priorities right (IMO! FWTW!)

cheers

didds

 

[Dickie E]

But his basic point is that skill errors often happen because of good defensive pressure.

Undoubtably. But the point is that a player would rather catch the ball than knock it on. Having knocked it on, is the pressure/inconvenience/disruption that causes sufficient punishment?

 

[Rich_NL]

Depends if it causes pressure/inconvenience/disruption (for which we have the advantage rule) or an advantage. A significant reason that a player would prefer to catch a ball is that a knock on leads to a scrum against.

 

[menace]

So to fix the perceived scrum and consequential pk "problem" the idea is to give the less skilled players "a break"? Seems a rediculous idea to me...a case of the 'tail wagging the dog' solution.
Why complicate one of the easiest parts of the game to adjudicate???

(I thought the ball was oblong for a reason too
..so that it's not too easy??? But giving kiddies some latitude while they learn the skill is another thing)

 

[didds]

Maybe the thought process should be to trial it with a view to finding "evidence" to discard the idea completely?

CF choose own numbers in the lineout?

didds

 

[ChrisR]

From the OP: 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.

So, fix the scrum issues.

Scrums are an integral part of the game and produce set piece opportunities that would otherwise not occur.

 

[beckett50]

Agree with the consensus on here.

IIRC there used to be bit the knock-on only being penalised if that team gained an advantage, but like Crossref I'm not about to trawl through old law books.

It has always struck me as a little ridiculous that a player in this scenario who fumbles the ball while under no pressure is subject to a scrum sanction. Blue clearing kick downfield from deep within their own half, Red field the ball but fumble it slightly forward but there are no But players within 15m. Should we really penalise Red? It has always struck me as unfair.

 

[OB..]

IIRC there used to be bit the knock-on only being penalised if that team gained an advantage, but like Crossref I'm not about to trawl through old law books.

1871[LAWS]Knocking on i e deliberately hitting the ball with the hand and Throwing Forward ie throwing the ball in the direction of the opponents' goal line are not lawful.[/LAWS]
In 1883 the word "deliberately" was removed.

In 1896 the Advantage Law was brought in and it was made clear that this applied to the opponents gaining advantage from a knock-on.

1949[LAWS]A knock-on occurs when the ball, after striking the hand or arm of a player, travels in the direction of his opponents' dead ball line.[/LAWS]
That was when I started playing and I do not remember a law change that a knock-on did not count unless the player's own side gained an advantage.

 

[SimonSmith]

Agree with the consensus on here.

IIRC there used to be bit the knock-on only being penalised if that team gained an advantage, but like Crossref I'm not about to trawl through old law books.

It has always struck me as a little ridiculous that a player in this scenario who fumbles the ball while under no pressure is subject to a scrum sanction. Blue clearing kick downfield from deep within their own half, Red field the ball but fumble it slightly forward but there are no But players within 15m. Should we really penalise Red? It has always struck me as unfair.

If you can't catch when under no pressure, why should you get away with it?
Unfair how? Catching is one of the most basic skills in the game.

 

[crossref]

Rugby is a game that deliberately involves luck .. that's what the oval ball is for , to create random bounces

The knock on is similar , avoiding a knock on is mostly skill, but there is also some chance in there

 

[SimonSmith]

Catching a kick clean from the air involves luck?

*draws up chair* Do tell.

 

[OB..]

Rugby is a game that deliberately involves luck .. that's what the oval ball is for , to create random bounces

Hardly! It is due to the origins of the ball - a pig's bladder, which was covered in leather to make it last longer.

Other nineteenth century football-type games included a cheese shaped ball at Harrow.

Catching a kick clean from the air involves luck?

A bouncing or rolling ball is more likely to cause a knock-on.

 

[crossref]

Hardly! It is due to the origins of the ball - a pig's bladder, which was covered in leather to make it last longer.

It's oval to make it unpredictable, so that you can't dribble it
Soccer balls were made the same way, and have always been as spherical as possible to make them predictable in the air and on the ground

 

[L'irlandais]

Now, now crossref. Given that OB.. is something of our resident historian, it’s a little silly to contradict him on a point like this. A quick look online supports this :

Association football was formed in 1863. In the early 18 hundreds there were a wide variety of codes being played in English Public schools. Most of these allowed some form of catching, kicking and handling of the plum shaped pig’s bladder. This was far rounder than a modern rugby ball, but with distinct flattened ends, and as OB.. said «*this early shape was determined by the use of pigs' bladders inside.

So the plum shape of the ball lent itself to handling. It is only later on that the soccer boys eliminated that pesky unpredictable bounce. So it appears, it was not a choice between either a round ball or an oval one, but rather a 1863 thought that this oval ball doesn’t suit our code, what shall we do abou’ it.

The use of a pig’s bladder goes back to Antiquity worldwide. The round ball, as mentioned above, is a much more recent evolution.

 

[OB..]

It's oval to make it unpredictable, so that you can't dribble it.

Dribbling used to be an integral part of rugby tactics.

Feet, Scotland Feet!: The Book of Scottish Rugby (edited by Derek Douglas, 1991)
The Manual of Rugby Union Football (RFU, 1952) has a section on Dribbling under Basic Skills.

 

[crossref]

I think we end up at the same result .. soccer balls are designed so as to make them as predictable as possible , in the air and on the ground . Rugby balls are designed to be unpredictable, especially when bouncing