Quiet weekend

[Dickie E]

I noticed as well. I did think at the time, surely a slap back does not constitue "bringing the ball under control" so it must be a knock on

There are now lots of instances of elite refs calling it play on and none calling it a KO. Make your own conclusion

 

[smeagol]

There are now lots of instances of elite refs calling it play on and none calling it a KO. Make your own conclusion

I’ll wait until WR puts out something official.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I’ll wait until WR puts out something official.

What will you do in the mean time?

 

[didds]

I just think you'll have a hard sell to call knock on for a ball that landed feet/yards behind the previous hand/arm touch.
I'm not saying that isn't technically correct. Just that you likely now have 30 players metaphorically scratching their heads thinking "WTAF?"

 

[Phil E]

I just think you'll have a hard sell to call knock on for a ball that landed feet/yards behind the previous hand/arm touch.
I'm not saying that isn't technically correct. Just that you likely now have 30 players metaphorically scratching their heads thinking "WTAF?"

Not really, the law is very clear and simple.

Lost forward from the hand or arm, not regathered by the same player before hitting the ground or another player.

It's exactly the same explanation as a ball that is lost forward but then bounces backwards...but it went backwards Sir.

 

[didds]

and as i said "I'm not saying that isn't technically correct. "
Whether 30 players will understand that is another matter.
And while the ref is correct that is still a sell to 30 others - when really in the whole matter of things, it isnt really material.

 

[Phil E]

and as i said "I'm not saying that isn't technically correct. "
Whether 30 players will understand that is another matter.
And while the ref is correct that is still a sell to 30 others - when really in the whole matter of things, it isnt really material.

Catching and passing the ball is the bedrock of rugby, so I fail to see how dropping the ball is immaterial?
Or am I missing your point?

 

[Mipper]

and as i said "I'm not saying that isn't technically correct. "
Whether 30 players will understand that is another matter.
And while the ref is correct that is still a sell to 30 others - when really in the whole matter of things, it isnt really material.

With all due respect to Phil, I am with you Didds. It is a hard sell.

 

[Phil E]

With all due respect to Phil, I am with you Didds. It is a hard sell.

Not my experience.

 

[Dickie E]

Not really, the law is very clear and simple.

Lost forward from the hand or arm, not regathered by the same player before hitting the ground or another player.

It's exactly the same explanation as a ball that is lost forward but then bounces backwards...but it went backwards Sir.

Especially when Matt Carley made the exact opposite decision last weekend

 

[didds]

Catching and passing the ball is the bedrock of rugby, so I fail to see how dropping the ball is immaterial?
Or am I missing your point?

well id suggest to 30 players nobody has dropped the ball. Somebody didnt catch it and it hit the ground - or was caught - behind the player that failed to fully catch it.

If you cant see that point this discussion is moot. Im not saying it isnt technically forward - but its a gotcha to possibly 30 players.

 

[didds]

Not really, the law is very clear and simple.

Lost forward from the hand or arm, not regathered by the same player before hitting the ground or another player.

It's exactly the same explanation as a ball that is lost forward but then bounces backwards...but it went backwards Sir.

except clearly the ball hit the ground in front of where it was fumbled.

as opposed to hitting the ground behind where it was fumbled.

Id have thought the two were very obvious in all but a tiny fraction of cases (89.9 degrees versus 90.1 degrees etc)

 

[smeagol]

What will you do in the mean time?

Rely on the law as it is written.

 

[Phil E]

Especially when Matt Carley made the exact opposite decision last weekend

I don't really care what happens on tv rugby. I still call not straight at the scum and lineout, should I stop doing that because
Mathew Carly doesn't?

 

[Phil E]

except clearly the ball hit the ground in front of where it was fumbled.

as opposed to hitting the ground behind where it was fumbled.

Id have thought the two were very obvious in all but a tiny fraction of cases (89.9 degrees versus 90.1 degrees etc)

I really can't see the point of your argument, the ball was lost forward and not regathered by the same player, that is a knock on.
The fact that the players think different isn't really an issue to me as they are unaware of a lot of laws. A clear explanation from the ref and move on.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Rely on the law as it is written.

When you know the whole law book is open to interpretation. So you are going to go by you interpretation . Fair enough. So, Just so It's clear to me. Is a knock back of a ball initially lost forwrad lost forward a knock on or not if it ends up behind the original point of contact wit thhe player or not?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

A clear explanation from the ref and move on.

Whatever your call this bit is vital. Although I'd suggest going to your Society meeting and getting a consensus so week in week out you have a consistent approch across the society's referees.

 

[Balones]

I believe we should be consistent.
Ball knocked-on and kicked before it touches the floor or another player = knock-on.
Therefore in my mind it has always been a case of knock-on and not caught/regathered under control = knock-on.
TV rugby is a law unto itself.

 

[smeagol]

When you know the whole law book is open to interpretation. So you are going to go by you interpretation . Fair enough. So, Just so It's clear to me. Is a knock back of a ball initially lost forwrad lost forward a knock on or not if it ends up behind the original point of contact wit thhe player or not?

Per *the law book definition of a knock-on*, all I care about is if the player in question caught it before it makes contact with the ground or another player.

Not sure if there's a different interpretation/definition at the international level, but until it's put in writing, I do not care.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Per *the law book definition of a knock-on*, all I care about is if the player in question caught it before it makes contact with the ground or another player.

Not sure if there's a different interpretation/definition at the international level, but until it's put in writing, I do not care.

Does a "controlled" knock back after the ball is "lost" constitute the ball being in the players control and therefore not a Knock on in your opinion? Some are saying"Yes still a knock on". Others disagree. -"in the sticks"

For me I'm giving a knock on unless my society tells me different or WR does so. But tothers here are playing on. Two different opinions on this forum. So we are not talking international level we are talking