Quiet weekend

[Dickie E]

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.

What would you do if the lineout jumper juggled the ball a bit before tapping it back to SH?

 

[smeagol]

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

What would you do if the lineout jumper juggled the ball a bit before tapping it back to SH?

Mark - if is not caught, it is a knock. I struggle to interpret how "a controlled knock back" is the same as "catching."

Dickie - knock-on. Tapped is not caught.

 

[jdeagro]

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

Technically this is what happens any time a player throws a pass to a teammate while running forward (if one wants to be pedantic enough). As we know, momentum causes the ball to travel forward (relative to the pitch) as well, even if relatively backwards from the prior ball carrier.

 

[Dickie E]

Dickie - knock-on. Tapped is not caught.

Good luck selling that one

 

[Phil E]

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"

Not sure where this word "control" is coming from? It's not a part of the knock on law.
Once it is lost forward it has to be caught by the same player, otherwise it's a knock on. (see definitions)

 

[Balones]

It is up to WR to change the laws and definitions not individual TV refs. The definition of a knock-on is clear. Until WR change the laws, definitions or guidance, refs should stick to what they can support a decision with in terms of the written law and definitions. You will always be on safe ground then. You can always say the TV ref was wrong. Even they make mistakes!

 

[Dickie E]

It is up to WR to change the laws and definitions not individual TV refs. The definition of a knock-on is clear. Until WR change the laws, definitions or guidance, refs should stick to what they can support a decision with in terms of the written law and definitions. You will always be on safe ground then. You can always say the TV ref was wrong. Even they make mistakes!

so you're ok with this?

"Dickie - knock-on. Tapped is not caught."

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Not sure where this word "control" is coming from? It's not a part of the knock on law.
Once it is lost forward it has to be caught by the same player, otherwise it's a knock on. (see definitions)

I 'm trying to get the poster to commit on his interpretation of the law. It is easy to say "I'll do what the law book says" when we all know that is rarely clear.

Is it reasonalbe to say that a player juggling a ball who then is able to accurately direct a tap back into a team mate's arms is controlling and therefore in possession as opposed to a wild tap back that goes any old where.

I know where I stand: Any knock on has to be physically caught. not tapped back (until my society / Union or WR give specific guidence. That is my interpretation of the Law ( right or wrong)I am just trying to get a firm grip and not an assumption of the poster's view.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Mark - if is not caught, it is a knock. I struggle to interpret how "a controlled knock back" is the same as "catching."

Dickie - knock-on. Tapped is not caught.

Thank you !

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

To be even more pedantic, I think that we would all agree that a player juggling the ball trying to catch it would be liable to be legally tackled so they must be in possession!

 

[Marc Wakeham]

To be even more pedantic, I think that we would all agree that a player juggling the ball trying to catch it would be liable to be legally tackled so they must be in possession!

To play devil's advocate. Player does not hold on to the ball. He looks to be attempting to jugle but as he is tackled he taps the ball backwards.

So:
Tackle legal Because he is in posession.

or

Tackle illegal as he has lost posession.

I know how I'd dea, but just putting it out there.

 

[SimonSmith]

To be even more pedantic, I think that we would all agree that a player juggling the ball trying to catch it would be liable to be legally tackled so they must be in possession!

See: Tim Stimpson vs South Africa

 

[didds]

a.k.a. Schrodinger's fumble - where the ball is simultaneously both in possession and not in possession at the same time.

 

[smeagol]

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

I need to watch what I say on here, as twice in two months corner case scenarios I have discussed on here have come about that weekend.

I had a player reach over his head for a pass
- hit hand and went forward 2-3m
- same player batted it back

Called a knock-on, sold it as “knocked forward then backwards.” Zero complains, and it was late in a tight, physical game - 40-35 final score, and teams were within one try for most of the 2nd half.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I need to watch what I say on here, as twice in two months corner case scenarios I have discussed on here have come about that weekend.

I had a player reach over his head for a pass
- hit hand and went forward 2-3m
- same player batted it back

Called a knock-on, sold it as “knocked forward then backwards.” Zero complains, and it was late in a tight, physical game - 40-35 final score, and teams were within one try for most of the 2nd half.

At he end of the day as log as you sold it and were consistent, should it arise again. crack on.

 

[Balones]

At he end of the day as log as you sold it and were consistent, should it arise again. crack on.

He didn’t sell it to those that actually know the laws and definitions.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

He didn’t sell it to those that actually know the laws and definitions.

You'll never sell it to everyone. On the days as long as (nearly) everyone buys into it. Fair play.

Caveat:

Get your society's position on it and be consistent across the society!