Really? Two questions........

[taff426]

So, 2 questions.....
1. Referee apparently wearing leggings...... Should this be allowed (only after opinions please gents, I am in no way looking to abuse or demean the referee)
2. Would you have given a knock on? (I will give ,y view later on after the general consensus have answered)

http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/04/american-teen-attempts-brian-odriscoll.html

 

[The Fat]

Technically, it is a kick but only because he effed it up and hit the ball with the back of his leg and NOT the heel as he was attempting to do.
Fully understand ref's decision to call a knock on though.

 

[menace]

Simple.
1. No....but if they want to look like a tool and stay warm then that's up to them.
2. Yes. Knock on. He lost it forward. Off the heel is NOT a kick.

 

[chrismtl]

1) No...I think leggings look ridiculous in a match
2) Technically he throws the ball backwards out of his hand, but off the heel isn't a kick, so knock on: [LAWS]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward [...] and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/LAWS]

HOWEVER, in the BOD example, he catches the ball without it touching another player or the ground, so it's fine for me. Then again, a defender with half a brain will just level him as he's running past as by the letter of the law, he's still in possession of the ball until it would hit the ground again or until an opponent would touch it.

 

[The Fat]

I don't think he got it to his heel, looks to me like he gets the ball with the back of his leg just below the calf so technically still a kick.
In a game situation I would still probably blow for a knock on as did this ref

 

[leaguerefaus]

I'm with Fat - even if it did hit part of his heel, it also hit part of his leg.

I'd probably allow it.

 

[Browner]

1) of course it should be allowed. The referee might have circulation/warmth issues. But it's to be avoided ( this looks like a low level school game, being refereed perhaps by a teacher?)

2) it can't be a knock-on as it left the hand backwards not forwards.
I don't think the heel kick definition ban was trying to restrict this type of open play ingenuity, ( I'm recalling that someone OB?? has suggested the PK/FK disguise kick as being the reason for the definition specifics) Play on for me.

IF this was a BoD copycat attempt???, then it demonstrates why the internet is such a powerful and immediate conveyor of all 'messages' and why things like MMA throat strangulation ( +others) offences must be dealt with more harshly than they are!!!!!

 

[Browner]

1) No...I think leggings look ridiculous in a match
2) Technically he throws the ball backwards out of his hand, but off the heel isn't a kick, so knock on: [LAWS]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward [...] and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.[/LAWS]

HOWEVER, in the BOD example, he catches the ball without it touching another player or the ground, so it's fine for me. Then again, a defender with half a brain will just level him as he's running past as by the letter of the law, he's still in possession of the ball until it would hit the ground again or until an opponent would touch it.

That would be a late tackle offence, for me.

 

[chrismtl]

That would be a late tackle offence, for me.

Here's the WR definition for a kick.

[LAWS]Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.[/LAWS]

Since it hits his heel, it isn't a kick. That means he's lost the ball forward, and he's still in possession of the ball even though it's in the air, and that makes him a free target the same way as bobbling a ball would mean that you technically haven't knocked on yet, but you're still in possession and therefore you can be hit as it's not technically a knock on until an opponent touches the ball or it hits the ground.

 

[didds]

it clearly hits his calf, not his shin.

The ball clearly goes backwards from his hand.

At this juncture its difficult to see where any knock on or throw forward occurs.

In the interests of some sort of vague consistency it makes some sense to call it KO/TF - but this is what happens when laws are shoe horned into covering situations because somebody somewhere "doesn't like the look of them" and then has to find a law reference toi stop a practice. ie something that looks like the shoe-horn happens but in reality its a new situation that doesn't confirm to the old shoehorn.

didds

 

[menace]

The definition of knock on is
[LAWS]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.[/LAWS]

Fine, the kid deliberately puts the ball behind his back to he can be a smart-Ass tricky player by attempting a super impressive heel 'kick'..but how it can be justified as not 'loses possession' once it dribbles down the side of his leg is beyond me. He is not tying to kick it as a heel kick is not a kick. The player is running forward, IMO he actually loses possession and it dribbles forward off his leg and that meets a criteria of a lost forward/knock on as writ in law (Let's not start up this debate that dropping it forward to kick it is now 'lost/thrown forward' )

Regardless of whether you thinks it's lost forward or not, I think he deserves to lose possession for trying to be too cute. He only had the fullback to beat...why even try a stupid tactic like that.

Ps- I also think you'll find that after it comes off his leg it flips up to his hand/wrist/forearm and then goes forward. A knock there anyway.
View attachment 3211

 

[The umpire]

It's a knock on, as others have said before, he loses possession and it goes forward not from a kick (whether we are trying to split hairs over was it his heel or an inch above it, or not), In fact it and BOD's more successful wttempt may even be considered a deliberate knock on, as it is propelled forward by 'not a kick'. What would you give if someone stretched out their arm forward, throws the ball against their head and nuts it forward?
It's a knock on. Blow for the scrum and tell him not be such a smart ar$e.

 

[Balones]

In slow motion you can see that the ball hits his calf first before hitting his heel so perhaps could be classified as a kick. However after it hits his calf the ball hits his hip/back. He is therefore in front of the kick and therefore offside! Whether the ref wants to go for a penalty or an accidental offside will depend on how strict he wants to be or set standards for later in the game.
(Is there a tongue in cheek icon?)

 

[crossref]

[LAWS]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or .... [/LAWS]

for me, that's exactly what happened.

 

[didds]

Not sure I can see the ball C&O hitting his hand/arm after it hits his leg. Certainly not from the video or the still. It may be in the vicinity of his hand/arm, but its not C&O.


(In my initial post above I meant "heel" not shin incidentally and hopefully "of course"!)

If the player wants to be a show off that is his (and his coach's!) concern. It was a daft thing to try, but nevertheless I don't see anything there that is C&O knock on/throw forward.

the law quote menace kindly provided doesn't encompass what happened - the ball was not lost forward from hand/arm. Its also where the shoehorn interpretation of a "heel kick" still falls down. The ball never gets lost forward from hand or arm - it always travels backwards. This is then used to shoehorn the "heel kick" = KO/TF . Presumably because it offends some sort of purists streak?

didds

 

[didds]

He is therefore in front of the kick and therefore offside!

No he is not, under any tenet of the laws.

"In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."

Unless you have some bizarre notion that a player is a team mate of himself? Really?


didds

 

[Balones]

Didds
Perhaps it is an attitude of mind rather than a matter of law?
Should we discriminate against someone with such a mental state?
How many of us haven't spoken to ourselves at some time?
(Still can't find the tongue in cheek icon.)

 

[leaguerefaus]

For those who don't think it's a kick, then it is a knock on. Even if you want to argue it's left his hands backwards, it is not a pass so the direction of the hands do not matter in the slightest. The ball travels forward.

[LAWS]A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward... Forward means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.[/LAWS]

 

[didds]

still don;t really see what is wrong with this tactic. (Leaving aside the "You blithering idiot" reasons).

This still seems like a case of shoehorning some law into a non-intended reason.

If the PTB don;t want heel/calf kicks then it wouold be easy enough to specifically say so.

didds

 

[crossref]

if he had successfully pulled off the manoevre and kicked the ball with his heel, I would have said OK play on -- but to me he fumbled it, he lost control of the ball, and it went forward.

same as if he had attempted a normal grubber kick and somehow managed to drop the ball onto his moving thigh...