Do you also claim the context was the same?
Yes it was the same... in both cases, a player passed the ball and an opponent attempted a one-handed intercept, one opponent succeeded, the other didn't. It matters not a jot where and when the incident took place. Location on the field only comes into consideration AFTER you have decided the knock on was intentional; it should never come into consideration as a factor in deciding intent or lack of intent.
I also disagree that the actions were identical. I don't think Maitland had a realistic prospect of getting an interception, but had a go at it anyway.
It doesn't matter whether it was realsitic or not, the
only thing that matters is what he intended. It did not look intentional to me.
I don't imagine he actually made a conscious decision, but more an instinctive reaction. He was defending against two players, close to his own line and gambled
Contradictio in terminis!!! If you acknowledge that it was NOT a
"conscious decision", how on earth can you then come to the conclusion that it WAS
"intentional"!!!?
The differences are what matter, more than the similarities.
I see this the other way around, the similarities are more important. I just have a completely different understanding of intent from you and Dickie. I apply the dictionary meaning of intentional; i.e.
to do something on purpose or deliberately. I have no idea where you get your meaning of "intentional" from, its not in any dictionary that I know of, and it isn't defined in the LotG.
For mine,
"intentional" in the LotG on means that the player acts with the clear intent to infringe the Laws. That meaning applies to...
10.1 (b), (c), (d) & (e)
10.2 (a), (b) & (c)
10.4 (k) & (o)
11.3 (c)
11.6 (b)
14.2 (a) & (b)
16.3 (b), (c) & (f)
17.2 (e)
19.7 (c)
19.14 (d)
20.1 (d)
20.8 (c), (e), (f) & (h)
20.9 (a)
21.7 (d)
21.8 (d)
22.17 (a)
.. and yet for some reason, when it comes to Law 12.1 (f), you want to apply a completely different meaning that is inconsistent with its application to every other Law of the Game. Sorry, but I simply cannot go along with that.
I see no intent in what Maitland did. I would have awarded a scrum, as indeed Joubert did originally before he was persuaded by the TMO looking at it in slow motion. This is one of these occasions when slow motion makes it look worse than it really is.
