Sorry, a knock on question

[Dan Cottrell]

Just been asked this question and though my stock answer is that you have to be there to see if you would think the call was right, please can someone give me the laws here:

1. Blue 10 about to the kick ball. Is tackled, fumbles the ball forward but still manages to kick it before it hits the ground. No knock on?
2. Blue 3 runs, fumbles the ball in the tackle off his chest, but it goes straight to ground. No knock on?

 

[TheBFG]

1. correct

2 (sorry) need to see that one, but from your discription it sounds like KO (the ball rarely goes straight down) make the call nobody will question it.

 

[Decorily]

1. No KO..though he did loose control.
2. Probably a KO ...but was the ball ripped out in the tackle?

 

[crossref]

1. Blue 10 about to the kick ball. Is tackled, fumbles the ball forward but still manages to kick it before it hits the ground. No knock on?
2. Blue 3 runs, fumbles the ball in the tackle off his chest, but it goes straight to ground. No knock on?

1 - knock on. You can't convert a knock on into a kick by getting a toe to it.
2 - knock on. Lost possession forwards

 

[TheBFG]

1 - knock on. You can't convert a knock on into a kick by getting a toe to it.
2 - knock on. Lost possession forwards

Read #1 again, i guess it depends if the ball had already left his hands "under control" en-route to his foot

 

[Dixie]

Read #1 again, i guess it depends if the ball had already left his hands "under control" en-route to his foot

Yes indeed - we don't have enough information with 1. If the #10 had released the ball forward intending to kick it, but was then knocked backward before his foot could make contact, that's not a knock-on for me. But if he had the ball in hand, was knocked backward, lost the ball forward but managed to get a toe on it before it could hit the ground or another player ... then we ignore the toe, and expect the ball will now either hit the deck or another player. If something else happens, you are very unlucky as a ref - and should check that you are actualy awake!

As to 2, I agree with BFG. Straight down (I assume that is what you meant by straight?) requires a ramrod accuracy at 90 degrees to the floor -difficult if not impossible to judge to 1 degree precision in a dynamic situation on an uneven surface. When a player loses control of the ball and it goes to deck, then unless it's clearly gone backward the expectation of players and touchline is that it's a knock-on. Don't make trouble for yourself by pedantically swimming against the tide - even if you suspect that the touchline and players might just be wrong.

 

[crossref]

Read #1 again, i guess it depends if the ball had already left his hands "under control" en-route to his foot

1. Blue 10 about to the kick ball. Is tackled, fumbles the ball forward but still manages to kick it before it hits the ground. No knock on?

the way I am reading it, he lost control, but then got a toe to it. I'd give that as a knock on.
but now we're back to 'I'd have to see it'

 

[OB..]

My stance is that it is (accepted by convention as) legal to release the ball forward to effect a kick. If a player has done so, an opponent cannot turn that legal act into a knock-on by tackling him to prevent to actual kick. No knock-on whether he makes contact with his foot or not.

However it can of course be tricky to decide if he released the ball before the tackle.

In the second case the argument is that a knock-on is caused by the arms etc, not the chest. If a player deliberately and clearly chests the ball, it is not a knock-on. However if he is juggling the ball, it is unrealistic to expect a referee to decide if it last touched his chest or arm before going forward. If he is juggling it and loses it forward, it is a knock-on. Getting a foot to it in this case does not save it - he did not have possession.

 

[leaguerefaus]

My stance is that it is (accepted by convention as) legal to release the ball forward to effect a kick. If a player has done so, an opponent cannot turn that legal act into a knock-on by tackling him to prevent to actual kick. No knock-on whether he makes contact with his foot or not.

However it can of course be tricky to decide if he released the ball before the tackle.

In the second case the argument is that a knock-on is caused by the arms etc, not the chest. If a player deliberately and clearly chests the ball, it is not a knock-on. However if he is juggling the ball, it is unrealistic to expect a referee to decide if it last touched his chest or arm before going forward. If he is juggling it and loses it forward, it is a knock-on. Getting a foot to it in this case does not save it - he did not have possession.

Most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

 

[ChrisR]

My most "Most ridiculous thing I have ever read." is your "Most ridiculous thing I have ever read."

 

[leaguerefaus]

My most "Most ridiculous thing I have ever read." is your "Most ridiculous thing I have ever read."

OB has admitted that he would not call a knock on in a particular instance a player has dropped the ball forward and not kicked it. That statement is more ridiculous than mine.

 

[crossref]

OB has admitted that he would not call a knock on in a particular instance a player has dropped the ball forward and not kicked it. That statement is more ridiculous than mine.

funny because Dixie said pretty much the exact same thing as OB..

If the #10 had released the ball forward intending to kick it, but was then knocked backward before his foot could make contact, that's not a knock-on for me

 

[Dickie E]

My stance is that it is (accepted by convention as) legal to release the ball forward to effect a kick. If a player has done so, an opponent cannot turn that legal act into a knock-on by tackling him to prevent to actual kick. No knock-on whether he makes contact with his foot or not.

We've been on this ride before. I disagree with OB.. In my view contact must be made (ie foot kicks ball) to avoid a knock-on.

 

[Browner]

We've been on this ride before. I disagree with OB.. In my view contact must be made (ie foot kicks ball) to avoid a knock-on.

I'm with Dickie, the action of kicking a ball invariably requires a throw forward to precede the kick, nevertheless it is a throw forward which the game ignores [call it a permitted exemption] PROVIDED a kick is immediately actioned. IMO, if that kick doesn't happen [for whatever reason - & this includes stubbing your toe, miss-kicking or indeed getting tackled etc ] then it resumes it's status as a throw forward. Meets all the practical examples of what the players & watchers would expect. I would categorise it as 'accidental' rather than 'deliberate' in all the examples I've described.

 

[OB..]

I am well aware that there is disagreement on this, but I stand by my view.

I'm with Dickie, the action of kicking a ball invariably requires a throw forward to precede the kick, nevertheless it is a throw forward which the game ignores [call it a permitted exemption] PROVIDED a kick is immediately actioned. IMO, if that kick doesn't happen [for whatever reason - & this includes stubbing your toe, miss-kicking or indeed getting tackled etc ] then it resumes it's status as a throw forward. Meets all the practical examples of what the players & watchers would expect. I would categorise it as 'accidental' rather than 'deliberate' in all the examples I've described.

My point is straightforward: we have to accept that it is legal to release the ball forward for a kick. The argument that an opponent can then turn that legal act into an illegal one strikes me as ridiculous.

"Provisional legality" is not a concept I am prepared to embrace. When you do something it should either be legal or illegal (subject, as ever, to the referee's judgement).

 

[Account Deleted]

I am well aware that there is disagreement on this, but I stand by my view.


My point is straightforward: we have to accept that it is legal to release the ball forward for a kick. The argument that an opponent can then turn that legal act into an illegal one strikes me as ridiculous.

"Provisional legality" is not a concept I am prepared to embrace. When you do something it should either be legal or illegal (subject, as ever, to the referee's judgement).

I'd agree with that.

 

[Dickie E]

The argument that an opponent can then turn that legal act into an illegal one strikes me as ridiculous.

It is no more ridiculous than an opponent jolting a ball carrier's arm and turning a legal carry into an illegal knock-on. If you drop the ball with the intent to kick, you take your chances.

I would be interested if anyone has ever seen an elite referee apply OB..'s interpretation. A video would be even better.

 

[menace]

I am well aware that there is disagreement on this, but I stand by my view.

My point is straightforward: we have to accept that it is legal to release the ball forward for a kick. The argument that an opponent can then turn that legal act into an illegal one strikes me as ridiculous.

"Provisional legality" is not a concept I am prepared to embrace. When you do something it should either be legal or illegal (subject, as ever, to the referee's judgement).

I'm sure this was said last time it was debated on here.(time for a poll perhaps?)

But on the counter, you're then denying the tackler who executed a legal tackle to prevent the kick. He didn't do anything illegal yet is denied the spoils of a ball being knocked on? The kicker took the risk, didn't allow the time and space to execute it and now is not 'punished' for dropping it forward? That doesn't seem equitable to me? It's up to the kicker to get it right or pay the penalty. (As i see it, It can be just as easy to use OB own black and white legal vs not legal argument here but for the reverse case)

I'm in the dickie e camp on this one...it has to be kicked/toed before it hits the ground otherwise knock on.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

The Dickie E Camp? What an interesting bunch they sound!

I am inclined to agree however.:biggrin:

 

[Browner]

I am well aware that there is disagreement on this, but I stand by my view.


My point is straightforward: we have to accept that it is legal to release the ball forward for a kick. The argument that an opponent can then turn that legal act into an illegal one strikes me as ridiculous.

"Provisional legality" is not a concept I am prepared to embrace. When you do something it should either be legal or illegal (subject, as ever, to the referee's judgement).

1] A Ball carrier is freely running carrying the ball, when his opponent takes him to the ground [a tackle], if the BC remains holding onto the ball he is now illegally doing it - so this is an example of the actions of an opponent 'changing' the legal status of the opponent.......... 2] A would-be tackler is about to make a legal hit across the chest of the Ball Carrier, the BC ducks slightly which turns the tacklers previously intended legal tackle into a high & illegal head tackle - another example of the actions of an opponent changing the status of another.......................... In addition, a tackle that forces a knock-on clearly advantages the defending side - so a tackle that forces a duffed kick attempt should have equal advantage to the defender. It has equal status - IMO.