The two are different. A player who simply loses the ball forward has indeed knocked the ball on. The highly significant difference is that we allow a player to release the ball forward in order to effect a punt or drop kick. If we are to be consistent, we either sanction that, or we don't sanction the interrupted kick. Chalk and cheese.
Tackled while kicking
- Thread starter Rushforth
- Start date
Which is inconsistent. You are happy with that. i am not.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,383
- Post Likes
- 1,484
I'm not sure that it is inconsistent.
One can argue that there is dispensation to drop the ball forward solely for the purpose of executing a kick.
If a kick is not executed properly, then the dispensation is not applicable.
I don't see that as inconsistent at all.
A bit akin to the back pod in a lineout going beyond the 15m line. If the ball reaches them, then it's allowable; if it doesn't, it isn't. The outcome of an action can dictate the permissibility or otherwise of it
One can argue that there is dispensation to drop the ball forward solely for the purpose of executing a kick.
If a kick is not executed properly, then the dispensation is not applicable.
I don't see that as inconsistent at all.
A bit akin to the back pod in a lineout going beyond the 15m line. If the ball reaches them, then it's allowable; if it doesn't, it isn't. The outcome of an action can dictate the permissibility or otherwise of it
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,092
- Post Likes
- 1,809
what happens if the back pod goes beyond 15m, the throw is meant for them... but the oppo catch it at 14m?
are the throwing team potentially penalised for that? (notwithstanding advantage etc).
didds
But that is precisely what I find obnoxious – the idea that an opponent can turn a legal act into an illegal one. As a consequence I find your version of the dispensation a bad one.
A good example. The law says that if the ball does not travel far enough the infield player “must be penalised”. Does it really make sense to penalise a player if an opponent manages to get to a throw that was clearly going far enough otherwise? The law is surely treating the situation where the player running infield is not the actual target but effectively an illegal dummy runner.
Of course if you want to give a penalty, then you ought to give a scrum for a knock-on when a player punts.
For a throw forwards, surely? And a penalty, indeed.
If you do not regather it, then it is a knock-on. Or if you prefer the Rushforth version, a forward pass, which does not have to reach the ground.
Not that any of this word play matters much.
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
Yep, A legitimate run forward [move] is turned into a knock on by a tackle that makes the BC lose control of the ball so whats the difference?
Nothwithstanding the fact that it's easy to distinguish, for all watchers .
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,151
- Post Likes
- 2,165
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
I agree
a change in the law to clarify this would also need to consider the opposite side of the coin:
1 if a player accidentally loses control of the ball and it goes forward but he manages to kick it before it hits the ground. Is that a knock on?
2 if a player accidentally loses control of the ball and it drops forward and bounces off his foot before it hits the ground .. Is that a knock on ?
1 if a player accidentally loses control of the ball and it goes forward but he manages to kick it before it hits the ground. Is that a knock on?
2 if a player accidentally loses control of the ball and it drops forward and bounces off his foot before it hits the ground .. Is that a knock on ?
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,151
- Post Likes
- 2,165
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Yes to both
It does not make him lose control of it - he has already released it. That is the crucial point.
Many decision are tricky. I shall obviously have to keep repeating my principle argument that an opponent should not be able to convert a legal act into an infringement.
The definition of punt does not include the word intention or intentionally.
It merely says the ball is dropped and kicked before it hits the ground.
In general we referee on outcome not intention - so why complicate matters here.
So what we are talking about is a tackle that is not dangerously late which causes the ball to go forward.
If I tackle you before you kick and dislodge the ball in the tackle, I earn a scrum if you knock it forward.
So - assuming my tackle is not dangerous - why does the fact that you are trying to kick change that.
Why do we need to give the kicker more latitude than someone who tries to pass and gets that wrong under pressure.
We already have the option of calling the tackle late and giving a penalty if we think it is dangerous.
Camquin
It merely says the ball is dropped and kicked before it hits the ground.
In general we referee on outcome not intention - so why complicate matters here.
So what we are talking about is a tackle that is not dangerously late which causes the ball to go forward.
If I tackle you before you kick and dislodge the ball in the tackle, I earn a scrum if you knock it forward.
So - assuming my tackle is not dangerous - why does the fact that you are trying to kick change that.
Why do we need to give the kicker more latitude than someone who tries to pass and gets that wrong under pressure.
We already have the option of calling the tackle late and giving a penalty if we think it is dangerous.
Camquin
by that reasoning if you drop it accidentally, say in a catch, but manage to kick it before it hits the ground - then play on. But I think most referees would give a knock on for that.
No we are not. The ball has been released forward BEFORE the tackle.
Correct.
Because you have already released the ball forward - an act that is conventionally allowed.
We are not. The would-be kicker is not getting the release wrong under pressure. He is being prevented from completing a legal move at a point when he is no longer able to control the ball.
I do not see why an opponent should be able to generate an infringement when the player has done nothing wrong. If you are happy with it, then so be it. We will never agree.