Wales vs Eng - Knock on and Time back on after asking captain to speak to players

[Marc Wakeham]

As always with this type of argument, its flawed. The game starts in a different place depending on whether the try is awarded or not, not to mention that the mindset of the players will be different, so the game will unfold differently.

The only times this argument can be valid are

1. A score right on half-time where no side is blown immediately after the score is completed

2. Missed conversions.

In both cases, the game restarts in the same place, in the same way regardless of the awarding or not of the try, or the success of the conversion kick...


Which brings me to something interesting I saw on the sideline watching a pre-season club game yesterday for which I will make a new thread....

ETA: https://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthrea...the-try-with-a-difference&p=372863#post372863

True we don't know what would have happened. However we do know that a side behind the game has a different mindset to one that is not. THe scores DID effect what followed. They were material to the game.

Watching it live, my immediate reaction to the first try is that England were expecting a shot at goal, which was as large a contributory factor to the score as anything.

The second one - if I were Eddie Jones, I would be annoyed. If I were Pivac I would be annoyed if it were disallowed.

I thought he was refereeing to the assessment sheet. Technically accurate, but not great management. Certainly if I had been coaching a junior referee who had that kind of a game we would be chatting about cards and preventive measures. Itoje should have gone for his personal accumulation, and possibly a second English player for team accumulation. If we are to talk about the effect of taking one or more of the scores off, we have to ask how many points England could have shipped in 20 minutes playing with 14...

A difference between law errors and the subjective call not to issue cards. Also, and we can only speculate on this, would England have felt the pressure that led to the penalities if they were not chasing the game?

THe referee had a big material impact on the game that is the only this we know for sure.

I for one am happy that Wales won the TC and are in the mix for a possible GS show down but we rode the luck of a poor display from the To3.

 

[Skids]

Firstly, Wales deserved to win for me, England were too inconsistent and were caught napping too many times (Kieran Vardy's quick tap try when Elliot Daly is walking away not looking) however the thing that concerned me most about the 1st try was that after having his quiet chat with Biggar, the ref looks directly across at England and can therefore see they are mostly still in a huddle beneath the posts with only a couple of players moving out to the wing and clearly decides that it is appropriate for him the restart the clock (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/56226173 0:52s) . From a game management perspective how can that be sensible? At grass roots level I should imagine it would be possible to get away with it but at international level why would you even consider it? He stopped the clock then restarted it when he knew one side were not ready.....a deliberate decision that could easily have been avoided by waiting a few more seconds - after all we wait for both sides to be ready at the start of a match. And now instead of what could have been a great game, all it will be remembered for will be an avoidable controversial decision by the referee, surely something we all try to avoid.

However, that did not lose the game for England but it must have had an effect on their play. Someone said earlier in this thread about how many points would England have shipped if down to 14 men....it would be wrong to assume that would be the case. On Friday evening, Exeter lost a prop to a red card at 27min and did not relinquish the close lead until the 69th minute and there are numerous other examples of teams down to 14 playing much better for that to be an ill-advised assumption.

 

[Gracie]

Not always Nigel’s greatest fan, but the KO definition (thank you Ian I was reading the law not definition) is clear; if a player loses control of the ball and it moves forward, regardless of whether it touches another player before hitting the ground it is a KO. The only question is was it going forward off Zammit as it hit this thigh. For me - that is a yes. We often see players dropping the ball at speed where the ball seemingly goes backwards pulled by for a KO, largely due to perceived trajectory and this feels reasonable.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Firstly, Wales deserved to win for me, England were too inconsistent and were caught napping too many times (Kieran Vardy's quick tap try when Elliot Daly is walking away not looking) however the thing that concerned me most about the 1st try was that after having his quiet chat with Biggar, the ref looks directly across at England and can therefore see they are mostly still in a huddle beneath the posts with only a couple of players moving out to the wing and clearly decides that it is appropriate for him the restart the clock (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/rugby-union/56226173 0:52s) . From a game management perspective how can that be sensible? At grass roots level I should imagine it would be possible to get away with it but at international level why would you even consider it? He stopped the clock then restarted it when he knew one side were not ready.....a deliberate decision that could easily have been avoided by waiting a few more seconds - after all we wait for both sides to be ready at the start of a match. And now instead of what could have been a great game, all it will be remembered for will be an avoidable controversial decision by the referee, surely something we all try to avoid.

However, that did not lose the game for England but it must have had an effect on their play. Someone said earlier in this thread about how many points would England have shipped if down to 14 men....it would be wrong to assume that would be the case. On Friday evening, Exeter lost a prop to a red card at 27min and did not relinquish the close lead until the 69th minute and there are numerous other examples of teams down to 14 playing much better for that to be an ill-advised assumption.

If he felt England were delaying he could have told the mto get a move on and eventually card Farrell. He just had a horrible brainfart that was ugly.

 

[irishref]

Knock on
Play on

But that’s not what happened, he just knocked it forward, half a juggle at best

So we agree any amount of juggling is not the issue, but the final direction of the ball is the deciding factor.

Then this decision is clear - last action from red's hand was backwards. Ergo no knock-on.

 

[Decorily]

Again not necessarily!

If the last action of a players hand, after 'juggling', is to slap/bat the ball backwards then that is considered a knock on even though the ball didn't go forward and the last action of the players hand was backwards! !

 

[Zebra1922]

So we agree any amount of juggling is not the issue, but the final direction of the ball is the deciding factor.

Then this decision is clear - last action from red's hand was backwards. Ergo no knock-on.

I disagree, it’s not the final direction that’s important but the initial knock forward. Any direction after that has no relevance.

 

[irishref]

Again not necessarily!

If the last action of a players hand, after 'juggling', is to slap/bat the ball backwards then that is considered a knock on even though the ball didn't go forward and the last action of the players hand was backwards! !

Did you read the definition? To me it's clear that 2 things constitute the knock on:

1a The player losing possession forward
1b The ball going forward off hand/arm
1c The ball hits hand/arm and goes forward

AND

2 Hits an opponent or the ground before the original player can regather

Point 2 is missing after the only forward action from Red 14, thus no knock on.

His next action is to knock the ball backwards, no knock on. Hits his leg then an English knee and red 15 finishes it off.

 

[Flish]

I disagree, it’s not the final direction that’s important but the initial knock forward. Any direction after that has no relevance.

Agree, all else in between is irrelevant here, knocked forward, not caught.

 

[Rich_NL]

Did you read the definition? To me it's clear that 2 things constitute the knock on:

1a The player losing possession forward
1b The ball going forward off hand/arm
1c The ball hits hand/arm and goes forward

AND

2 Hits an opponent or the ground before the original player can regather

Point 2 is missing after the only forward action from Red 14, thus no knock on.

His next action is to knock the ball backwards, no knock on. Hits his leg then an English knee and red 15 finishes it off.

Point 2, per the definition: Before the original player can catch it.

Batting it backwards, flailing out a leg to kick it forwards following a fumble, etc... doesn't count.

ISTR this discussion with a high-profile case with an Australian player batting it back following a fumble on a line break, a couple of years ago - can any Aussie refs help? In the opponents 22, towards the left-hand side of the pitch.

 

[Balones]

Well, one thing that is certain, we can’t say that the referee was influenced by the home crowd.

 

[Skids]

If he felt England were delaying he could have told the mto get a move on and eventually card Farrell. He just had a horrible brainfart that was ugly.

The brainfart occurring before he saw England were not ready or after?

An avoidable decision (just wait a few seconds, no-one would have said anything) has led to huge controversy and the match will be remembered for nothing else. Not what any referee wants.

 

[Camquin]

I think the problem is his English is not good enough to express the nuance.
Had he said something like take a minute to talk to your team, Farrell would know he did not have unlimited time.

In my book the offending team do not get extra time to set because I have been kind and given them a warning instead of carding them.
England are prone to switching off at a penalty they would kick.

 

[didds]

Oh to be a fly on the wall at the debrief...

 

[OB..]

The look on Rees-Zammit's face said it all. He "knew" he had knocked on and couldn't believe his luck when the referee allowed the try.

 

[thepercy]

OF, White Captain is the one who infringed, so no real need to have a lengthy team chat.

I timed it, there were 40 seconds between time off and OF asking "can you let us know when time is on?" Another 5 seconds and the whistle blows for time on.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The brainfart occurring before he saw England were not ready or after?

An avoidable decision (just wait a few seconds, no-one would have said anything) has led to huge controversy and the match will be remembered for nothing else. Not what any referee wants.

Totally agree He could have managed it better.

 

[JohnHM]

Point 2, per the definition: Before the original player can catch it.

Batting it backwards, flailing out a leg to kick it forwards following a fumble, etc... doesn't count.

ISTR this discussion with a high-profile case with an Australian player batting it back following a fumble on a line break, a couple of years ago - can any Aussie refs help? In the opponents 22, towards the left-hand side of the pitch.

Sorry, not an Aussie, but being Welsh player/ref with an English wife who also plays has made this an interesting day. Trying to explain to the kids how four referees with the benefit of video can get something wrong (per Nigel Owens) has been difficult.

This is a long message, especially for my first, so apologies if it’s not the way threads should be written.

In reviewing the laws and definitions and this and other threads I find I’m mostly confused around “Possession” terminology.

Some people say that “control” is not used in regards to knock on law. But it is in the definition of Possession. A common argument is that “Catch it” is used in the “knock on” law definition. There seems to be a discrepancy there.

Refs tend to ask the TMO about losing “control”, which some threads/forums are saying is irrelevant to knock ons. But it seems as if it can be relevant in terms of Possession.

Possession is defined as being in the control of or attempting to gain control of....

Possession therefore can be a player in control, or not in control, (or a used to define the team in possession).

I feel intent can also be used to rule...

So the example above of a line out jumper pushing the ball forward to one hand that taps it back. He never catches it before his scrum half gets it...

What allows that to be permitted (or is it always a knock? I’m showing a blatant lack of knowledge evidently):
Ruling: always in control and intended and therefore not losing “Possession”. Play on.​

Player throws ball forward to kick it, in laws theoretically a knock but evidently not.

Ruling: it was always in Possession...I.e under control and a permitted act. Play on.​

Throwing a ball forward over a defender and regaining it.

Ruling: In control and therefore a forward pass? Scrum.​

Presumably if it were unintended and not in control it would be OK (so long as he caught it eventually).​

Player juggles a catch forward but manages to kick it before it hits the ground (I.e intentionally kicked after unintentionally dropped onto the foot)

Ruling: Knock on due to knock forward off arm and not caught before it hits the ground. Nothing to do with control. Scrum.​

As an aside, if a player is in the act of juggling to catch the ball, he is in Possession and therefore may be tackled even if he didn’t have control? I remember mid-1980s an Irish fullback fumbling past a couple of tacklers and eventually catching it and scoring or making a try.

 

[Decorily]

Welcome to the asylum!

 

[SimonSmith]

This is one of those situations where the process worked, to (probably) the wrong outcome.

PG said on-filed decision was a try.
For the TMO to nix that, he has to see something clear and obvious.
There is a lot of debate about the decision, which suggests to me that there was nothing C&O in error. So, we stick with the onfield decision.

I wonder what would have happened if he had been able to ask " Try yes or no?" and given the tMO freedom?

My other thought was whether there was a possible language issue? I'm not convinced that there is a necessity for two officials to not be able to converse in their mother tongue when something like this happens.