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

[dave_clark]

Barnes was exemplary.

yup - in terms of comms, best in the business and has been for some time.

Yup. Paddy OBrien has retired

(can't find the crying with laughter emoji, but assume there are 5 of them here!)

 

[buff]

Well they were both speaking English.

I don't know how good both their English is, but maybe they weren't as confident explaining what they were looking at as if they were speaking French. I'm just speculating. It might not have been an issue at all.

I've been in the same room with Ruiz speaking in English. Like the other French referees his English is functional, and he can carry on a conversation, but a French referee speaking with a French TMO should be able to do it in French. I assume they speak English for the fans and the broadcaster. I have heard French officials speaking in French first before repeating the decision in English.

 

[dave_clark]

I've been in the same room with Ruiz speaking in English. Like the other French referees his English is functional, and he can carry on a conversation, but a French referee speaking with a French TMO should be able to do it in French. I assume they speak English for the fans and the broadcaster. I have heard French officials speaking in French first before repeating the decision in English.

i assume you're not including Christophe Berdos in this summary? appreciate he's been retired from the top level for a while now...

having said that, his english was better than my french...

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well they were both speaking English.

I don't know how good both their English is, but maybe they weren't as confident explaining what they were looking at as if they were speaking French. I'm just speculating. It might not have been an issue at all.

Why? They should be communicating in the best languague for them to gt it right!

 

[OB..]

It is not a "flaw in the laws". To kick the ball it has to be dropped therefore it is obvious that you must be able to drop the ball in order to kick (punt or drop kick) the ball. Therefore, since kicking is allowed, the dropping of the ball in that CONTEXT is clearly legal. It is tacetly implied if nothing else.

Perpetuating this myth is just not helpful.

A significant problem occurs when a player is tackled after releasing the ball but just before he actually kicks it. The would-be kicker usually gets sanctioned, so your counter fails..

 

[buff]

i assume you're not including Christophe Berdos in this summary? appreciate he's been retired from the top level for a while now...

having said that, his english was better than my french...

No, I am not. I am referring to the current crop of elite/test refs.

 

[belladonna]

The TMO clearly tells the ref that the ball didn't go forwards (see eg 2:10 into this clip) - and that he can stick with his on field decision. Did it clearly and obviously go forwards - or was it quite possibly down? I find it hard to believe that such an experienced team of officials got it so badly wrong. Is it possible PG has been hung out to dry by WR? https://youtu.be/zdtcPXLhUso

 

[didds]

Cant recall if I said this already... how often do we see a #9 done for knock on when they drop the ball at the base of a ruck. It "always" gets blown as a knock on even though the distance dropped (a very inches at most_ can never demonstraably have been shown to go forward. In this regard "vertical" is clearly seen as "forward" and id go further to say its more like "not demonstably backwards" is classed as forward.

So frankly the discussion between the ref and poite (TMO) is throuroughly redundant. The French refereeing classes have once again pulled an aardvark from a pair of underpants.

didds

 

[DocY]

The TMO clearly tells the ref that the ball didn't go forwards (see eg 2:10 into this clip) - and that he can stick with his on field decision. Did it clearly and obviously go forwards - or was it quite possibly down? I find it hard to believe that such an experienced team of officials got it so badly wrong. Is it possible PG has been hung out to dry by WR? https://youtu.be/zdtcPXLhUso

Watching it again this morning, maybe the TMO thought his right hand was always in contact with the ball until it hit his hip, then went straight down and not forward. I stress the maybe.

As you say, difficult to know how they got it badly wrong and whether it was an error in fact or error in law.

 

[crossref]

I hate to say it - but the Law defining a knock on does need to be rewritten.

It's all very well decrying a 'legalistic' view of the Laws, but when TMOs are watching incidents in super slow motion and aiming for 100% accuracy of decisions - it's a 'legalistic' view of the Laws that si being applied.

We can't go on with this situation that we wait for things to go wrong and then tweak the laws (or issue clarifications) afterwards.

 

[Jz558]

In this instance I think the law is pretty clear and a rewrite would not do anything to help. The current law list 3 occasions when a knock-on occurs:

1. When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward.

or

2. When a player hits the ball forward with the hand.

or

3. When the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player.

So only the third instance requires the ball to touch the ground or another player. If you think the winger was in possession or attempting to gain possession, then it must be a knock-on. If you think it hit his hand then you could argue that it wasn’t.

 

[Dickie E]

Watching it again this morning, maybe the TMO thought his right hand was always in contact with the ball until it hit his hip, then went straight down and not forward. I stress the maybe.

that's exactly what I think the reasoning was.

If a player did similar over the goal line (made continual contact with the ball with his hand until the grounding) would we award a try?

 

[Dickie E]

I hate to say it -

no you don't :biggrin:

 

[DocY]

In this instance I think the law is pretty clear and a rewrite would not do anything to help. The current law list 3 occasions when a knock-on occurs:

1. When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward.

or

2. When a player hits the ball forward with the hand.

or

3. When the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player.

So only the third instance requires the ball to touch the ground or another player. If you think the winger was in possession or attempting to gain possession, then it must be a knock-on. If you think it hit his hand then you could argue that it wasn’t.

You might have just demonstrated that it isn't clear!

The ball touching the ground or another player applies to all three cases - which I think is actually pretty clear from the laws (there's a comma before the 'and the ball touches the ground...' - punctuation matters!) but apparently it's not clear to everyone.

EDIT: re-reading that, it comes across a bit aggressively/patronisingly. That wasn't my intention!

 

[crossref]

In this instance I think the law is pretty clear and a rewrite would not do anything to help. The current law list 3 occasions when a knock-on occurs:

1. When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward.

or

2. When a player hits the ball forward with the hand.

or

3. When the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player.

So only the third instance requires the ball to touch the ground or another player. If you think the winger was in possession or attempting to gain possession, then it must be a knock-on. If you think it hit his hand then you could argue that it wasn’t.

I think you have proved my point as you have misunderstood the Law !

The law is actually (my line breask


[LAWS]
Knock-on:
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 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.
[/LAWS]

the 'and' applies to all three

 

[didds]

If it had happened on halfway and after the ball went back from the leg followed by an England knock on in trying to retrieve the loose ball, what would we expect to be awarded?

Cos I dont beleive for one moment wed have had a similar long convoluted To4 discussion about it...

 

[Camquin]

Actually that is the definition not the law.

If you foolishly go to law 11 looking for enlightenment you find none.
I think we all agree that the laws need to be rewritten by someone who actually knows about clarity.
I find it telling they credit the graphic designer and not the authors.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Actually that is the definition not the law.

If you foolishly go to law 11 looking for enlightenment you find none.
I think we all agree that the laws need to be rewritten by someone who actually knows about clarity.
I find it telling they credit the graphic designer and not the authors.

You read the law in conjunction with the definitions. In fairnes you always include the definitions in the specific laws although he it certainly could / should be.

 

[crossref]

I think you have proved my point as you have misunderstood the Law !

The law is actually (my line breask


[LAWS]
Knock-on:
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 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.
[/LAWS]

the 'and' applies to all three

althouhg jz558 has got me genuinely wondering now if the AND is only supposed to be to the last one !

 

[Rich_NL]

althouhg jz558 has got me genuinely wondering now if the AND is only supposed to be to the last one !

I don't think so. If in the first case the player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, but they catch it before it hits the ground, it's not a knock on. So the final clause applies to the first part too.