This weekend between the Blues and the Rebels the Blues players lost the ball forward and kicked it before it hit the ground. The Blues scored and TMO allowed the try. What I want to know losing it forward and kicking it is it a knock and where is controll mentioned in the laws
What constitues a kick in rugby
- Thread starter Rassie
- Start date
We've debated this here before. I take the stance that you can't stop a knock-on by sticking out a foot. Here's the knock-on definition:
Definition: Knock-on
A knock-on occurs 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 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
Definition: Knock-on
A knock-on occurs 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 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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
I bolded the areas I feel apply to the knock-on kick. My take is 'did the player catch the ball before it touched the ground or another player'? No, he kicked the ball away.
Always a knock-on in my book.
Unfortunately the cameraman at 1:50 doesn't show if the ball bounces on the ground (which would make it a knock on) or not (in which case the discussion becomes more interesting).
I personally agree with pwhaling - had the player wanted to punt the ball, no need to get his hands down that low - but at the speed the player was moving while trying to catch it properly, it could be argued that knock-ons are relative to his motion, and it does seem (from the frames I can see) that the ball went backwards from his hands (in front of him) to his boot (right below him).
That said, this is an area which the TMO is apparently not allowed to adjudicate when asked, and for that matter not even within the 22 but around 8 metres in front, so even if he were allowed to judge forwards, it would not be in the zone.
Long story short: if you support the Blues, it was a brilliant play. If you support the Rebels, you got robbed. If you are an armchair referee, welcome and consider taking up the whistle!
I personally agree with pwhaling - had the player wanted to punt the ball, no need to get his hands down that low - but at the speed the player was moving while trying to catch it properly, it could be argued that knock-ons are relative to his motion, and it does seem (from the frames I can see) that the ball went backwards from his hands (in front of him) to his boot (right below him).
That said, this is an area which the TMO is apparently not allowed to adjudicate when asked, and for that matter not even within the 22 but around 8 metres in front, so even if he were allowed to judge forwards, it would not be in the zone.
Long story short: if you support the Blues, it was a brilliant play. If you support the Rebels, you got robbed. If you are an armchair referee, welcome and consider taking up the whistle!
I bolded the areas I feel apply to the knock-on kick. My take is 'did the player catch the ball before it touched the ground or another player'? No, he kicked the ball away.
Here's the kick definition:
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
My take is "Did the player kick the ball"? Yes - so what's the problem?
Now, where there is a contradiction between two laws, why don't we just assume that the law that keeps the game flowing takes precedence?
My take is "Did the player kick the ball"? Yes - so what's the problem?
Now, where there is a contradiction between two laws, why don't we just assume that the law that keeps the game flowing takes precedence?
Would a kick save a forward pass?
Taff, I had that happen last weekend. The ball dribbled three yards forward from the "kicker". I whistled (no advantage was on) and the player said it was a kick. I said "no it isn't" and players on both sides laughed. Not at my incredible wit, simply that they know what a kick looks like as well as you do. (If the ball goes forward 30 metres, it looks like a kick to me too).
Later on, the same team had the fullback saying "he dropped it" on scoring (I was behind the try-line myself, well positioned to see). "No it wasn't". "Well, it was worth a try", he replied. Go figure.
Later on, the same team had the fullback saying "he dropped it" on scoring (I was behind the try-line myself, well positioned to see). "No it wasn't". "Well, it was worth a try", he replied. Go figure.
How could it? A forward pass does not require a receiver. It depends entirely on the action of the passer.
I have said elsewhere that I think the law should say that releasing the ball forward in order to effect a punt or drop kick is not a knock-on.
That would resolve the issue because if you are not holding the ball, you cannot release it.
Do you mean "Would a player who dropped the ball forward (but managed to kick it before it touched the ground) be deemed to have knocked-on?"
I would say no. IMO the law can be read both ways - so why not give the benefit of the doubt to the law that allows play to continue?
Last edited:
Browner
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 6,000
- Post Likes
- 270
Dearest Rassie,
A kick is when you propel your foot into the opposition player [usually on the floor & undefended....aka a cheap shot] deliberately trying to hurt him, if you're called Botha then you are excused this dirty play because it falls under the classification of "only doing your job" !!
A kick is when you propel your foot into the opposition player [usually on the floor & undefended....aka a cheap shot] deliberately trying to hurt him, if you're called Botha then you are excused this dirty play because it falls under the classification of "only doing your job" !!
LMOADearest Rassie,
A kick is when you propel your foot into the opposition player [usually on the floor & undefended....aka a cheap shot] deliberately trying to hurt him, if you're called Botha then you are excused this dirty play because it falls under the classification of "only doing your job" !!
My take is "Did the player kick the ball"? Yes - so what's the problem?
Now, where there is a contradiction between two laws, why don't we just assume that the law that keeps the game flowing takes precedence?
So how do you get round the requirement to catch the ball before (etc)?
The awkward factor here is that you have to release the ball forward to kick it, yet that is, by necessary convention, not counted as a knock-on. I see no need to extend that to a situation where a player has tried to catch the ball but failed.
The question really is the question of control? Are control a required as control is stated in the IRB's charter
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 13,682
- Post Likes
- 1,768
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Dearest Rassie,
A kick is when you propel your foot into the opposition player [usually on the floor & undefended....aka a cheap shot] deliberately trying to hurt him, if you're called Botha then you are excused this dirty play because it falls under the classification of "only doing your job" !!
:nono:
I think it was a fair try.
I know we don't have an official "benefit of the doubt" policy in RU, but generally, the benefit of the doubt does go in favour of the player of the ball...
► Referee sees it as forward - its ruled as forward.
► Referee sees it as not forward - play on!
► Referee is unable to determine whether or not it was forward - play on!
That is benefit of the doubt any way you slice it.
I don't believe it was possible to tell of the ball even touched Saili's hands, and even if you assume it did, can you tell for sure of the ball was propelled forwards from his hands to his foot. If not, then it would be no different to a "speculator"... fair try.
EDIT
"Speculator" = "Fly Hack"
Last edited:
I must admit that I can't actually see the ball touch the hands, let alone see whether it has gone forward from the hands, so on that basis it probably should be awarded.
To play devil's advocate, I note that the AR commented that he thought the ball had been knocked on, so it may be that if the referee accepted the AR's opinion and there was no clear evidence to suggest the AR was wrong, so perhaps the ruling should have been a knock-on.
As for the philosophical argument about whether a player who either:
(a) drops the ball forward; or
(b) knocks it forward without ever holding it;
and then deliberately kicks it, I think it is a knock-on.
The ball has gone forward and has touched the ground or another player before the player who lost control of the ball has caught it. For me, it matters not that the ball has also hit a foot in between the ball being lost forward and the ball touching the ground. I am a little surprised that this is an issue - I thought this was a well-established principle and I certainly have always ruled it this way.
.
To play devil's advocate, I note that the AR commented that he thought the ball had been knocked on, so it may be that if the referee accepted the AR's opinion and there was no clear evidence to suggest the AR was wrong, so perhaps the ruling should have been a knock-on.
As for the philosophical argument about whether a player who either:
(a) drops the ball forward; or
(b) knocks it forward without ever holding it;
and then deliberately kicks it, I think it is a knock-on.
The ball has gone forward and has touched the ground or another player before the player who lost control of the ball has caught it. For me, it matters not that the ball has also hit a foot in between the ball being lost forward and the ball touching the ground. I am a little surprised that this is an issue - I thought this was a well-established principle and I certainly have always ruled it this way.
.
winchesterref
Referees in England
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 2,014
- Post Likes
- 197
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
Clear and obvious loss of control + kick forwards I will give as a knock on. Any doubt about it and I will allow play to continue, giving the attacking team the benefit of the doubt.
talbazar
Referees in Singapore
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 702
- Post Likes
- 81
I've got as problem with this. As far as I understand, intention is never taken into consideration in applying rugby law. In applying saction maybe (that's management of the game), but not for applying the law itself.
As such, a kick is a kick... Evenif it's not meant initially.
If a player fumbles the ball and kicks it before it touches the ground or an oposition player, play on!
To me the last part of the law saying "before the original player can catch it" means that the player is allowed to play the ball after loosing control, not that he can only catch it and nothing else...
My 2 cents,
Pierre.