[Law] When and why the intentional knock-on rule was added to the rugby laws?

[Akira Nonaka]

I am wondering why we have 11.3 intentional knock-on rule for a long time and want to know the origin.
The background of my questions is I personally think that this rule is not necessary since very often it is not applied correctly. For example, this is the clip from the Japanese top-league. I cannot think the blue 15 knocked the ball INTENTIONALLY.


https://youtu.be/1erCu9f2cFk?t=81

 

[SimonSmith]

I'm OK with that card.

He was in position to regather the ball, it went forward and denied Red their ability to play what they wanted in the red zone. Sometimes in the law book "intentional" means a little more than deliberate.

OB will no doubt be along shortly to give chapter, verse, and history.

 

[Dickie E]

card & PT OK for me. Blue #15 was never in a position to realistically catch the ball and just stuck out his hand.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I personally think that this rule is not necessary since very often it is not applied correctly.

It is in my personal opinion that I think that for me that the possible fact that a law might not be refereed correctly is not a reason for removing it. It is a reason for applying in correctly. Personally speaking.

 

[didds]

And its how it is universally interpreted and applied - nobody can be in any real doubt.

I personally think being dominant at a scrum is sufficient for the purposes of disrupting the oppo ball hugely, or even winning the ball. I really dont see continuous PKs for merely being strong with a big shove as "correct". It turns scrums into penalty machines for one thing rather than being a low key method of getting the ball back into play. But... its how its interpreted and blown currently and nobody can be in any doubt about that so I just accept it - it doesnt fit my personal thoughts but it is what it is.

 

[OB..]

OB will no doubt be along shortly to give chapter, verse, and history.

You called?

The earliest printed laws from 1845 listed several offences, including the knock-on, but no sanctions. The assumption is that play was restarted with a scrum.

At that time there were no officials to run the game - it was down to the players themselves. The modern equivalent is primary school children playing tag in the playground. They agree the rules themselves - no teachers are involved.

By 1889 the law prescribed a "free kick by way of penalty" for certain offences. "Wilfully offending" became such an offence, and covered the deliberate knock-on.

Current law is specific:-

11.3 A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.

If an intercept attempt is reckless or unrealistic, referees are expected to treat it as deliberate.

 

[Akira Nonaka]

　

If an intercept attempt is reckless or unrealistic, referees are expected to treat it as deliberate.

Thank you very much for the information. The origin of the intentional knock-on is pretty old than I thought.

I still think even an intercept attempt "looks" reckless or unrealistic, encouraging that kind of difference play will make rugby more fun and exiting rather than penalizing it.

 

[OB..]

　

Thank you very much for the information. The origin of the intentional knock-on is pretty old than I thought.

I still think even an intercept attempt "looks" reckless or unrealistic, encouraging that kind of difference play will make rugby more fun and exiting rather than penalizing it.

I think rescinding that law would lead to problems. If all you could gain would be giving away a scrum, why would that be more exciting? Or do you find scrums more exciting than open play?

However I don't think we need worry. I see no prospect of the law being changed. Not even Stephen Jones is calling for a change.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

[FONT=&][/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]https://youtu.be/1erCu9f2cFk?t=81[/FONT]
[FONT=&] [/FONT]

To tell you the truth, I do not think the ball went forward relative to the ground

 

[Dickie E]

To tell you the truth, I do not think the ball went forward relative to the ground

Interesting. Does it need to? Or does changing the flight of the ball so that it is going "more forwards" meet requirements?

Definition here for reference:

[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 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]

 

[Akira Nonaka]

Thank you all for the comments. I understand I am alone.

BTW. Please allow me to continue this thread a little bit. Has anyone know this article is applied in the real game?

[LAWS]11.7 A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward. Sanction: Penalty.[/LAWS]

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Interesting. Does it need to? Or does changing the flight of the ball so that it is going "more forwards" meet requirements?

Definition here for reference:

[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 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]

From definitions Forward: Towards the opposition’s dead-ball line

 

[Dickie E]

From definitions Forward: Towards the opposition’s dead-ball line

OK. SH passes the ball to #10 at an angle of 45 degrees. It's not a great pass and the best the #10 can do is get a finger tip to the ball such that the ball is deflected as shown in this diagram. Knock on?

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

OK. SH passes the ball to #10 at an angle of 45 degrees. It's not a great pass and the best the #10 can do is get a finger tip to the ball such that the ball is deflected as shown in this diagram. Knock on?

unh-uh


"nope" for clarity

 

[Wedgie]

I do feel that Akira's question highlights the current interpretation of law 11.3. IMHO (and given all the tweaks, application guidances etc of the previous few seasons I really want the game to stabilize for a while) this is the one that I would wish would change. Probably discussed already in this parish, but it just feels too polarised. Being conscious of fine margins (a fraction of an inch here or there in catching/knocking on) and instinctive reactions but, on the other hand, professionalism: either the interception is made and a high chance of 7pts under the posts at one end or penalty try, 7pts and yellow card and 10 minutes at the other end. A little more empathy in the reffing would not go amiss, I feel...

 

[didds]

no doubt because of the elite end harsh interptations seen on TV, I once witnessed a winger carded for a deliberate knock on 15m out from the opponents line in an attempt at a interception and definite score had he made it... the "deliberate knock on" was juggled a couple of times before being actually knocked on.

this was in a U15 game.

 

[thepercy]

no doubt because of the elite end harsh interptations seen on TV, I oncfe wiotnessed a winder carded for a deliberate knock on 15m out from the opponents line in an attempt at a interception and definite score had he made it... the "deleiberate knock on" was juggled a couple of times before beign actually knocked on.

this was in a U15 game.

Sounds like that referee got it wrong. Surely if you are juggling the ball you have a realistic chance of gathering the ball, which is the standard for a standard knock-on to become a intentional one.

 

[didds]

Sounds like that referee got it wrong. Surely if you are juggling the ball you have a realistic chance of gathering the ball, which is the standard for a standard knock-on to become a intentional one.

You might say that - I couldn't POSSIBLY comment.

;-)

OK I will. Over jealous and unempathetic refereeing. A total lack of understanding of what had just happened, and why the interpretations were used in SOME circumstances at the elite level.



didds

 

[Decorily]

Sounds like that referee got it wrong. Surely if you are juggling the ball you have a realistic chance of gathering the ball, which is the standard for a standard knock-on to become a intentional one.

Or maybe interpret as juggling = possession and therefore in this case it was simply a knock on!

 

[thepercy]

Or maybe interpret as juggling = possession and therefore in this case it was simply a knock on!

Yes, we agree on that it does not sound like an intentional knock.