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

[Dickie E]

Sounds like that referee got it wrong.

Absolutely. And it would make little sense to change laws cos one community level ref got it wrong.

 

[belladonna]

Regarding the history part of the question, back in the 1970s there was no "deliberate knock on" as we currently understand it - and if a defender knocked on when trying to intercept the last pass to the winger (say) it was just a scrum. It seemed very unfair in some circumstances, particularly if the defender had no chance at all of catching the ball and they prevented a nailed-on scoring opportunity. The new law (1980s sometime?) was a big improvement in re-establishing fairness in this area.

 

[Ian_Cook]

　

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.

FWIW, I think a clue for referees is "hard hands" v "soft hands"... or "at the ball" v "to the ball"

An example of "hard hands" is a player who reactively jams an arm out "at the ball" in order to get their hand between the passer and the receiver. They should only going get away with this if they actually end up catching the ball. If they end up knocking the ball on, then I would regard that as deliberate or intentional.

An example of "soft hands" is a player who gets their body into position so that they can get their hand(s) "to the ball" in order to catch it. If they end up knocking the ball on, then I would regard that as accidental or unintentional.

In any case where a player deliberately knocks the ball ahead with the intention of regathering it, and then fails to do so, I would regard as an intentional knock on

Watch the first seven intercepts in this video...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij38G6IdQZI

The first two I would say are examples of "hard hands, at the ball". Had they dropped the ball, I would rule those as an intentional knock ons

The next five for mine are examples of "soft hands, to the ball". Had they dropped the ball, I would just call those as knock on.

 

[KoolFork]

I think some penalised knock-ons are probably not deliberate, eg where the ball hits a tackler's arms. This might encourage a hit with the arm wrap following

 

[Dickie E]

They should only going get away with this if they actually end up catching the ball. If they end up knocking the ball on, then I would regard that as deliberate or intentional.

saw this on Saturday which made me wonder. Player knocks ball forward and clearly catches it but by the time he caught it the ball was in touch. Decision?

 

[Camquin]

I would just give the line out.
The ball being over the plane does not mean it is dead.
So, his acton of catching it means it is not a knock-on but - assuming his feet are in touch - puts it into touch.

 

[Ian_Cook]

saw this on Saturday which made me wonder. Player knocks ball forward and clearly catches it but by the time he caught it the ball was in touch. Decision?

Lineout, opposition throw

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think some penalised knock-ons are probably not deliberate, eg where the ball hits a tackler's arms. This might encourage a hit with the arm wrap following

Generally, when the ball is knocked from an opponents grasp, that is never ruled as deliberate.

 

[Dickie E]

Generally, when the ball is knocked from an opponents grasp, that is never ruled as deliberate.

if it's knocked forward out of the opposing SH's hand as he picks it up at base of ruck, it is

 

[Ian_Cook]

if it's knocked forward out of the opposing SH's hand as he picks it up at base of ruck, it is

Almost certainly that is because the player doing the knocking-on is offside.

I've seen top level referees say "play on" when an onside opponent has done that (usually when the scrum-half is a bit slow getting the ball away)

Also, I think the poster I was replying to was talking about the ball being knocked on in a tackle.

 

[KoolFork]

Almost certainly that is because the player doing the knocking-on is offside.

I've seen top level referees say "play on" when an onside opponent has done that (usually when the scrum-half is a bit slow getting the ball away)

Also, I think the poster I was replying to was talking about the ball being knocked on in a tackle.

I was, but I was really talking about the tackle as the ball player is passing, not while still in their hands. When I was playing, you wouldn't have attempted a pass in those circumstances. Nowadays, there's a good chance you'll get a penalty, and sometimes see a player sent to the bin.

With replays you can see if the tackler changes their arm movement, but most referees have to make a single sight decision.

 

[crossref]

I was, but I was really talking about the tackle as the ball player is passing, not while still in their hands. When I was playing, you wouldn't have attempted a pass in those circumstances. Nowadays, there's a good chance you'll get a penalty, and sometimes see a player sent to the bin.

With replays you can see if the tackler changes their arm movement, but most referees have to make a single sight decision.

ie ball carriers are throwing the ball hoping to hit a tackler's arm, and gain a PK/YC ?

it's an interesting theory, I wouldn't rule it out completely, but in general surely that would not be a wise tactic?

 

[KoolFork]

ie ball carriers are throwing the ball hoping to hit a tackler's arm, and gain a PK/YC ?

it's an interesting theory, I wouldn't rule it out completely, but in general surely that would not be a wise tactic?

Hi crossref. I wouldn't go so far as suggesting it's a tactic, but I do think it makes more sense for defenders to wrap late to avoid this. In these situations the potential tackler is rarely in a position to intercept - they're often committed to the tackle. The ball hits the wrapping arm and invariably goes forward and down. My view is that many of these are not deliberate knock-ons.

 

[crossref]

Hi crossref. I wouldn't go so far as suggesting it's a tactic, but I do think it makes more sense for defenders to wrap late to avoid this. In these situations the potential tackler is rarely in a position to intercept - they're often committed to the tackle. The ball hits the wrapping arm and invariably goes forward and down. My view is that many of these are not deliberate knock-ons.

I think WR would say : tackle lower.

 

[KoolFork]

:smile:

 

[Ian_Cook]

ie ball carriers are throwing the ball hoping to hit a tackler's arm, and gain a PK/YC ?

it's an interesting theory, I wouldn't rule it out completely, but in general surely that would not be a wise tactic?

Agree.

If a tackler knocks the ball free in a tackle, that is a bonus for him. But, if that is what he is trying to do, he risks either missing the tackle, or injuring himself or his opponent, because he is likely to be trying to change his focus "on the fly". That is a very risky thing to do in today's outcome-driven refereeing environment, where intent is not taken into account.

 

[didds]

That is a very risky thing to do in today's outcome-driven refereeing environment, where intent is not taken into account.

Except as we know, it is. CF my thread a few weeks ago about the Italian defender on the england winger who was only penalised because the head contact was accidental - ie the To4 made a call that was based on intent.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

Except as we know, it is. CF my thread a few weeks ago about the Italian defender on the england winger who was only penalised because the head contact was accidental - ie the To4 made a call that was based on intent.

didds

Try swinging your arm at a player to knock the ball out, make a slight misjudgment, and clatter the ball carrier in the head, making direct contact, with force? What call do you think the T04 will make?

 

[didds]

all Im saying is that for all the talk in theory of intent not being considered, its clear that intent is considered constantly. As demonstrated by the TMO and ref in that E v I game.

meanwhile in answer, swinging arm, head contact with force, Red Card. But after that Eng v Ita episode who knows?

 

[Akira Nonaka]

"intentional knock-on" sounds a bit confusing to me. How about calling it "illegal interception"?