[Law] Whose knock-on is it anyway ?

[Arabcheif]

So... Here's the definition....

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, [/FONT]or [FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The definition makes a difference between being in possession and knocking the ball forward. While he's available to tackle, he's not "in possession" for a knock-on. What I mean by that is.... [/FONT]

[FONT=fs_blakeregular, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I'm running with the ball. The ball slips out of my arm/hands and I drop it (forward). Can hit anywhere on my body and still be a knock on. Hacking at the ball with my foot doesn't count. Conversely to this, I'm receiving a pass, I've knocked the ball forward but up, I'm attempting to gain possession, but this is good enough for a tackle. But the tackle Law and the knock on Law are different.

For a knock on all that needs to happen is the ball needs to hit my hand(s) or arm(s) and go forward and hit the ground, post (inc padding) or another player. This is what happened here, put simply. The ball was knocked forward by red, the it hit blue when he played it. Like I said, if you judge it was a deliberate Knock On the PK that, if not it's 2 Knock Ons, penalise the first.[/FONT]

 

[beckett50]

so if Red player was juggling the ball and it bounced off an in-front team mate and back into his hands ... that is play on?

I would suggest that my learned friend write a request for Clarification to WR.

The LotG defines 'Possession' as thus:

Possession: [FONT=fs_blakeregular]An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.
[/FONT]
In your scenario I would give "Accidental Off-side; scrum Blue"

 

[Dickie E]

For a knock on all that needs to happen is the ball needs to hit my hand(s) or arm(s) and go forward and hit the ground, post (inc padding) or another player. This is what happened here, put simply. The ball was knocked forward by red, the it hit blue when he played it. Like I said, if you judge it was a deliberate Knock On the PK that, if not it's 2 Knock Ons, penalise the first.[/COLOR][/FONT]

I don't understand the logic of penalising a non-dangerous infringement that has happened after a knock-on.

For example, White knock-on and the ball is caught by a Black player on the ground. Are you going to ping the White knock-on or the Black "playing the ball on the ground"?

How is this different to Red knock-on in the juggle then Blue batting the ball forward?

Or are you saying that Blue batting the ball forward CAUSED the knock-on by Red?

All a bit Schroedinger's Cat but interesting none the less.

 

[Arabcheif]

@Dickie sorry for the confusion.

in the OP there's 2 knock ons. First as Red 13 is attempting to gather the ball, he's knocked it forward. It becomes a knock on when Blue 13 touches the ball. Blue 13 then knocks the ball forward and is unable to regather (I'm guessing). To me this sounds like your basic 2 knock on - penalise the first one -Scrum Blue.

Now IF the blue 13 deliberately knocks on (slaps the ball down or miles in front, with no chance to regather). Then this will trump the original knock on, so I believe the PK should then be give for the deliberate knock on.

 

[crossref]

@Dickie sorry for the confusion.

in the OP there's 2 knock ons. First as Red 13 is attempting to gather the ball, he's knocked it forward. It becomes a knock on when Blue 13 touches the ball..

Are you sure, as red never lost possession ?
The ball was knocked out of his possession

 

[Arabcheif]

Are you sure, as red never lost possession ?
The ball was knocked out of his possession

Yes - He's knocked the ball forward and it hit an opposition player. That's in the definition of a knock on. What blue does is irrelevant at this point. There's the first knock on. He (blue), then knocks on himself. Unless you deem the 2nd knock on deliberate, you then go back to the 1st knock on as there's no advantage.

 

[OB..]

Yes - He's knocked the ball forward and it hit an opposition player. That's in the definition of a knock on. What blue does is irrelevant at this point. There's the first knock on. He (blue), then knocks on himself. Unless you deem the 2nd knock on deliberate, you then go back to the 1st knock on as there's no advantage.

That is one legalistic approach. However if he is deemed to have possession, he cannot have knocked on. That makes more sesne to me.

 

[didds]

in summary we have schroedinger's possession in essence here.

the ball is both in the process of being knocked on and being in possession at the same time.

didds

 

[crossref]

in summary we have schroedinger's possession in essence here.

the ball is both in the process of being knocked on and being in possession at the same time.

didds

Until the referee observes it and announces which one it is !

 

[Rich_NL]

That is one legalistic approach. However if he is deemed to have possession, he cannot have knocked on. That makes more sesne to me.

I disagree, as possession includes a player attempting to bring the ball under control. If someone clearly fumbles the ball a metre forward but would likely have regathered it had it not hit an opponent, I think most would call the knock on.

The less-sensible aspect is in the definition of possession, which is unusual but was brought in to allow tackling.

 

[Dickie E]

Yes - He's knocked the ball forward and it hit an opposition player. That's in the definition of a knock on. What blue does is irrelevant at this point. There's the first knock on. He (blue), then knocks on himself. Unless you deem the 2nd knock on deliberate, you then go back to the 1st knock on as there's no advantage.

its the bit in red (pun intended) that I want to explore. For this to be true, I guess you're using this from law 7:

[LAWS]Advantage ends when:

The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s)
[/LAWS]

When the law makers wrote 'foul play' I'm sure they meant 'dangerous play' and not 'deliberately offending'. Do you not agree?

 

[Jz558]

its the bit in red (pun intended) that I want to explore. For this to be true, I guess you're using this from law 7:

[LAWS]Advantage ends when:

The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s)
[/LAWS]

When the law makers wrote 'foul play' I'm sure they meant 'dangerous play' and not 'deliberately offending'. Do you not agree?

Why would they not have meant dangerous play OR deliberate offending?

 

[OB..]

I disagree, as possession includes a player attempting to bring the ball under control. If someone clearly fumbles the ball a metre forward but would likely have regathered it had it not hit an opponent, I think most would call the knock on.

The less-sensible aspect is in the definition of possession, which is unusual but was brought in to allow tackling.

If a player fumbles the ball a metre forward, it has gone out of his grasp. If it then hits an opponent it is clearly a knock-on.

However letting an opponent turn a bit of juggling into a knock-on simply by touching the ball does not make rugby sense to me.

 

[didds]

Until the referee observes it and announces which one it is !

yup.

Same as opening the box !

didds

 

[didds]

Ibut was brought in to allow tackling.

ie Tim Stimpson from 71 seconds in

didds

 

[Arabcheif]

its the bit in red (pun intended) that I want to explore. For this to be true, I guess you're using this from law 7:

[LAWS]Advantage ends when:

The non-offending team commits an infringement before they have gained an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the first infringement. If either or both infringements are for foul play, the referee applies the appropriate sanction(s) for the offence(s)
[/LAWS]

When the law makers wrote 'foul play' I'm sure they meant 'dangerous play' and not 'deliberately offending'. Do you not agree?

So the bit in read. If the player is in possession and juggling with the ball to actually catch it. He's going to be close to the ball, as he's free for a tackle, this makes him in possession. When the opposition player comes in to catch the ball in the air (to steal possession).

At this point the knock on criteria is fulfilled. But if the opposition player has infringed himself deliberately then he's committed one of 2 offences himself. He's either knocked on (accidentally), in which case there's no advantage from the knock on, so you blow for the original knock on from red.

If you believe that he'd deliberately knocked on, as red was still technically in possession and would've most likely regathered had it not been for the knock on from blue, then there's no 1st knock on but a PK offence from Blue. So you'd award the PK to red.

This is how I interpret the Laws surrounding Knock ons, juggling possession etc.

 

[OB..]

ie Tim Stimpson from 71 seconds in

didds

Tim Stimpson chased a kick through and initially kneed the ball forward. It bounced awkwardly and he reached up for it with his right hand, knocking it forward again. It went to his left and he tried once more to get his hand on it. As he did so, Vos tackled him. Stimpson hit the ground, slapped down on the ball over the line, and claimed he had scored. The referee awarded a scrum for the knock-on.

In a subsequent TV interview, Woodward reluctantly accepted that Stimpson had been in contact with the ball when he was tackled, thus making it a legal tackle.

 

[OB..]

So the bit in read. If the player is in possession and juggling with the ball to actually catch it. He's going to be close to the ball, as he's free for a tackle, this makes him in possession. When the opposition player comes in to catch the ball in the air (to steal possession).

At this point the knock on criteria is fulfilled. But if the opposition player has infringed himself deliberately then he's committed one of 2 offences himself. He's either knocked on (accidentally), in which case there's no advantage from the knock on, so you blow for the original knock on from red.

If you believe that he'd deliberately knocked on, as red was still technically in possession and would've most likely regathered had it not been for the knock on from blue, then there's no 1st knock on but a PK offence from Blue. So you'd award the PK to red.

This is how I interpret the Laws surrounding Knock ons, juggling possession etc.

In the early days, no juggling was allowed eg 1949[LAWS] A knock-on occurs when the ball, after striking the hand or arm of a player, travels in the direction of his opponents' dead ball line.[/LAWS]
1959 allowed some leeway
[LAWS]... provided that a movement of the ball in the player's grasp which is in the nature of a steadying or re-adjustment of the ball within his possession without loss of control is not a knock-on.[/LAWS]

In 1992 even more
[LAWS] ... and touches the ground or another player before it is recovered by the player.[/LAWS]

However the laws have never tried to deal with the overlap where an opponent knocks the ball on while it is still within the grasp of the original ball player. Indeed I think that would be hard to judge, and a hard sell. If the ball has gone outside the player's reach the situation is much more tractable.

Why make things harder for everyone by an inappropriate legalistic interpretation? Equity rules OK.

 

[Dickie E]

Why would they not have meant dangerous play OR deliberate offending?

Red are offside at a ruck and ref calls advantage to Blue. Blue SH decides he wants the PK so deliberately knocks the ball forward at base of ruck. Restart?

Red knock on in general play and ball is intentionally caught by Blue player who is on the ground and refuses to release it to an on-side Red player. Restart?

Red winger dives for the corner for a try but knocks the ball on. As the ball is bouncing in-goal, a Blue defender intentionally bats the ball with his hand over the deadball line. Restart?

 

[crossref]

Red are offside at a ruck and ref calls advantage to Blue. Blue SH decides he wants the PK so deliberately knocks the ball forward at base of ruck. Restart?

Red knock on in general play and ball is intentionally caught by Blue player who is on the ground and refuses to release it to an on-side Red player. Restart?

Red winger dives for the corner for a try but knocks the ball on. As the ball is bouncing in-goal, a Blue defender intentionally bats the ball with his hand over the deadball line. Restart?

Pk to blue (9 don't do that ..)
Scrum to blue
Scrum to blue