Willie Le Roux sin-binning for deliberate knock-on

[ACUSmember]

Can't see any discussion of this incident from this weekend's Scotland v South Africa match, which sadly doesn't appear on the BBC highlights, hence why no video link.

Scotland telegraph a big looping pass, Le Roux's eyes light up and he goes for the intercept, but whilst he gets a hand to it, he fails to take it cleanly, leading to a knock-on. After TMO review, Poite decides it's an intentional knock forwards, bins Le Roux and awards Scotland the penalty.

BBC commentators felt this to be harsh, and the normal law of commentators' opinions means this alone should be enough to vindicate Poite. However, I felt on this occasion the commentators had a point - Le Roux clearly wanted to catch the ball, since he had an uninterrupted run to the Scottish try line in front of him, and was to my mind trying to bat the ball up to recover it. I was therefore expecting a verdict of knock-on, and Scotland scrum.

Interested to know what the vastly more learned members of this forum made of the decision - was it an odd decision, or do I need to recalibrate what a deliberate knock forwards is?

Edit - please ignore the mistake in thread title - I know the offence is a deliberate knock forward, not a deliberate knock-on.

 

[didds]

Meh.

I've seen a 17 year colts winger attempting an intercept deep inside the oppo half not quite complete the action attempted, knock the ball UP (not over anybody's head etc) then fail to control it in a subsequent effort ending up with a knock on being sin binned for his actions. We are talking 70m at least from his own line and a definite score himself if he caught it.

Nothing surprises me any more.

didds

 

[davidlandy]

Seems to be standard fare these days if you go for it one-handed. If you succeed, 7 points. If you fail, 10 mins in the bin. Harsh but fair? Esp as he denied the opposition a scoring opportunity...

 

[crossref]

It's one of those ones where the referee is correctly following ill thought through and over-prescriptive WR guideline

WR are intent on eliminating judgement in favour of predicability

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Go for it one handed - you roll the dice.

Catch it you win, miss it you lose.

7 pts or a sit down.

I've had a couple this year: winners and losers.

 

[DocY]

I remember the incident.

For me, it was a very clear attempt at an interception (IICR Poite initially said he thought he was going for the intercept and changed his mind after the TMO.)

As others have said, the standard that seems to be being applied is "if it was with one hand, it was intentional" (though I was never told this officially - the best I got was a rule of thumb that if the palm was facing down it was probably intentional) and I've seen many YCs given when I'd have said it was unintentional.

@davidlandy Harsh but fair? Harsh, yes; fair, no. YCs are for cynical (and therefore, by definition intentional) infringements. Attempted interceptions are not cynical and the passer should not be protected from throwing interceptable passes.

 

[Taff]

It seemed harsh to me.

Why would he want to knock it forward when there was nobody in front of him?

 

[crossref]

WR guidance is no longer about whether it was intentional or not . They don't care. It about whether one hand or two was used

 

[Taff]

WR guidance is no longer about whether it was intentional or not . They don't care. It about whether one hand or two was used

In that case, they'd better change the wording of the law then, because at the moment it says

A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

I still think the South African was hard done by.

 

[Jz558]

Whilst asking why Willie Le Roux would want to knock forward a ball that had he caught would have led to an easy run in sounds a compelling argument to many, including I note Ugo Monye on his podcast, that simply isn’t the criteria for the referee’s decision.

We judge whether we believe the player had a realistic chance of gaining possession of the ball and from the footage I absolutely think Roman Poite could conclude that the player here overstretched. We’ve all been in positions where if we’d pulled off some miracle catch/tackle/break we’d have scored/prevented a fabulous try however intention and belief in ourselves isn’t enough. The referee judged that an outstretched arm, thrown in a desperate attempt to intercept a pass was not a credible attempt to catch the ball and given the number of successful one hand interceptions we actually see I don’t make him wrong. Furthermore having concluded that he overstretched, and given the lack of cover behind him a surely a YC is inevitable.

 

[crossref]

Perhaps they should change the name of the offence : a reckless knock forward , or something


Le Roux surely thought he had a realistic chance of catching it.

I think we need to see the video now ..

 

[davidlandy]

It's one of those ones where the referee is correctly following ill thought through and over-prescriptive WR guideline

WR are intent on eliminating judgement in favour of predicability

WR guidance is no longer about whether it was intentional or not . They don't care. It about whether one hand or two was used

CR, you've put it in a nutshell. This is why I say "harsh but fair" - with a question mark - because he clearly didn't *intend* to knock it on, so it's seemingly "harsh", but given the WR guidance the YC is consistent, and therefore "fair", not in the global sense of "equitable", but in the sense that these days the same offence will generally result in the same outcome.

One further thought. I'm old enough to remember the days when a defender could prevent a probable try by knocking on with little chance of interception, and it was hard for refs to call it as intentional (how would you know?) which seemed outrageous. The new law/guidance that a failed one-handed attempt would land your side a PK minimum was a very welcome change.

 

[crossref]

I actually think the 'realistic chance' wording is fine .. and that is how I ref it. But I don't think that aligns to the guidance given to pro refs

 

[Phil E]

He stuck his hand out and only got his fingertips to it.
The referee said that there was no realistic chance of intercepting the ball. Hence the penalty, and it stopped a pass that may have broken through, hence the yellow.
I thought it was a 50/50 ball that could have gone either way.

 

[didds]

that's fair enough Phil, and thanks all fo0r the explanation.

which is fine until one day somebody DOES just get a fingertip to it, but does get hold of the ball subsequently, and scores.

Now who is to say that there is no chance etc...


didds

 

[menace]

I think it gets worse....if you were bothered to watch Aus vd Italy (and why would you....it was a dire game)...Guazere had 2 and couldn't be consistent. Both deserved YC as they were not realistic positions...only 1 received YC.

The one by Read (while off his feet!) in Ire vs NZ was a lay down misere cynical knock down YC and only received a PK.

The WR clarification has made it more unclear than ever!!

 

[Zebra1922]

My main issue with this is not whether it was a deliberate knock on, but why that would automatically lead to a yellow card. I know it could be described as cynical play, but so could half the offences that occur in a game and you would get roundly criticised by all if you end up 10 v 11 for YC all these deliberate infringements.

FWIW I though this was not a genuine attempt to catch the ball, one handed at a stretch with little genuine prospect of catching. I'd have given a penalty but no YC.

 

[ACUSmember]

Found a video of the incident, complete with musings of BBC commentators.

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

 

[Pinky]

For me I thought it was harsh that he was YC. I can fully understand a penalty, though, as he did knock the ball forward and not in the act of trying to catch it, it seemed on the replay. He knocked it forward in the hope of subsequently catching it, and that is different and is not what is contemplated in the law.

 

[ChuckieB]

you could well argue that it was quite an intentional act given how long the ball was in the air. That he made no attempt to follow through with completing the interception once he touched it, he did himself no favours and a YC is quite understandable. Not harsh in my view.