Willie Le Roux sin-binning for deliberate knock-on

[crossref]

Nigel Owens discusses the general principles of what makes an intentional knock on with Brian Moore .. here from 29.45.

Not sure it sheds much light on it, but couple of nuggets

.. knocking the ball over a defenders head is an offence, even if you have a very realistic chance of regathering (we all knew that, right?)

.. refs are looking for tacklers who leave a loose arm in the tackle, hoping to disrupt any pass or offload : if successful that is a deliberate knock on (anyone heard of that before?)




Brian Moore is joined by the former England wing Tom May in this week's episode of Full Contact to discuss that sensational Ireland victory over the All Blacks, England's testing match against Japan, and Scotland's narrow loss to South Africa, and everything in between. We speak with former Ireland and Leinster prop Mike Ross about how Ireland were able to overcome New Zealand without Conor Murray, and we hear from Mike about what training is like under Joe Schmidt. Tom and Brian discuss the imp

* duration: 47:19, Played: 24:09

* Published: 19/11/2018 17:12:42

* Episode Download link (65 MB): https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp...vj/EP74_Full_Contact_Episode_Comp_mixdown.mp3

* Show Notes: https://telegraphmediagroup.podbean...ck-into-the-match-and-ireland-didnt-let-them/

* Episode feed: Brian Moore's Full Contact - https://telegraphmediagroup.podbean.com/feed/

 

[DocY]

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

[sigh] I can imagine this happening (and in a top flight game, too. I could even guess who the referee would be).

"PEEEP! No realistic chance of catching the ball, that's a penalty and yellow card"
"But sir, I did catch the ball!"
"That was luck. You couldn't have realistically expected to catch it"

 

[didds]

so extending this thought...

red on the attack. Red 12 passes loosely to red 13 outside him. its hanging in the air way in front of red 13 who sticks at hand out in a vain attempt to catch it, but there's no realistic chance of doing so and he hits the ball with his fingertips and it goes forward and hits the ground. That's a YC right?

didds

 

[DocY]

so extending this thought...

red on the attack. Red 12 passes loosely to red 13 outside him. its hanging in the air way in front of red 13 who sticks at hand out in a vain attempt to catch it, but there's no realistic chance of doing so and he hits the ball with his fingertips and it goes forward and hits the ground. That's a YC right?

didds

Or if it's the realistic chance of catching the ball is paramount, surely if it's knocked *backwards* that's just as bad!

TBH I would like to see the law changed so that cutting out a pass by deliberately knocking the ball back is an offence.

 

[crossref]

!

TBH I would like to see the law changed so that cutting out a pass by deliberately knocking the ball back is an offence.

A "got to let them pass it" Law ?

 

[DocY]

A "got to let them pass it" Law ?

Not quite - maybe something like:

"When an opposition player has thrown the ball, a player must not intentionally knock the ball down without attempting to catch it"

Whatever the wording, I'd want to rule out negative play - so tapping the ball back to a team mate, for example, should still be allowed.

 

[Rich_NL]

I thought it was a YC real-time. While I think he was going for the intercept, I think he misjudged it, had no reasonable chance, and disrupted an attack.

You can hardly blame WR going for prescriptive predictability - week after week it's the plea from coaches and pundits alike, that inconsistency is ruining the game.

 

[crossref]

I think they need to change the name of the offence
They are penalising a reckless knock on, rather than an intentional one. That might be easier to understand

 

[oliver]

so extending this thought...

red on the attack. Red 12 passes loosely to red 13 outside him. its hanging in the air way in front of red 13 who sticks at hand out in a vain attempt to catch it, but there's no realistic chance of doing so and he hits the ball with his fingertips and it goes forward and hits the ground. That's a YC right?

didds

Extending it a little more.

Red 12 passes to red 13 outside him. It's hanging in the air way in front of red 13. Black 14 sees the overthrow and is shooting up to collect the over thrown pass. Field is clear in front of him.
Red 13 reaches a hand out at the ball in a vain attempt to catch it, but there's no realistic chance of doing so and he hits the ball with his fingertips and it goes forward and hits the ground.

 

[didds]

that's the same scenario surely?

unless of the added point of it possibly also being a PT of course?

didds

 

[DocY]

that's the same scenario surely?

unless of the added point of it possibly also being a PT of course?

didds

I think it's easier to describe the second situation as cynical, but it's pretty similar and both demonstrate an (IMO) silly double standard.

 

[didds]

But the point at discussion isn't about being cynical. It's about attempting something that isn't realistic

see post #20.

didds

 

[DocY]

But the point at discussion isn't about being cynical. It's about attempting something that isn't realistic

see post #20.

didds

For deciding on a penalty, sure, but we're still only giving card for cynical offences, right?

 

[crossref]

For deciding on a penalty, sure, but we're still only giving card for cynical offences, right?

Cynical offences yes, but also for attempted interceptions

 

[didds]

Cynical offences yes, but also for attempted interceptions

but thats not a distinction made in the laws that are being used to support the YC for attempting and failing at something that was unrealistic.

so what about the attacking centre scenario?

didds

 

[Arabcheif]

I think that a card in that situation was harsh. For me he had his hand was above his head and was palm down slightly. I think this is why the YC was given. If it was out in front of him at say waist height then his palm wouldn't have been face down (most likely). I do think he wanted possession and so think is was harsh but it's in the Law.

In the case where the opposite (the attacking player knocks it down deliberately, I would think that the pass being directed towrads him give a reasonable expectation?? But the law quoted earlier doesn't really make a distinction between an attacking team (In possession) or a defending team (not in Possession). So I guess if you deam it a deliberate knock on from the pass receiver then a YC would be justified? Maybe include it in your brief at the start of the game so they're aware?

 

[DocY]

Maybe include it in your brief at the start of the game so they're aware?

I think we were engaging in reductio ad absurdam. I was, anyway.

 

[crossref]

I thought , so was Arabcheif !