[2019 Super Rugby] Semi Finals (29 June 2019)

[bushytop]

Going back to the Laumape 'chest' forwards, I'm probably wrong but I was under the impression that if the ball was propelled forward off of any part of the players body above the knee then it should be judged a knock on. Not that I agree with that law if I am correct, I applaud Laumape's creativity and skill in the moment but I'm just not sure that it is legal.

 

[Al Bangor]

Going back to the Laumape 'chest' forwards, I'm probably wrong but I was under the impression that if the ball was propelled forward off of any part of the players body above the knee then it should be judged a knock on. Not that I agree with that law if I am correct, I applaud Laumape's creativity and skill in the moment but I'm just not sure that it is legal.

I don't know if it was legal or not, but it sure looked cool.

 

[bushytop]

I don't know if it was legal or not, but it sure looked cool.

Agreed.

 

[die_mole]

Going back to the Laumape 'chest' forwards, I'm probably wrong but I was under the impression that if the ball was propelled forward off of any part of the players body above the knee then it should be judged a knock on. Not that I agree with that law if I am correct, I applaud Laumape's creativity and skill in the moment but I'm just not sure that it is legal.

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.

I'm always amazed when people think they know the law better than the people who spend 1000s of hours training as a referee.

 

[bushytop]

I'm always amazed when people think they know the law better than the people who spend 1000s of hours training as a referee.

I actually started by saying "I'm probably wrong..." just in case there were any Vicodin junkies waiting to pounce. Guess it was a worthy prefix!

 

[bushytop]

I'm always amazed when people think they know the law better than the people who spend 1000s of hours training as a referee.

I actually started by saying "I'm probably wrong..." just in case there were any Vicodin junkies waiting to pounce. Guess it was a worthy prefix!

In addition to this, a knock-on was actually called against Wales during this years 6N when we were playing against Italy and the ball bounced forwards off what the ref thought to be Jonathan Davies's thigh (although having watched the replay back a few times it looked to bounce off his leg just below the knee).

I distinctly recall the commentators mentioning that as the ref thought it bounced forwards off Davies thigh, that is why it was called a knock-on. So there is definitely more to the knock on than this very black and white rule... there must be more shades of grey to it... and that is why I called this out, even though I applauded the skill and quick thinking the move took AND I even stated I would disagree with the law if it were illegal.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

So there is definitely more to the knock on than this very black and white rule... there must be more shades of grey to it... and that is why I called this out, even though I applauded the skill and quick thinking the move took AND I even stated I would disagree with the law if it were illegal.

No, there is not. Laws of the game

KNOCK-ON
1-A knock-on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2-It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).
3-A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4-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.
5-The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a) A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
b) A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent's hand or arm.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11&language=EN

There are some areas in the laws of the game where interpretation does play a big role. This aint one of them.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

By the way, just saw the replay of the last call.
Oh boy. He did get that terribly wrong. Cant believe TJ didnt complain about it.

 

[bushytop]

No, there is not. Laws of the game

KNOCK-ON
1-A knock-on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2-It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).
3-A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4-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.
5-The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a) A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
b) A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent's hand or arm.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11&language=EN

There are some areas in the laws of the game where interpretation does play a big role. This aint one of them.

Yeah I've read all this, read it all before I posted... the reason I posted is down to incidents I've seen in games that don't comply with these rules.

 

[bushytop]

No, there is not. Laws of the game

KNOCK-ON
1-A knock-on may occur anywhere in the playing area.
2-It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum (if the ball goes into touch, the non-offending team may opt instead for a quick-throw or lineout).
3-A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4-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.
5-The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a) A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it (charge down).
b) A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent's hand or arm.

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11&language=EN

There are some areas in the laws of the game where interpretation does play a big role. This aint one of them.

I'm always amazed when people think they know the law better than the people who spend 1000s of hours training as a referee.

Right after much googling I found the issue that I was attempting to refer to.

In fairness it doesn't relate specifically to the Laumape incident but I knew that I wasn't simply imaging it. It turns out, if a player has handled the ball (THIS is where it differs from the incident in question), whether holding it or attempting to catch it and then the ball is dropped (even if the drop itself is backwards) and then it hits a part of the players body above the knee... and then is propelled forwards it is a knock on.

So for instance say a player was diving to catch a ball, mishandles it backwards onto his knee or above and the ball travels even slightly forwards from that point (may not even be as far forwards as the initial backwards touch of his hands) it is a knock on.

BTW... this being a rugby forum, I'd imagine that this was part of the reason for it being created in the first place... to discuss the intracacies of the games minutiae, rather than simply taking small snippets of what someone has posted in an attempt to throw shade... but then I remembered the world we live in and realised; nope it was created for people who interpret what they want from where they want and throw shade right back at it.

 

[petite]

what a game! the cruzaders and the canes displayed great rugby a joy to watch. both teams a above everybody else.
imo this season its been jaguaes who came the closest considering we beat the hurricanes away. but today at full strength the where supreb.
ill take a miracle for the saders to loose at home.

 

[Icemn]

Weird how that sam hand was not referred
But also remember Beaudi missed 2 and Jordi missed 3...

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

the reason I posted is down to incidents I've seen in games that don't comply with these rules.

They do most of the time and when they don't it's one of two options

1) Either the ref disagrees with what happened (saw something different)
2) or because the ref made a mistake.

In fairness it doesn't relate specifically to the Laumape incident but I knew that I wasn't simply imaging it. It turns out, if a player has handled the ball (THIS is where it differs from the incident in question), whether holding it or attempting to catch it and then the ball is dropped (even if the drop itself is backwards) and then it hits a part of the players body above the knee... and then is propelled forwards it is a knock on.

I cannot believe you've been posting here since 2011 and didn't know that. I mean no disrespect. I sincerely can't.

 

[bushytop]

They do most of the time and when they don't it's one of two options

1) Either the ref disagrees with what happened (saw something different)
2) or because the ref made a mistake.


I cannot believe you've been posting here since 2011 and didn't know that. I mean no disrespect. I sincerely can't.

Well it simply wasn't clear in my mind as these incidents don't crop up every day... and the only bit that did ring a bell was regarding the ball coming off a body part above the knee causing a knock on. The reason I posted was that I hoped someone would provide the full explanation regarding that rather than 1. It simply being shut down and 2. Me having to google it myself. I actually found the info I was looking for on a refereeing forum where it was even unclear to some of them.

The fact that I specifically mentioned a body part above the knee made me think that someone would know the law I was referring to but obvs not.

 

[Bean]

God damn I bet that gave some Crusader fans a bit of a heart attack.

Congrats on another Super C'ship too BTW.

 

[miccloarch]

The fact that I specifically mentioned a body part above the knee made me think that someone would know the law I was referring to but obvs not.

There is no such law.

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs 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.

-----

There have been a few headers ending up in perfectly legal tries.

"Hands in the ruck" on the other hand is not as clear, though I doubt I'm the only Cane fan who thinks we were outright robbed with Whitelock's infringement at the end there.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

As a non cane/sader, i blame perenara. Not for the game (missed several kicks, first half, etc) but for that last call.

If there was one moment for him to speak up, that was it. It wasn't that the ref saw the play and dismissed it. I am pretty sure they didn't see what happened. It's unfortunate but it does happen.
Now, it is not acceptable for Perenara to miss that. He was there, his hand was the one block and he should have gone straight to the ref about it, furiously so. God knows he loves to talk.
I hate it, but his job is winning and that scene would have triggered the TMO to, at the very least, have a look. Once the TMO has a look, it is virtually impossible to miss and that would have been a penalty for the canes at least.

EDIT: i am not sure the TMO would have been allowed to interfere there.

 

[bushytop]

There is no such law.

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs 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.

-----

There have been a few headers ending up in perfectly legal tries.

"Hands in the ruck" on the other hand is not as clear, though I doubt I'm the only Cane fan who thinks we were outright robbed with Whitelock's infringement at the end there.

As I originally said when starting this conversation, "I've probably got this wrong"... which in relation to the Laumape incident I did, so conversely I was right but my confusion stemmed from hearing 'part' of the law about knock ons which just confused what is rather a simple rule... and maybe I didn't explain myself well first up. Though I'd imagine this clear explanation will still be misinterpreted by some... maybe you.

For some reason, maybe I only heard part of a conversation, or part of a commentary (or whatever) but the thing that stuck with me was if the ball came off part of the body above the knee and was propelled forwards, it was a knock on. It probably stuck with me because in isolation it stuck out like a sore thumb! As I have been at pains to then go on and fully elaborate on... i then located the full information about what I could partially recall, which is that (& as I said it's extreme simple, the fact that I only over heard part of it/remembered part of it caused my confusion) that the ball being propelled forwards by a body part above the knee being a knock on ONLY if first touched by the hand or arm.

As I said, it's not overly complicated and the Laumape incident is definitely not a knock on as his hands and arms had nothing to do with it... and the knock on rule is exactly as I thought it was prior to partially hearing/rembering a small part of the rule, which only served to cloud the issue.

 

[smartcooky]

There is no such law.

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
A knock-on occurs 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.

100%

Where the confusion sometimes comes in is that people see the ball hit the player's a thigh, or a leg or a head, and they forget that initially the player dropped or lost the ball or propelled or knocked it. It does not matter if the ball touches any other part of the player's body, none of it affects the outcome. The ONLY things that can prevent a dropped, lost or propelled ball from becoming a knock-on are...

1. if the ball first touches the ground level with or behind where it was lost.
2. if the original player catches the ball before it touches the ground

For example, if a player reaches out to catch a ball, and the ball deflects backwards from his hand(s) onto his abdomen and bounces forward onto the ground in front of where he touched it, that is a knock-on even thought the initial knock from his hands went backwards.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

he ONLY things that can prevent a dropped, lost or propelled ball from becoming a knock-on are...

or a drop kick.

I know a few people who have tried to kick the ball after the first bounce to prevent the ref from calling a knock on, myself included. I was in my team's 22 and the kick went about 5 mts far.
Referee had to wait a minute before he warned me because he couldnt stop laughing.

On a related note, I once saw a team that performed the following play: fixed formation, say scrum, SH passes to FH. FH passes a bit of a high flat pass to 1C. 1C goes towards the ball and without using his hands heads the ball straight from the pass over the rushing defence line, a good 10-15 meters. 2C and FB chase at full speed, open enough to cover potential bounces but close enough to support each other.
The defence never saw what hit them. Some of the most creative stuff i've ever seen. Not sure if a ref might call it for being against good sportsmanship or something. The ref there did not.

I asked after the game about it and they said their success rate was terrible with that play, that it had cost them quite a few tries against them but that is. The pass and the header have to be reasonably accurate and that is quite difficult to perform at speed.