Could someone settle an argument??

[Togs]

I understand now that the 'forward pass' on Saturday was not deemed forward as the hands were going back as the pass was made. And it was terrific hands for the pick up as well. This led to a hypothetical debate tho! IF the pass had been forward & IF the ball had touched the ground before being collected by the recipient, would this be considered a knock-on or a forward pass? This led to some heated pub debating so would be interested to hear what the majority here think is the right answer?

 

[smartcooky]

I understand now that the 'forward pass' on Saturday was not deemed forward as the hands were going back as the pass was made. And it was terrific hands for the pick up as well. This led to a hypothetical debate tho! IF the pass had been forward & IF the ball had touched the ground before being collected by the recipient, would this be considered a knock-on or a forward pass? This led to some heated pub debating so would be interested to hear what the majority here think is the right answer?

First of all, we need to get the terminology right... there is no such thing as a "Forward Pass" as such, in the Laws of Rugby, only a "Throw Forward". The term "pass" implies a receiver, but a receiver is not required for a "throw"

The only place on the Law book that uses the words "forward pass" is in the Referee Signals section

[TEXTAREA]7. Throw forward / forward pass
Hands gesture as if passing an imaginary ball
forward.[/TEXTAREA]

So, what does the Law actually say?

[TEXTAREA]Law 12 Knock-on or Throw Forward

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.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
EXCEPTION
Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or
immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel
forward.

DEFINITION: THROW FORWARD
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
EXCEPTION
Bounce forward. If the ball is not thrown forward but it hits a player or the
ground and bounces forward, this is not a throw forward.[/TEXTAREA]

The knock-on definition implies either striking the ball, or an involuntary loss of possession, while the throw forward definition implies the intentional act of throwing the ball.

For this reason, IMO, your scenario matches the description of a throw forward.

 

[Togs]

Cheers 'Smart' for your reply. This was certainly the one argument that was put forward during our debate! And having also previously looked at the terminology used in the rules myself I can certainly see this side.
Others however felt that the ball travelling forward out of the hands & making contact with the ground simply has to be considered a knock on.
I guess the way the rules are worded it implies that it comes down to the intention. As you point out the rules involve 'throwing' the ball forward or involuntarily 'hitting' the ball forward.
Is this our definitive answer?!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

As you say, the intention was clearly to make a pass so I can't see it having been anything other than a 'throw forward' had it not been a legitimate pass.

 

[Togs]

So we seem to have a pretty comprehensive answer to this hypothetical situation based on the wording of the laws. If we were to take that 3rd Oz try from Saturday as an example tho does anything change?

The intention of the throw was flat/backwards based on where the hands were pointing. However the ball undoubtedly did travel forward. If before Tomane collected that ball it had touched the ground at all could you technically argue that the ball has now involuntarily travelled forward therefore qualifying as a knock on? As the 'intention' of the pass was legal but the 'involuntary' action was a ball travelling forward & making contact with the ground could the one action negate the other?

My assumption is it still comes back to intent. Tho I feel some clever lawyer out there could prove otherwise taking the above argument & improving on it!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Just about every single pass thrown while the passer is running travels forward through space by dint of momentum. The laws make allowance for this and the TMO determined the pass was not forward even if the ball literally did move forward. IMO this is the correct interpretation.

 

[smartcooky]

So we seem to have a pretty comprehensive answer to this hypothetical situation based on the wording of the laws. If we were to take that 3rd Oz try from Saturday as an example tho does anything change?

The intention of the throw was flat/backwards based on where the hands were pointing. However the ball undoubtedly did travel forward. If before Tomane collected that ball it had touched the ground at all could you technically argue that the ball has now involuntarily travelled forward therefore qualifying as a knock on? As the 'intention' of the pass was legal but the 'involuntary' action was a ball travelling forward & making contact with the ground could the one action negate the other?

My assumption is it still comes back to intent. Tho I feel some clever lawyer out there could prove otherwise taking the above argument & improving on it!

So long as the ball is thrown, the knock-on part of Law 12 cannot apply.

It might be different though were a player to "bat" the ball to his team-mate. The player "batting" the ball does not impart his own momentum (though the ball still retains the momentum of the original thrower) so you could make an argument that if a player bats the ball and it lands forward of where he batted it from, it would be a knock-on. The "batter" was the last person to play the ball before it touched the ground.

 

[Togs]

Just sent a post which seems to have disappeared so if it reappears & this is repetitive then apologies!

Totally understand Saturday's try being deemed not to be forward & have no issue with that. I am simply playing Devil's Advocate here to raise some issues.

In my phantom post I questioned at what point the intent & the involuntary action of a player on the ball separate from each other. As an example I questioned if a player is making a spin pass, their hands twist & the ball shoots out forward, does this involuntary action consist of a knock on or the does the intent of the pass save it & play continues?

Obviously I know what the common sense answer to this is & has to be to allow rugby to be played properly otherwise every throw forward & knock on could be debated in a court of law! Just think it's often interesting in sport when intent is used as a mitigating factor as the line between intent & involuntary is not always completely black & white.

 

[smartcooky]

Just sent a post which seems to have disappeared so if it reappears & this is repetitive then apologies!

Totally understand Saturday's try being deemed not to be forward & have no issue with that. I am simply playing Devil's Advocate here to raise some issues.

In my phantom post I questioned at what point the intent & the involuntary action of a player on the ball separate from each other. As an example I questioned if a player is making a spin pass, their hands twist & the ball shoots out forward, does this involuntary action consist of a knock on or the does the intent of the pass save it & play continues?

Obviously I know what the common sense answer to this is & has to be to allow rugby to be played properly otherwise every throw forward & knock on could be debated in a court of law! Just think it's often interesting in sport when intent is used as a mitigating factor as the line between intent & involuntary is not always completely black & white.

The standard answer most referees will give when confronted with a "angels on pinheads" debate is "I'll judge it when I see it"

 

[Togs]

In other words, could go either way! Haha

 

[smartcooky]

In other words, could go either way! Haha

Well, yes. A player attempting to pass the ball, and having it slide out of his hands " loses possession of the ball" (see the Knock on Definitions earlier in this thread).

It is not too dissimilar to a player attempting to execute a drop kick and losing the ball in the process. If you really think about it, the act of drop kicking the ball technically includes a knock on; the player drops the ball in front of him, and allows the ball to strike the ground before kicking it on the rebound. However, if you are just about to execute a drop kick as an opponent dislodges the ball, and it falls in front of you, even if you manage to get your boot to it, I'm going to call a knock-on against you.

 

[Togs]

Suppose this is what is so great about sport is there are so many different circumstances that can lead to various outcomes, some of which can appear on the face of it to contradict a previous decision. But there are so many components to each & every incident that they really are all unique & are open to different interpretations depending on how any one person views it. We can, & should, try to make things as uniform as possible but ultimately there will always be variations within the interpretation of any rule.

 

[Jack Reacher]

heres another one, when a player loses control of the ball whilst grounding it for a try, isn't the ball technically going straight down, hence not a knock on?
he is still applying downward pressure on the ball but not necessarily in 100% control but he hasn't 'knocked it toward the dead ball line'?