Intentional Knock Down Rule

[TRF Mr Fish]

This is a rule that I get a bit frustrated with, for two reasons:

a) Judging whether it is intentional or not is obviously difficult
b) I don't understand where the rationale comes from

b) stems from the fact that it's perfectly legal to knock the ball backwards, to disrupt play, so for the life of me I don't see why knocking it forwards should be any different. It should be called a knock on, like any other knock on that occurs. Knocking it forward/backwards has exactly the same effect, and exactly the same rationale from a player - why should it be any different?

Care to discuss?

 

[Darwin]

This is a rule that I get a bit frustrated with, for two reasons:

a) Judging whether it is intentional or not is obviously difficult
b) I don't understand where the rationale comes from

b) stems from the fact that it's perfectly legal to knock the ball backwards, to disrupt play, so for the life of me I don't see why knocking it forwards should be any different. It should be called a knock on, like any other knock on that occurs. Knocking it forward/backwards has exactly the same effect, and exactly the same rationale from a player - why should it be any different?

Care to discuss?

Justin Marshall does not like this post.

 

[admartian]

Justin Marshall does not like this post.

:lol:

 

[smartcooky]

This is a rule that I get a bit frustrated with, for two reasons:

a) Judging whether it is intentional or not is obviously difficult
b) I don't understand where the rationale comes from

b) stems from the fact that it's perfectly legal to knock the ball backwards, to disrupt play, so for the life of me I don't see why knocking it forwards should be any different. It should be called a knock on, like any other knock on that occurs. Knocking it forward/backwards has exactly the same effect, and exactly the same rationale from a player - why should it be any different?

Care to discuss?

Unintentionally knocking the ball backwards is not an infringement, therefore intentionally knocking the ball backwards is not an infringement.

Unintentionally knocking the ball forwards IS an infringement, therefore intentionally knocking the ball forwards is a deliberate infringement, which is a penalty kick.

Taking away the penalty for a deliberate knock on would encourage players to try to intercept that ball, knowing that the worse they could give away would be a feed to the scrum.

Do we really want to encourage this?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Unintentionally knocking the ball backwards is not an infringement, therefore intentionally knocking the ball backwards is not an infringement.

Unintentionally knocking the ball forwards IS an infringement, therefore intentionally knocking the ball forwards is a deliberate infringement, which is a penalty kick.

Taking away the penalty for a deliberate knock on would encourage players to try to intercept that ball, knowing that the worse they could give away would be a feed to the scrum.

Do we really want to encourage this?

I wouldn't oppose it. Like I said, in terms of effect on the opponent, it's no different. Either way the attacking momentum is lost - which is the key thing, yes?

 

[InsaneAsylum]

so when habana and/or de villiers are loitering in the opposition backline as they do and all of a sudden they're like "ZOMG INTERCEPT KINGZZZZZZ" but knock the ball on, it's a penatly as they have intentionally put themselves in that position even though they would take the intercept try anyday, it's a deliberate knock on

 

[donmcdazzle]

I wouldn't oppose it. Like I said, in terms of effect on the opponent, it's no different. Either way the attacking momentum is lost - which is the key thing, yes?

The effect on the defenders would be different though if it wasn't a penalty. If you were outnumbered then your best option would be to try whack at the ball, which I don't think needs encouraging.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

so when habana and/or de villiers are loitering in the opposition backline as they do and all of a sudden they're like "ZOMG INTERCEPT KINGZZZZZZ" but knock the ball on, it's a penatly as they have intentionally put themselves in that position even though they would take the intercept try anyday, it's a deliberate knock on

My blood pressure jumped while quickly scanning through this thread and then I spotted this when I actually read your post. This has frustrated me no end in the last three years as we have gotten 0 intercept tries from them in tat time and leaked about 20 because of them rushing up at space rather than the man or ball and just gifting the opposition space to work with.

 

[TRF_heineken]

so when habana and/or de villiers are loitering in the opposition backline as they do and all of a sudden they're like "ZOMG INTERCEPT KINGZZZZZZ" but knock the ball on, it's a penatly as they have intentionally put themselves in that position even though they would take the intercept try anyday, it's a deliberate knock on

I think this is where the confusion comes in...

They go into the line to intentionally collect the ball, not to knock it on...

I understand that it's also the way the "interceptor" tries to collect the ball that differentiates between a knock on, and a deliberate knock down.

if he uses one hand, which lowers the chances to collect the ball, and knocks it forward, it's a deliberate knock down.

If he uses both hands, it shows that he is trying to collect it and not just knock it down. Then you need to look at his positioning of the hands. If it comes from high to low, then the intention was to slap it down, and that is deliberate. If the player however gets his hands from a lower position, to a higher one, it gives the intention that he's trying to keep the ball in the air, and therefore in play, resulting in no deliberate action to knock it down...

 

[smartcooky]

I think this is where the confusion comes in...

They go into the line to intentionally collect the ball, not to knock it on...

I understand that it's also the way the "interceptor" tries to collect the ball that differentiates between a knock on, and a deliberate knock down.

if he uses one hand, which lowers the chances to collect the ball, and knocks it forward, it's a deliberate knock down.

If he uses both hands, it shows that he is trying to collect it and not just knock it down. Then you need to look at his positioning of the hands. If it comes from high to low, then the intention was to slap it down, and that is deliberate. If the player however gets his hands from a lower position, to a higher one, it gives the intention that he's trying to keep the ball in the air, and therefore in play, resulting in no deliberate action to knock it down...

I would still penalise a player who knocks the ball forwards with an intentional upwards motion and then fails to regather the ball.

If he succeeds in regathering it, he's in the clear.

Risk - Reward

 

[TRF_heineken]

I would still penalise a player who knocks the ball forwards with an intentional upwards motion and then fails to regather the ball.

If he succeeds in regathering it, he's in the clear.

Risk - Reward

fair enough, but not all referees would... I just explained it how I've seen it being judged on the field.

 

[smartcooky]

fair enough, but not all referees would... I just explained it how I've seen it being judged on the field.

But it is how it judged on the field. Watch from about 2:20 (youtube time)

Note: Apologies you our Irish friends. Its not my intention to put you thorough this torture again



Rob Kearney deliberately knocks the ball forward, and fails to regather the ball.

Romain Poite penalises him and shows him a Yellow Card. BOD complains about it being a "ridiculous decision" and that Kearney "had a chance to catch it the second time". But he didn't catch it, and that is significant. He propelled the ball forward intentionally, and the ball touched the ground, and that is a deliberate knock-on any way you slice it.

That Kearney's actions prevented a possible (but not probable) try, means that a penalty and Yellow Card was the correct call.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Surely the action is more important than the outcome, a la dangerous tackles?

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Cheers Smartcooky, I think I finally got the rule: it's not the same trying to catch the ball directly, than knocking it forward with the intention of regathering it. At the time I agreed with BOD, but now I see the referee's point.

 

[William18]

But it is how it judged on the field. Watch from about 2:20 (youtube time)

Note: Apologies you our Irish friends. Its not my intention to put you thorough this torture again



Rob Kearney deliberately knocks the ball forward, and fails to regather the ball.

Romain Poite penalises him and shows him a Yellow Card. BOD complains about it being a "ridiculous decision" and that Kearney "had a chance to catch it the second time". But he didn't catch it, and that is significant. He propelled the ball forward intentionally, and the ball touched the ground, and that is a deliberate knock-on any way you slice it.

That Kearney's actions prevented a possible (but not probable) try, means that a penalty and Yellow Card was the correct call.

I still don't think he actually knocked the ball forward intentionally though. You're right what O'Driscoll said was no defence. However, the video evidence looks to me like he stuck his arm there and the ball rebounded off his forearm. He certainly knocked it on but I don't it was deliberate.

 

[smartcooky]

I still don't think he actually knocked the ball forward intentionally though. You're right what O'Driscoll said was no defence. However, the video evidence looks to me like he stuck his arm there and the ball rebounded off his forearm. He certainly knocked it on but I don't it was deliberate.

If he had put his hand out, and attempted to catch the ball, then lost it forward in an attempt to regather, that would be different, and I would agree with you. However, I don't think you could construe that what Kearney did was attempting to catch the ball. To me, it looked very much as though he "batted" the ball, and that is a deliberate attempt to propel it. The ball bounced off him (rather than him having temporary possession and then losing it) and went so far forward that he was unable to grasp it.

 

[dullonien]

If he had put his hand out, and attempted to catch the ball, then lost it forward in an attempt to regather, that would be different, and I would agree with you. However, I don't think you could construe that what Kearney did was attempting to catch the ball. To me, it looked very much as though he "batted" the ball, and that is a deliberate attempt to propel it. The ball bounced off him (rather than him having temporary possession and then losing it) and went so far forward that he was unable to grasp it.

I agree with that assessment. He was almost lucky to re-gather the ball, but when he slapped the ball forwards he didn't really have a clue where it was going. That's always what I look out for, a slapping motion (be it up or down), that is not how anyone attempts to catch a ball!

Ultimately, knocking a ball down is a negative bit of play, and illegal negative play should always result in a penalty at a minimum, and a yellow card if it is serious enough, as that Kearney incident was.