Thoughts on this call?

[Kiwiwomble]

now if you watch the whole vid you'll see the card gets cancelled out but i want your thoughts on 1:48 in

Ioane goes for the intercept, pops it up and the does everything he can to regather, is it the rule now that if you cant regather then its professional foul?

seems like a huge shift, if he'd got it it was odds on to be seven at the other end but he doesn't quite get there so its a penalty try and a yellow card

and yes, i do see a difference between when players have just knocked the ball to the ground and those that pop it up to regather

 

[die_mole]

pedantically, for an intentional knock even regathering it doesn't make it legal

(f)
Intentional knock or throw forward. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward.

if you compare that to the other "outcome of knock-on or throw forward"

(a)
Unintentional knock-on or throw forward. A scrum is awarded at the place of infringement.

notice that "knock-on" can really only be unintentional and the definition of "knock-on" includes being unable to gather the ball

any intentional knock of the ball forward is illegal

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i did not know that, i had always thought it had to hit the ground to be a knock on and then after that you would decide if it was intentional or accidental

 

[die_mole]

http://www.sareferees.co.za/laws/view/2830124/

this explains it better than i can... the video they use it's okay since the initial knock wasn't believed to be intentional but in the text they go through if he had batted it

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

i did not know that, i had always thought it had to hit the ground to be a knock on and then after that you would decide if it was intentional or accidental

Knock ons are interesting, if you unintentionally drop the ball forward and don't catch it then it's deemed a knock on. That means that if you knock it forward then bat it backwards before it hits the floor it's still a knock on, or if you drop if forwards then kick it before it hits the ground it's still a knock on.

In this particular case, the fact that he tries so hard to regather but still can't shows that he never had a chance of intercepting it, and therefore an intentional knock on call is right on the money. Just because you try catch the ball after you've hit it forwards it doesn't mean it was a legitimate (realistic) intercept attempt!

 

[Kiwiwomble]

i guess my thought was he didn't recover it because HE hit the ball too hard rather than he had to reach to make the original touch.

to me its akin to catching it square in the chest but it ricocheting out of your arms, you stuffed an opportunity rather than there not being one ...does that make sense?

this does come down to even if the intercept is on if you dont execute it perfectly then you can be in real trouble

I am aware that im more sensitive because of the card / penalty try combo, they'ed also got around that left wing several times, scott (our winger) just couldn't stay on his wing, kept seeing him coming infield on defense...got really annoying

 

[FNS]

I dont like the rule.

The guy put the hand cause he thinks he can get the ball but goes a lot more forward than expected and then its penalty for cutting the game. Same situation the ball instead of going forwards goes a little more upwards and he get it then its valid...How can you judge intention if the same play is decided depending of a bounce?

There are alot of plays like this were the defender really went for the interception not the stopping the attack.

 

[smartcooky]

There needs to be some consistency here. I would like to see players encouraged to make sure that if they intend to go for an intercept, they MUST try to catch the ball (like Nehe Milner-Skudder on Saturday - he got a hand on the ball and never lost contact with it. Soft hands is the key to dong this successfully.

For mine, if the player just sticks his arm out and knocks the ball forwards (hard hands) with an intention to regather, whether he knocks it up or down, then he is taking a risk. If he fails to regather the ball he's getting pinged for a deliberate knock forward, and depending on where and when it happens, that could also mean a yellow card and a penalty try. The only exception I would make is where a player does this and is then tackled before he can regather.

I don't have any problem with the referee and TMO decision in the clip (and that ain't because I am a Tasman supporter, I had no problem the the later red card against the Tasman player either, it was stone cold red all day long)

And that brings up another thing that really, really pisses me off. Red carding tip tackles has been around for several years now. How stupid are some rugby players? Why are they still grasping opponents below the fecking hips and lifting them off the ground when they MUST KNOW that there is a very high chance of it going wrong. There is NOTHING that this technique can achieve that cannot also be achieved by grasping them ABOVE the waist, NOT LIFTING them and dumping them on their back.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

The only way to treat this is as a high risk play where the player going for the ball knows the consequences if he goes for the ball and doesn't get it. The repercussions for the game would be too huge if you could disrupt opposition attacks like that with impunity.
If the ball isn't regathered, the referee needs the autonomy to judge whether the player ever had a realistic chance of getting the ball and therefore whether it was a professional foul. Swinging one hand at the ball and then diving to try and regather the ball doesn't cut it in this example - the reason he dived to catch the ball was that he knew the repercussions would be huge, but he wasn't really ever that close to regathering despite the effort.

 

[smartcooky]

I think there was another one of these in the AP this weekend just gone (Sarries v ????). A Fijian winger (????) tried to intercept with the knock forward - Ref awards a penalty try.

 

[ncurd]

Two handed arms both beyond the ball at point of contact - accidental as he clear opportunity to gather it.

Anything else has to be considered deliberate there's too much wiggle room otherwise.

 

[Every Time Ref]

I haven't actually watched it, but from the description - if you can't catch it cleanly first time then you weren't sure enough of the catch to be given the benefit of the doubt. I favour a real hardcore approach on this, because if you allow any slack at all then you incentivise defenders to go for catches they have no chance of getting, because why not? - there's nothing to lose. I honestly would even seriously consider a total zero tolerance approach - if you're going for an interception and knock it forward it is judged deliberate whatever the circumstances, no excuses.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

looks like i'm in the minority so i'll learn to accept and move on

 

[Caitlyn Jenner]

I'm more inclined to agree with the commentators... I don't think that play deserves to be penalised because imo he was genuinely trying to catch it and did have a realistic chance of catching it... if he had tapped it slightly more upwards it would've been a try at the other end. I always though an intentional knock down was when a player had no chance of catching the ball and didn't make a realistic attempt to do so, but rather just batted the ball away in order to prevent the play... which wasn't what happened here.

But I guess if we're going to the letter of the law then it could rightly be deemed illegal.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

^^^ this

 

[FNS]

Also if the player is static and put the hand sure penalty but if he goes forward on motion with intention then it should be a knock on. If we judge by this clip then Pumas-AUS match we deserved a try cause the guy missed the interception on his 22.

Also if you pass the ball in the right time it can be cached ever. So you can be more indulgent. To many rules to make rugby a high scoring kills it

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I'm more inclined to agree with the commentators... I don't think that play deserves to be penalised because imo he was genuinely trying to catch it and did have a realistic chance of catching it... if he had tapped it slightly more upwards it would've been a try at the other end. I always though an intentional knock down was when a player had no chance of catching the ball and didn't make a realistic attempt to do so, but rather just batted the ball away in order to prevent the play... which wasn't what happened here.

But I guess if we're going to the letter of the law then it could rightly be deemed illegal.

But do you guys not see how you completely open the floodgates if you deem that this is ok? You would see almost certain tries frequently prevented by players waving their arms around. This for example was a certain try prevented. It's very easy to say you were going for the ball especially if you dive for it theatrically, but if you were to look at the number of times the ball is actually regathered after a player jabs at the ball one handed it's not really that often.

Besides, if you slow it down to 1:48 just before the contact the player is just sticking his arm out at this point clearly with the intention to prevent the pass. It becomes an attempt to regather the ball, but the guys first aim was clearly just disruption and that has to be strongly treated or the game would break down.

Also, you say 'if' he had knocked the ball more upwards he would have been away but the big 'if' is all part of this - it's a high risk high reward play, if he somehow regathers he's possibly under the sticks and if he doesn't intercept at all it's a try.

As I say, I really see no other way to referee this since it has the potential to damage attacking rugby.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Also, you say 'if' he had knocked the ball more upwards he would have been away but the big 'if' is all part of this

But that "if", tho big, could very well be due to skill (lack of) and not intent!
It's called intentional knock on, not clumsy knock on.

Imo, it boils down to this

imo he was genuinely trying to catch it and did have a realistic chance of catching it

After watching the play from every angle (lets say to make an informed decision) it comes down to a judgement call. If you believe there was a genuine effort to catch the ball AND that he actually had a realistic shot at doing so, then it'd be perfectly alright to call it scrum. If you do not, then penalty try and YC.

I understand the rules and comprehend why the refs called it the way they did. I agree with CJ tho (not that it matters).

 

[smartcooky]

Deleted

 

[Kiwiwomble]

...might be in the wrong thread SC