Forum menu
I stopped following the law and interpretation changed and don’t really understand them now.
Not meant as a criticism but this. Blood subs, HIA's, player protection are all 'new' aspects, and I don't think players have yet adjusted, after the last 20 years of coaching it isn't overnight. But they will and I think the game has a chance to be better for it, both for the player safety but also with lower tackles, more chance to free arms and off load the ball.
I can only compare to football where the first 20 mins of every game was just 'reducers' and then the ref would call a halt and the game could start properly. When they changed laws about the tackle from behind, there was the same outcry but players adapted very quickly, and the game's better as a result.
Even if the player fagerson hit did not move the tackle was still no arms and reckless. and was never below the head. Thats 3 ways it was more serious.
It was the phrasing and the obvioulsly leading questions, deliberately provocative.
I agree, I winced when watching that and felt pretty bad for Farrell. However I didn't then go on Twitter and lay into her.
TJ - not saying it wasn’t worse (not saying it was either) but in levels of sanction (nothing, penalty, yellow, red) it didn’t seem three levels worse.
As for Farrell - of course those were the questions he was going to be asked, he knew it and had prepared his stone wall which he deployed admirably. Pushing a bit harder might have got a more interesting response, but might have been a little unfair. In particular he could have been asked why weren’t you concentrating at that penalty (choice of two as I recall), switched off a bit didn’t you? But that would have been pushy. Farrell wasn’t on Graham Norton to flog his latest book - questions pitched absolutely fine.
Bruce – ball juggling is re-gathered, this instance it wasn’t it hit the ground after hitting both attacking and defending players. The ball went forward from hand contact , but didn’t hit the ground directly, so can you throw it over a player run round kick it before it hits the ground and play on?
I just looked at it again here is what I noticed:
The ball didn't leave his hand before it hit his thigh.
If you look at it his hand is in contact with the ball at all times. At no point is the ball in free air and the final direction it ends up going is backwards. Exactly as if it was dropped but went backwards.
That was definitely not a knock on.
As far as i can make out there is a fog around the need for control before kicking or indeed no need, otherwise how could a ball on the ground be kicked, although a kick is well defined. And to be a knock on it has to hit the ground or someone else (in front of you) otherwise a "knock up" interception would be a knock on.
Problem was everyone thought knock on but applying the actual laws rules it not actually a knock on.
I think if you drop the ball and it bounces off your leg that is clearly a knock on (I've never seen a knock on that comes off the leg where it wasn't obvious it was a loss of control).
I think in this case it's not even a grey area because the ball doesn't lose contact with his body before it goes backwards.
If the ball had left his hand and hit his thigh and gone backwards then that would be a grey area.
This is pretty black and white, imo.
I think if you drop the ball and it bounces off your leg
So Sinkler knocked on in that video above?
IGM
I think the questions were really unfair - not the subject but the tone was really baiting
The same questions could have been asked in a less provocative way and not repeated 3 times.
And then you've got drop kicks where the ball is dropped forwards and must touch the ground before being kicked...
I think the questions were really unfair – not the subject but the tone was really baiting
The same questions could have been asked in a less provocative way and not repeated 3 times.
Agreed, as I've already said. Post match interviews are so unbelievably pointless these days - nobody with any sense says anything meaningful. Perhaps you can look at it another way - the BBC are deliberately trying to make the players say something controversial or make themselves look a bit stupid, because this will get the viewing figures up on the website, etc.
Is it acceptable that Farrell has been made an object of ridicule all over social media because of the way the BBC asks questions, post-match? All I saw on FB on Sunday were pictures comparing him to a muppet, and similar - will the BBC take responsibility for their part in online bullying, or just cry foul because one of their employees feels hard done by?
@BruceWee except your wrong off the thigh is knock on. Foot to knee not including knee or heel. That's a kick.
Drop kick you are in control. If you knock the ball forwards and then try to make it look like a deliberate kick its always given as knock on
Secondly was it a knock on? In did it actually go forward in relation to the player? It looks like it comes off the side of his lower leg then goes behind him, to be knocked back by a white shirt.
I suppose this is where all the forward passes(in relation to the ground) are not forward.
It looks an obvious knock on but I wonder if strict application of the laws in this case mean no knock on, try.
@BruceWee except your wrong off the thigh is knock on. Foot to knee not including knee or heel. That’s a kick.
Are you sure? I'm almost certain that if you don't manage to control a catch but manage to get your foot to it and it goes forward then it's a knock on.
I would have called that a knock on when whistling, if I remember( and it has been a while) there is something in the rule...sorry LAW..about having control. He has been taken off touch judge duties for Englands last game and given Scotland v Italy. Thanks;thanks a bunch.
Judge's words
The ball was not under the control of the Welsh wing and went forward on to his thigh,” Jutge said. “In the laws such as they’re written, there isn’t this notion of loss of control, that’s why this situation lends itself to confusion.
“But the reality is that if [Gauzere] had blown up for a knock-on, no one would have been able to complain... it’s one of the perverse effects of the TMO, that we sometimes have a tendency to look too hard with a microscope. There is a balance to be struck and in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control, the ball goes forward, so it’s a knock on. Pascal looked at the situation on Sunday morning and he is the first to admit it. When you make a mistake, it’s best to own up and be transparent. It doesn’t change the fact that he is an excellent international referee.”
To summarise what he said
"There's no notion of loss of control in laws"
"in this case, a simple bit of common sense would have sufficed. There is a loss of control,"
Clear as mud then.
It's been a bit overshadowed by the amount of English whining, but the ref in the Italy Ireland game didn't have his best day either.
And then the ITV interviewer went after sexton and Farrell snr to get them to criticise too. Didn't come to much.
Is it acceptable that Farrell has been made an object of ridicule all over social media because of the way the BBC asks questions, post-match?
I saw the questions, I haven’t seen anything ridiculing Farrell on social media, but then I haven’t looked for it specifically. If I googled Farrell muppet I might find it I suppose.
The questions were in line with what I would assume everyone was thinking and he answered them reasonably well.
If anything makes one look like a muppet (other than a green felt-like complexion 😉), it’s getting caught by a quick Welsh penalty not once but twice. All rugby players have had days like that - I just made sure I wasn’t in the nation jersey being broadcast far and wide when I made that sort of mistake (tactical choice you understand, not just that I was rubbish).
The thing that would improve Farrell’s image would be for him to come out and say they were tough, blunt questions and I didn’t enjoy answering them, but everyone was thinking it, they had to be asked.
The interview shouldn’t be an ego polishing / ego restoration session.
Also double posts. They make one look like a muppet.
Sorry for that.
AA if even no one else acknowledged it, good joke. I had a chuckle.
I had a chuckle.
Glad someone acknowledged it.
What is it with these English props aways coping a feel of Welsh players??
Clear as mud then.
If the player maintains contact with the ball throughout and the first time he loses contact with the ball it goes backwards, how can it be a knock on?
It's not clear from Jutge's comments whether he realises RZ still had hand contact with the ball when it hit his thigh.
No wonder so many lawyers like rugby.
The interview shouldn’t be an ego polishing / ego restoration session.
Like I said, the interview is an exercise in not answering the questions and is a pointless space filler for TV.
The only incisive reply ever was given by Garin Jenkins about 25 years ago - "We 'ad them blowing out their arses!"
What is it with these English props aways coping a feel of Welsh players??
Maybe Gav isn't hunky enough for them?
From the definitions in those laws (which are really quite poorly drafted).
Knock-on: When a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or whena 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.
Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.
Looks like the idea of loss of control can play a part here.
and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
This is the qualifier at the end of the argument. It has to touch the ground or another player to be a knock on. If it comes off your hand and goes forward, if you catch it again or kick it, then its not a knock on.
So it came forward off his hands, hit his leg (so it became a kick) and then whether it went forward or backwards is irrelevant.
To me, despite my pain, it was not a knock on.
(IANAL but I do know a bit of legalese, to me the and at the beginning of my quote is critical.)
So it came forward off his hands, hit his leg
If you look at the video it actually doesn't lose contact with his hand before if hits his thigh.
For me it's this point that means it wasn't a knock on.
Fair enough.
I don't object whether he lost it or not, you can throw/drop the ball forward to kick it.
It could be argued it was a kick, just not very stylish.
Its a technical point of interest but it doesn't change the outcome, England lost through their own fault, despite reffing errors.
On the Sonia McLaughlan thing, I think I'll go to my default position and say it's World Rugby's fault because of their usual hypocrisy and #RugbyValues bullshit (and obviously the cowardly little ****s sitting behind their keyboards but that should go without saying).
Seriously, you fine players for criticising the refs but allow interviewers to ask about refereeing decisions. How is that in any way logical.
Interviewers have to ask about the biggest talking point of the game. Otherwise there is literally no point in doing any kind of interview. If he didn't ask and try to get an answer (that she probably knew she wasn't going to get) she wasn't doing her job.
And World Rugby have decided that any criticism of the ref is unacceptable. **** them.
Between the whistles there should be no questioning the refs decisions (unless they are waving on dangerous play, all players have a duty to bring dangerous play to a refs attention any way they can) but after the final whistle they should be able to say whatever the hell they like.
I understand that in rugby the way the rules are interpreted means that refs are making the 'wrong' decision at almost every breakdown so players and coaches could legitimately complain after every game but is the solution to muzzle the players rather than fix the issues?
If you are World Rugby the answer is yes.
Oh yeah, and I would love to see one of these keyboard warriors take Genge up on his offer
https://twitter.com/EllisGenge/status/1366105153334611972
If he (she I think - typo?) didn’t ask and try to get an answer (that she probably knew she wasn’t going to get) she wasn’t doing her job.
Agreed.
In fact I agree with most of what you said.
In the good old days, only the captains were allow to address the ref between the whistles and then only for clarification.
Anything or anyone else got penalised.
After the game? Well they’re big boys and if they say anything that actually brings the game into disrepute then they should be hauled up for it - but they should be allowed to say that they didn’t see something the same way as the ref.
It could be argued it was a kick, just not very stylish.
No, hit wrong part of leg and not intentional- doubly not a kick
Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.
Also even if it was a kick, that doesn't prevent it being a knock on.
Also even if it was a kick, that doesn’t prevent it being a knock on.
Really how?
A kick is not a knock on.
For it to be a knock it it must go forward and hit another player or the ground.
The fact is it may have gone forward from his hands, but then it hit his leg. His leg is not another player or the ground.
I think the ref considered it to have gone backwards off the hand.
did the ball ever go forward?
yes off his hand on the initial impact. If he had then deliberately batted it backwards before it hit the ground no knock on. the issue here is the touch on his leg that took it backwards was accidental so was he in control of it?
to me this is one that is decided on such fine nuance that whichever way the decision went would have been OK and if he had rules it " no try" on the ground the TMO would have been unlikely to overturn it
Anyway, what do I know, in this article NO says its a knock on, I ain't gonna pretend to know better than him.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/its-100-per-cent-knock-19932005
But Owens views the incident in a different light.
“It was definitely a knock on,” he said, elaborating on the points he made on S4C.
“You see situations sometimes where a player loses control of a ball and then kicks it before it hits the ground. Well, that’s still classed as a knock on.
“What the law says is if a player loses control of the ball forward, he must regain possession of it before it touches the ground or anybody else.
“So, in this case, Rees-Zammit definitely touches the ball and it travels forward on to his calf, then goes backwards and then comes off an England player.
“So it has travelled forward off his hand first and he fails to regain possession of it, which means it’s a knock on.
“If it hits his hand and goes backwards, then it’s play on.
“But it hits his hand, the ball is still travelling forward and then it hits his calf and goes backwards.
“So, in law, he loses control of the ball forward and then fails to regain possession of it before it touches the ground or anybody else, so it’s a knock on.
“If anybody wants an answer on it, look at Rees-Zammit’s face when they award the try.
“It’s 100 per cent a knock on.
I cannot find the law that talks about controlling it.
Someone find that please??
Really how?
A kick is not a knock on.
I thought that, but the laws don't say it, or even imply it. The laws appear to work the other way round, if it is a knock on then it can't be a kick because the player will have lost possession of the ball (a requirement for it to be a knock on in that situation) and so the kick cannot be deliberate (part of the definition of a kick). This is on the basis that if you have deliberately thrown/dropped the ball for it coincide with your boot, possession is lost when the ball leaves the boot, not the hand. A pre-meditated kick from a state of possession cannot be a knock on. But a deliberate soccer-style kick of a loose, forward moving ball that accidentally brushed the player's hand before hitting their boot meets the definitions of both "kick" and "knock-on". It follows that you cannot remedy a genuine knock on by kicking the ball, even if the kick part is deliberate (though the ref would have to infer the non-deliberate nature of the ball leaving the hand, which might be tricky).
So, in this case, Rees-Zammit definitely touches the ball and it travels forward on to his calf
His calf was behind his hand was I think the refs opinion.
I cannot find the law that talks about controlling it.
Isn't one
I cannot find the law that talks about controlling it.
Someone find that please??
To the extent that it is there, it is in the definition of "Possession" which is part of the definition of "Knock on" (I quoted these up there ^^^ somewhere).
“So it has travelled forward off his hand first and he fails to regain possession of it, which means it’s a knock on.
The bold bit is what I disagree with. The ball never left contact with his hand before it touched his thigh.
He wasn't in control but I think for the ball to have gone forward it has to be in free air rather than with a hand in contact with it.
Ok Greyspoke I get where you are coming from. That makes total sense.
In which case, lets campaign to get the game replayed.
So as Owens implies, you cannot recover from a knock on by kicking it before it touches the ground.