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 **** 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

Don’t know why I’m not clapping in that tunnel must be deep in thought, utmost respect for the Welsh 🌼 as for keyboard warriors sending death threats etc …. pic.twitter.com/qX49P570V2

— Gengey (@EllisGenge) February 28, 2021

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.

English people are such bad sportsmen when it doesn’t go thier way. Wales dominated that match, get over it guys.

English people are such bad sportsmen when it doesn’t go thier way

Not at all a massive generalisation!!

I think most of the english fans became welsh here. after all we do know that all wales losses are down to the ref 🙂

I think most of the english fans became welsh here. after all we do know that all wales losses are down to the ref 🙂

Heheheh 🙂

Well, I for one look forward to the laws being rewritten to rule out any more tries like this being scored against England ever again.

But not as much as I’m looking forward to one of these rule re-writes costing England a game in about 18 months time.

Nope, I think most acknowledge that it wasn’t the defining reason England lost, personally I’m quite pleased as I don’t think Jones is a good coach so the sooner he goes the better.

I debate it as a rugby fan, most people within the game have said it is a knock on apart from a few ABE here (perfectly acceptable too!). It seems if you have an opinion as an English fan sometimes you are whingeing.

Personally I have started watching a lot of the Pro 14 as well as English club rugby, and in doing so you see players that you like and admire so although I am an England fan I now have several Welsh players who I admire and think are some of the best players I’ve seen. I like to see these players do well. And evening going back the likes of BOD and POC for Ireland were similar players.

i do like squige’s videos, he got great rugby brain, and eye for the strategic and technical detail that i often miss (even if watching when sober!)

the additional footage of Adam’s first try pretty much closes any debate, although i know a few have been making that point for a while, down to England’s naivety and a seemingly pre planned move by wales (i initially thought it just great opportunism). interesting point about neutering engalnds main attacking platform by keeping the ball in play. i thought they were doing what they normally tend to do – keep it in play, back their own defence and fitness, comfortable with limited possession and wait for the mistakes & tirdenss to creep in for the opposition.

i know rest weekends are crucial, but i want more rugby this weekend

As above ^^ – thats enlightening and I don’t have the ability to see that either. Pre RWC England/Jones made much of “using the time without the ball”. Well its seems that Wales spotted their propensity to have a meeting between periods of play and took advantage.

neutering engalnds main attacking platform by keeping the ball in play

When you think about it in hindsight, Jones has been saying for years “Englands strength is its set-piece”, which of course Wales played out of.

Well done.

personally I’m quite pleased as I don’t think Jones is a good coach so the sooner he goes the better.

Do you think the RFU jumped away from Lancaster too quick after it went wrong at the WC? They started off really bright under him but it is like the RFU told him he had to be more prescriptive with the players. The England players seem to have shone on Lions tours when they are told (or don’t have time to train to be formulaic) to have a free reign and play what they see. At times against Wales (and Scotland) they kicked away possession when not needed as if Jones says if you are in X you need to do Y rather than let them play. I agree – I would like him to go but don’t know who would take over.

i know rest weekends are crucial, but i want more rugby this weekend

Yeh the two rest weekend really make for a ponderous tournament now!

Yeh the two rest weekend really make for a ponderous tournament now!

don’t get me wrong, i dont think they should change it, i’m just being an impatient child who wants the italy wales game now!

Well its seems that Wales spotted their propensity to have a meeting between periods of play and took advantage

i think pivac is starting to turn wales into pretty sharp and savvy operators. gats instilled a toughness and dogedness that made wales a difficult and often niggly team to beat, pivac seems to be building on that and making us more clinical and less prescribed in our play (although very early days, watch us have a mini melt down against the azzuri!)

there was an interesting stat that i read this week (can’t remember where – although it could actually be the squidge video, but sure i read similar elsewhere) that although wales are spending comparatively little time in the opponents 22, they come away with the highest average points per visit at 3.5 ie, they don’t go there often but when they do they’re good at taking their opportunities.

really looking forward to all the fixtures in round 4

@Bear Bollocks fella I’m not ABE, I think that the discussion is pretty good, the laws not so much. I assume (as you assume I’m ABE) that you don’t like the fact that actually a moment in the match which is much discussed might actually have been a call correctly made within the limited scope of the laws. Even though everyone agrees it looks like a knock-on.

Are you a member of BEBE? Blaim everyone but England?

I think most of the english fans became welsh here. after all we do know that all wales losses are down to the ref 🙂

Is Andre Joubert allowed in Scotland yet? It’s been 5 years… 😀

One hundred – I’m not accusing anybody or blaming anyone except England for their defeat, merely debating. I get the ABE stance most of the time, it just seems that a lot of people on here think otherwise to people within the game from both sides and even the referee now apparently. Each to their own and all that, personally I think they were the wrong call, but altering the outcome of the game I’m not so sure

Oh and although possibly wrong call hopefully it might send a message to teams to hurry up!

Lancaster has to be earning at least 200k in Dublin where he is respected for the good, hard working coach he always has been. He prepares one of the best teams in Europe and doesn’t have tabloids doorstepping him after every game. I am not sure he misses Twickenham all that much.

Craig joubert? No, although I think I saw he was involved in ref training so….

Come independence border force will have a watchlist.

Craig joubert? No, although I think I saw he was involved in ref training so….

Damn, when I typed it I knew I had the wrong name. (Andre J was part of the SA team that demolished Swansea 05/11/94 78-7. Swansea were within a score at half time, although not looking likely to win the game. It’s been seared onto my mind despite the fact that I got so very drunk that night!)

Brilliant. I heard about that bet, mr angry would have been even more angry!