PDA

View Full Version : Intentional Knock-on?



smeagol
16-07-18, 17:07
Had an incident in a 7s game last weekend:

Red player puts his hand out to block a blue pass. Ball hits red player's arm and goes up about 10-15m in the air, red player catches it clean and runs it in while the blue captain is screaming for an intentional knock-on. IMO, for it to be an intentional knock-on, there has to be a knock-on, or is that wrong?

Flish
16-07-18, 20:07
Juggling the ball counts as possession now (you can be tackled whilst juggling), so if ball has not yet hit the deck or another player then sounds fine to me.

OB..
16-07-18, 21:07
11


3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4. It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.



If the referee judges that the intention was merely to block the pass rather than catch the ball, then he should award a penalty for an intentional act that knocked the ball forward. The caveat about actually catching it does not apply.

damo
17-07-18, 07:07
11


3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.
4. It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.



If the referee judges that the intention was merely to block the pass rather than catch the ball, then he should award a penalty for an intentional act that knocked the ball forward. The caveat about actually catching it does not apply.

I agree. If the player has intentionally knocked the ball forward it does not matter if he subsequently catches it.

Flish
17-07-18, 10:07
Ball went up not forward according to OP so that's just juggling to catch so ok surely? Regardless of intention, and I accept an element of 'you have to see it' but if it's not gone forward how can it be any form of knock on - intentional or otherwise?

OB..
17-07-18, 10:07
Ball went up not forward according to OP so that's just juggling to catch so ok surely? Regardless of intention, and I accept an element of 'you have to see it' but if it's not gone forward how can it be any form of knock on - intentional or otherwise?
Technically you are correct, but to me the OP clearly implied the player was running forward when he contacted the ball.

Taff
17-07-18, 12:07
Ball went up not forward according to OP so that's just juggling to catch so ok surely? Regardless of intention, and I accept an element of 'you have to see it' but if it's not gone forward how can it be any form of knock on - intentional or otherwise?
For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree. :chin:

Saying that it's a deliberate knock-on when it isn't even a knock-on could be a hard one to sell.

OB..
17-07-18, 12:07
For what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree. :chin:

Saying that it's a deliberate knock-on when it isn't even a knock-on could be a hard one to sell.
The law refers to an intentional knock forward. Being intentional, it cannot be an (accidental) knock-on.

In this respect I think the 2018 law is clearer than the 2017 one.

didds
17-07-18, 13:07
the crux being it seems that you don;t sell it as a deliberate knock-on, but a deliberate knock forward.

didds

Camquin
17-07-18, 13:07
OP does not say the player was moving forward - merely that they blocked the ball.
They could have had their feet were planted and only started to run after they caught it - which is why you have to be there.

The ball has to go forward. Even if a player intentionally plays the ball, if they only get a fingertip to it and it still goes backwards there is no offence.

It has to be C&O that it is intentional. If the player is attempting to catch the ball they are permited to juggle - although several people claim this is a new change it was in the law as far back as 1970.

If the player knocks the ball high in the air and forward and happens to catch it as it comes down - is that a juggle or an intentional kock forward.

As with all refereeing decisions it comes to what you see at the time.

If it looked wrong, blow and sell your decision.
If it looked fine to you, sell that - probably worth calling play on.

Taff
17-07-18, 14:07
the crux being it seems that you don;t sell it as a deliberate knock-on, but a deliberate knock forward.

Does slapping the ball forward and catching it fit the definition of a Throw Forward?

A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward

To me, that suggests there needs to be an element of intent eg running up to a possible tackler, throwing the ball over his head, running round him and catching it the other side. And the sanction for that is a PK - hell gents, a PK sounds harsh to me for what was described in the OP. :biggrin: I can't see how he could have intended to slap the ball forward to himself; sure I can see it happening by accident.

smeagol
17-07-18, 15:07
To clarify - red player was moving up, but not at any considerable pace. IMO, the player did not intentionally knock the ball forward, as the ball came off his forearm, not hand.


If it looked wrong, blow and sell your decision.
If it looked fine to you, sell that - probably worth calling play on.

The incident took place around red's 22, so the try was near-immediate. Blue captain ended up getting a yellow (for comparing me to a 12yo refereeing his first game), then a red (f*** you immediately followed the yellow).

OB..
17-07-18, 16:07
If the player knocks the ball high in the air and forward and happens to catch it as it comes down - is that a juggle or an intentional kock forwardMany years ago juggling the ball would be treated as a knock-on. After the law was modified to allow it, and particularly after the rubric about catching it before (etc) was introduced some tried to argue that it was legal to knock the ball up in the air deliberately as long as you caught it.

I don't believe that was ever the case, and there certainly was a guideline at one time that if the ball went forward from a one-handed attempt to intercept, that was a PK offence.

It is a basic tenet of the game that you must not use your hands to advance the ball. I see no gain from trying to find ways round that.

thepercy
17-07-18, 17:07
I agree. If the player has intentionally knocked the ball forward it does not matter if he subsequently catches it.

Law 11 is titled "Knock-on or thrown forward", should the laws under this section be read in that context?

Why did you post 11.4 if you are going to ignore it? Shouldn't points 3 and 4 be read in conjunction? He actually did gain possession, and he only needed a reasonable expectation that he would to avoid the PK.

crossref
17-07-18, 20:07
11.3 seems completely clear to me


A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction: Penalty.

ctrainor
17-07-18, 21:07
Clear as day but difficult to sell in a game changing decision, given how it has been interpreted over the years. Has anyone ever seen a TV penalty given for an intentional knock forward when it has been regathered.

Dickie E
18-07-18, 01:07
11.3 seems completely clear to me

Blue #9 passes from base of scrum to Blue #10 but the pass is a shocker such that Blue #10 is never going to catch it but, in his desperation, intentionally gets a finger tip to it. Is this a penalty as per 11.3?

I'm in the "I'd have to see it" camp.

Pinky
18-07-18, 01:07
Blue #9 passes from base of scrum to Blue #10 but the pass is a shocker such that Blue #10 is never going to catch it but, in his desperation, intentionally gets a finger tip to it. Is this a penalty as per 11.3?

I'm in the "I'd have to see it" camp.

I'm also in the have to see it camp, but I can in my mind make a distinction between deliberately playing the ball, but it going forward like the 10 above, and that's a scrum from the player who deliberately knocks the ball forward, eg a punch, or throws the ball forward and I am happy that that is a PK.

Dickie E
18-07-18, 02:07
I'm also in the have to see it camp, but I can in my mind make a distinction between deliberately playing the ball, but it going forward like the 10 above, and that's a scrum from the player who deliberately knocks the ball forward, eg a punch, or throws the ball forward and I am happy that that is a PK.

I agree and that requires a more nuanced understanding of the game than is provided by 11.3

crossref
18-07-18, 07:07
I agree and that requires a more nuanced understanding of the game than is provided by 11.3

I think that's exactly what 11.3 says

ChrisR
18-07-18, 10:07
3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.

Did the player really intend to "knock the ball forward"? Yes, it was a deliberate attempt to play the ball but nothing in the OP indicates his intent to make it go forward. And, since he regathered it, it wasn't a knock-on. Play on!

I think the YC for an attempted intercept is just plain wrong.

damo
18-07-18, 10:07
Law 11 is titled "Knock-on or thrown forward", should the laws under this section be read in that context?

Why did you post 11.4 if you are going to ignore it? Shouldn't points 3 and 4 be read in conjunction? He actually did gain possession, and he only needed a reasonable expectation that he would to avoid the PK.

I am not really sure what you are saying.

11.3 and 11.4 deal with different situations. 11.3 refers to intentionally knocking the ball forward, whereas 11.4 specifically requires it to be an attempt to catch the ball.

The scenario in the OP is a a bit murky, without seeing it I am not sure how to rule it. I was agreeing with the proposition that if one deliberately knocks the ball forward (with no attempt to catch it) then it doesn't matter if that player subsequently catches it.

OB..
18-07-18, 11:07
3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.

Did the player really intend to "knock the ball forward"? Yes, it was a deliberate attempt to play the ball but nothing in the OP indicates his intent to make it go forward. And, since he regathered it, it wasn't a knock-on. Play on!

It can only be a knock-on if accidental (which includes juggling). Deliberately knocking the ball forward up in the air so you can try to run under it and catch it is not a knock-on. It is a deliberate knock forward under 11.3.

This is a rare case where the actual wording of the law is crucial.

ChrisR
18-07-18, 11:07
It can only be a knock-on if accidental (which includes juggling). Deliberately knocking the ball forward up in the air so you can try to run under it and catch it is not a knock-on. It is a deliberate knock forward under 11.3.

This is a rare case where the actual wording of the law is crucial.

Was his intent for the ball to go forward? I don't think so, best I can tell.

SimonSmith
18-07-18, 12:07
I can't find the Angus Gardner video on this, which (IIRC) was less about the knock forward but more about the "was the player in a position to make a catch? And if yes, play on..."

OB..
18-07-18, 14:07
Was his intent for the ball to go forward? I don't think so, best I can tell.
I think this is the slippery slope. Why did he knock the ball up in the air? If it was deliberate, then his aim was to set it up for a possible catch. That would be illegal.

The old guideline that a one handed interception attempt that went forward was a penalty, was perhaps a little harsh, but I applaud the thinking. The last thing we want is people trying to intercept by knocking the ball up in the air. For me at least, that contradicts the ethos of the game.

crossref
18-07-18, 15:07
.

This is a rare case where the actual wording of the law is crucial.


Aside .. ** no longer rare **

They have just completed an exercise where they carefully reviewed the wording of the entire Law Book , and made multiple changes.

I think we are entitled to conclude that with this Law Book all the wording is carefully considered and we can rely on it meaning exactly what it says.
Thats the point of the rewrite

OB..
18-07-18, 18:07
Aside .. ** no longer rare **

They have just completed an exercise where they carefully reviewed the wording of the entire Law Book , and made multiple changes.

I think we are entitled to conclude that with this Law Book all the wording is carefully considered and we can rely on it meaning exactly what it says.
Thats the point of the rewrite
It would be nice to think so, but I still refuse to treat the wording as if it were statute law. Because it isn't.

thepercy
18-07-18, 18:07
It would be nice to think so, but I still refuse to treat the wording as if it were statute law. Because it isn't.

except for this case?

ChrisR
18-07-18, 18:07
I think this is the slippery slope. Why did he knock the ball up in the air? If it was deliberate, then his aim was to set it up for a possible catch. That would be illegal.

The old guideline that a one handed interception attempt that went forward was a penalty, was perhaps a little harsh, but I applaud the thinking. The last thing we want is people trying to intercept by knocking the ball up in the air. For me at least, that contradicts the ethos of the game.

I guess this is where we think differently. If a player is genuinely attempting to intercept the ball (and not just intentionally knocking it down with no attempt to catch it) then it should be "Play on!". What gets tricky is the most common event where the player just sticks out an arm, doesn't make the catch and the ball goes forward. To me he makes a play for the ball, fails and it's a knock-on so order up the scrum.
The PK and the obligatory YC are too much and distort the seriousness of the offence.

OB..
18-07-18, 22:07
I guess this is where we think differently. If a player is genuinely attempting to intercept the ball (and not just intentionally knocking it down with no attempt to catch it) then it should be "Play on!". What gets tricky is the most common event where the player just sticks out an arm, doesn't make the catch and the ball goes forward. To me he makes a play for the ball, fails and it's a knock-on so order up the scrum.
The PK and the obligatory YC are too much and distort the seriousness of the offence.

It is very difficult to make a one-handed intercept. If a player tries to improve his chances of stealing the ball by knocking the ball up in the air, hoping to be able to catch it, for me that is a deliberate knock forward contrary to 11.3

Why do you say a YC is obligatory?

ChrisR
19-07-18, 02:07
Why do you say a YC is obligatory?

A definition from the net:" so customary or routine as to be expected of everyone or on every occasion."

A touch of sarcasm on my part. Personally I don't believe that even a deliberate knock-on deserve a YC but it seems like it's automatic now. I reserve the YC for more consequential offences.

Drift
19-07-18, 03:07
I agree. If the player has intentionally knocked the ball forward it does not matter if he subsequently catches it.

Yeah it does, isn't the trigger for us "are you in a realistic position to catch the ball?", if the player catches the ball then he's in a realistic position to catch the ball. Play on for me.

damo
19-07-18, 07:07
Yeah it does, isn't the trigger for us "are you in a realistic position to catch the ball?", if the player catches the ball then he's in a realistic position to catch the ball. Play on for me.

So if a player deliberately bats the ball 10m upwards and 20m forward then runs forward and catches it you are going to say play on? Clearly he was in a realistic position to catch the ball again when it comes down (since he does).

I would not play on in that situation.

Camquin
19-07-18, 09:07
In that case the ball is in the air for nearly three seconds.
In which case I hope I would have blown before they regathered.

It is the grey areas where referees need to make judgement calls.
Was that a genuine attempt to catch?
Was the arm raised to wrap in a tackle or were they blocking the pass?

And you always need to see it on the day.

But, once the referee makes the call, the players need to abide by it and play on.
They can moan in the bar over a pint later.

crossref
19-07-18, 09:07
It would be nice to think so, but I still refuse to treat the wording as if it were statute law. Because it isn't.

That's a much higher bar. I am not suggesting you treat the Laws like Statute Law

I am suggesting that , post the comprehensive 2018 rewrite we can treat the Laws as being carefully worded, and saying what they mean

(Ie the wording is no longer outdated results of historical development and accident )

I mean .. isn't that the whole point of the re write

OB..
19-07-18, 09:07
Yeah it does, isn't the trigger for us "are you in a realistic position to catch the ball?", if the player catches the ball then he's in a realistic position to catch the ball. Play on for me.
You are choosing to ignore the fact that he deliberately knocked the ball forward.

The caveat about catching ONLY applies to an accidental knock forward in a genuine attempt to catch the ball - often referred to as juggling, and quite distinct from a deliberate knock forward.

Flish
19-07-18, 10:07
You are choosing to ignore the fact that he deliberately knocked the ball forward.

And that's the human decision element we have to make with what's in front of us, did he deliberately 'knock the ball forward' or did he attempt to intercept and as a result the ball went forward, there's a 1000 different permutations of ball, arm, player movement that end with us making that decision.

In the OP I read it as being knocked upward (not deliberately knocked forward) so play on.

Rich_NL
19-07-18, 10:07
That's a much higher bar. I am not suggesting you treat the Laws like Statute Law

I am suggesting that , post the comprehensive 2018 rewrite we can treat the Laws as being carefully worded, and saying what they mean

(Ie the wording is no longer outdated results of historical development and accident )

I mean .. isn't that the whole point of the re write

https://media.giphy.com/media/l2QDTqHp9W7WIJXlC/giphy.gif

OB..
19-07-18, 10:07
And that's the human decision element we have to make with what's in front of us, did he deliberately 'knock the ball forward' or did he attempt to intercept and as a result the ball went forward, there's a 1000 different permutations of ball, arm, player movement that end with us making that decision.Yes.


In the OP I read it as being knocked upward (not deliberately knocked forward) so play on.Unless the interceptor was actually stationary I consider your view unrealistic.

Dan_A
19-07-18, 13:07
I read the first post and immediately thought of this recent Super Rugby try:-
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/watch-beauden-barrett-pulls-off-juggling-intercept-no-look-flick-pass/

Would anyone really have given this as an intentional knock on?

Dickie E
19-07-18, 13:07
I read the first post and immediately thought of this recent Super Rugby try:-
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/watch-beauden-barrett-pulls-off-juggling-intercept-no-look-flick-pass/

Would anyone really have given this as an intentional knock on?

only if he'd beeen in a black jersey :)

thepercy
19-07-18, 14:07
So, 11.4 talks about negating an "intentional knock-on", but that's not an offence in law 11, only "intentional knock" of the ball forward. This is what your hanging your hat on? This wording does not seem carefully chosen.

OB..
19-07-18, 16:07
I read the first post and immediately thought of this recent Super Rugby try:-
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/watch-beauden-barrett-pulls-off-juggling-intercept-no-look-flick-pass/

Would anyone really have given this as an intentional knock on?
Right on the limit of acceptability.

He initially tries to make a one-handed catch by cradling the ball (rather than knocking the ball forward hoping to catch it). Don't try this at home!

OB..
19-07-18, 16:07
Here is a brief summary of the development of the law on knock-ons.

1871
Knocking on i e deliberately hitting the ball with the hand and Throwing Forward ie throwing the ball in the direction of the opponents' goal line are not lawful.

1883 the word "deliberately" was removed. It didn't actually matter much since the only sanction in those days was a scrum. I don't know how strictly "deliberately" was judged.

1959
A knock-on occurs when the ball is propelled by the hand or arm of a player in the direction of his opponents' dead ball line or when the ball after striking the hand or arm of a player travels in the said direction; provided that a movement of the ball in the player's grasp which is in the nature of a steadying or re-adjustment of the ball within his possession without loss of control is not a knock-on.
First relaxation of the definition.

1979
A knock-on occurs when the ball travels forward towards the direction of the opponents' dead-ball line after:-


a player loses possession of it, or
a players propels or strikes it with his hand or arm, or
it strikes a player's hand or arm [inserted in 1992: and touches the ground or another player before it is recovered by the player.]

NOTES (2) If the knock-on or throw forward is unintentional, a scrummage shall be formed [...] unless:-


The ball is knocked on by a player who is in the act of charging down the kick of an opponent but is not attempting to catch the ball, or
the ball is knocked on one or more times by a player who is in the act of catching or picking it up or losing possession of it and is recovered by that player before it has touched the ground or another player.

More or less modern

I think it is clear that allowing deliberately knocking the ball forwards was NOT intended to be part of the relaxation.

ChrisR
19-07-18, 20:07
Note: There isn't a specific law covering 'intentional knock-on' as you can't have an 'intentional knock-on' without violating 11.3 'intentional knock forward'.

11.3. A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm. Sanction : Penalty.

and its companion

11.7. A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward. Sanction : Penalty.

are surely to prevent the ball carrier from throwing or knocking the ball over the head of a defender. No debate required but would you YC the offender if it was attempted?

The Beauden Barrett intercept is an entirely different scenario as the intent is clearly to catch. Had it failed and the ball gone to ground I would expect no more than scrum. For those who would call for a PK I ask "If the pass had been from his own scrum-half would you still call for a PK?"

crossref
19-07-18, 21:07
like so many things - it all boils down to intent

did he try and catch it, happened to knock it forward, re-gather ? -- Play on
or did he deliberately knock it forward with the pupuse of regathering -- 11.3 PK

VM75
03-08-18, 20:08
Has anyone ever seen a TV penalty given for an intentional knock forward when it has been IMMEDIATELY regathered.

Indeed lots of players have been allowed to knock it forward and then regather IF the referee considers that it was part of a 'bonafide' interception or gathering attempt, however knocking it over an oncoming defender & gathering as he passes would be stretching it too much for me, my memory remembers a french player doing that in the 90's & still getting away with it [clip anyone?]

You will always get those decisions that are on the margins, and then the person with the whistle decides on their interpretation in that match, as long as consistent decisions are thereafter applied until the final whistle, then everyone should just accept them.