PDA

View Full Version : O-Driscoll knock



David J.
11-02-08, 21:02
There's a clip of this on the SA Referees website (http://www.sareferees.co.za/home/). The issue on the website is whether Heaslip's action makes the ball go in touch, which it doesn't. But it seems to me the clearer offense was that O'Driscoll knocks it on in the tackle, does anyone else see this?

KML1
11-02-08, 22:02
Not clear to me David. Seems he does some juggling and it doesnt seem to touch the ground so Im not that unhappy with that. Great bit of technology and explanations on that site - v impressive!

MattSei
11-02-08, 22:02
Somewhat iffy weather he has kept control of it in his left hand. First glance I would say knock on.

chopper15
12-02-08, 00:02
Not clear to me David. Seems he does some juggling and it doesnt seem to touch the ground so Im not that unhappy with that. Great bit of technology and explanations on that site - v impressive!

Agree, very impessive format!

After watching that, prompts the query;

O'D, while lying on the ground, pats the ball from behind with his LH thro' the air to his RH which is ahead of him. He then closes his LH to the ball to hold it before throwing it backwards.

Could that incur a penalty if it was ,as it appeared to be, a deliberate tap fwd?

OB..
12-02-08, 01:02
No. It counts as juggling. The ball remained within his grasp, and did not hit the ground.

Account Deleted
12-02-08, 09:02
No knock on for me nor touch.

What do you think of the F Vs I Penalty Try? Also featured on the site. For me Nigel was wrong.

AndyKidd
12-02-08, 10:02
Sorry OB

But

I would say that OD's is a lost forward in the tackle as the ball appears to hit the floor before he pushes it back with his right hand. (Slowed down and studied Dickenson style) :)



DEFINITION KNOCK ON
A knock on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a 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.

Dixie
12-02-08, 11:02
Too hard to call with technology = no problems if you give it or not. Make the decision with confidence, and move on.

OB..
12-02-08, 12:02
What do you think of the F Vs I Penalty Try? Also featured on the site. For me Nigel was wrong.
This is the second time recently in a TV game we have had a penalty try awarded following a sequence of scrum infringements.

Presumably Nigel Owens will have been aware of the earlier one. This suggests that maybe top referees are encouraged to give this. After all, the alternative is to keep giving penalties, and then resort to cards, and end up with uncontested scrums.

ex-lucy
12-02-08, 12:02
After all, the alternative is to keep giving penalties, and then resort to cards, and end up with uncontested scrums.
when i get that scenario i inevitably get comments like .. "how is that of advantage to us sir? We are dominating the scrums but now we have to go uncontested. That is no advantage."
"sorry chaps, them's the laws."
I even had one captain say: "pls can you bring that hooker back on so we can have contested scrums again, so we can push them over from a 5m scrum."

OB..
12-02-08, 12:02
ex-lucy - exactly. The penalty try is much more pragmatic, however dubious it may be in law. Give the penalty try in future and tell them Nigel Owens does it on TV.

FlipFlop
12-02-08, 12:02
Game at the weekend, as I send the second front row to the bin, 6min from the end, oppo in attack near the line, and oppo with better scrum (and chosing scrums from PKs) was...

...from the captain of the team losing the front row to the bin......

"Are you sure you want to do that Sir, it means we'll have to go uncontested, which will be to our advantage. "

My response - "Yes, but I'm sure the oppo will prefer only 13 men on the field"

OB..
12-02-08, 12:02
My response - "Yes, but I'm sure the oppo will prefer only 13 men on the field"

Would they not find a PT even better?!

FlipFlop
12-02-08, 13:02
Would they not find a PT even better?!

It wasn't from a scrum, and was never a PT. So in my case - not relevant.

Account Deleted
12-02-08, 14:02
"He who must be obeyed" sent an email to the WRU, we had it read out last night at society, to say Nigel was wrong.
He went on to say referees must referee "within the Laws"

David J.
12-02-08, 16:02
It seems to me the objection to the PT on collapsing scrums are based on the idea that 1) the ball is not in play until the scrum half puts it in and 2) a penalty try can't be awarded if the ball is not in play.

I don't know where either of those two assumptions are in law.

Account Deleted
12-02-08, 17:02
Paddy's comment was that you can't award PTs for repeated offences unless they prevent a probable try.

cymrubach
13-02-08, 12:02
Paddy's comment was that you can't award PTs for repeated offences unless they prevent a probable try.

ATTR,

Totally agree, and even though I once again rate Nigels performance in this game I felt he got that one wrong straight away when he gave the PT.
:nono: