Wales vs Eng - Knock on and Time back on after asking captain to speak to players

[Balones]

what a mess.

I would rather doubt that Nigel's content is officially vetted for Laws accuracy, by WR's official Laws dept. I just don't think WR operates that way, I would suspect NO's videos are produced in the media department. (cf years ago when the RFU accidentally legalised leggings in an unvetted magazine article).



Having said that, I am not saying Nigel is 'wrong'. Who knows what the official WR view is? But hopefully we'll find out.

The WR logo complicates things. I would guess
- if WR decide WB is wrong, they'll get him to do a correction
- if WR decide NO is wrong, they'll quite likely say nothing and quietly delete the video

What a mess

I am fortunate enough to be in contact with Nigel and wrote to him about the seemingly contradictory information given in the videos. He replied at length but the pertinent bits are below.

I have not seen Wayne’s video on it.
But as far as I am aware the explanation in my video is what the knock on law is.
The law states that if the ball comes forward from your hand [ I wold assume this means juggling aswell ] you must regain possession of the ball before it hits the ground or another player. So I can’t see how knocking a ball back after it has gone forward off your hand is play on.
We had an example of the above in Pro 14 about 5 weeks ago and the ruling was it should be a knock on.
The video I have done is for World Rugby official website on yYouTube so I would assume that they have seen it and sanctioned it.
I think if you read the law on the knock that if the ball goes forward from a players hand then he has to regain possession of it.

Imagine if a player cant catch the ball but then knocks or juggles it forward over another players head then he knocks it back we couldn’t play on from that surely?

I will try and get clarification on it for you un case but reading the law my understanding as always been its quite simple if the ball travels forward form your hand you must regain possession of it..

[crossref]

Doesn't this then turn on the definition of "possession"?

According to the 2020 rule book:

Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to
bring it under control.

So the player bobbling the ball can be tackled until they are no longer attempting to bring it under control.

Similarly, it's the last bobble that counts towards KO because until that point they haven't lost possession? I suppose this is WB's basis.

I think control may be more important - than possession. The first bobble is loss of control, and if the first bobble was forward, need to regain control

[ChuckieB]

NO's interpretation would certainly provide more consistency, and in line with the interpretation of lost possession and the fly hack that tries to redeem the situation.

In both , the ball is most obviously heading forward from the hand, not in control, and possession is never regained before it hits....

[Jz558]

As ever, once the minutiae is examined, it is possible to argue almost anything. What I am sure about though is if PG blows that for a knock on, very little would have been said subsequently and Wales would not have felt that the decision was a poor one. Maybe this just reinforces the 'do what is expected' adage.

[menace]

I am fortunate enough to be in contact with Nigel and wrote to him about the seemingly contradictory information given in the videos. He replied at length but the pertinent bits are below.

I have not seen Wayne’s video on it.
But as far as I am aware the explanation in my video is what the knock on law is.
The law states that if the ball comes forward from your hand [ I wold assume this means juggling aswell ] you must regain possession of the ball before it hits the ground or another player. So I can’t see how knocking a ball back after it has gone forward off your hand is play on.
We had an example of the above in Pro 14 about 5 weeks ago and the ruling was it should be a knock on.
The video I have done is for World Rugby official website on yYouTube so I would assume that they have seen it and sanctioned it.
I think if you read the law on the knock that if the ball goes forward from a players hand then he has to regain possession of it.

Imagine if a player cant catch the ball but then knocks or juggles it forward over another players head then he knocks it back we couldn’t play on from that surely?

I will try and get clarification on it for you un case but reading the law my understanding as always been its quite simple if the ball travels forward form your hand you must regain possession of it..

An interesting thread. I personally couldn't see anything but KO and I can't personally twist the laws wording or intent to manufacture anything else but a KO?. Maybe I'm just black and white with the "or/and" logic of the knock on definitions.

I don't think NOs use of 'possession' here helps his cause. I think he really means "regathered" ie 'catch it'

[belladonna]

I think control may be more important - than possession. The first bobble is loss of control, and if the first bobble was forward, need to regain control

Well, I guess that must be NO's reasoning, too.

The definition of KO doesn't mention control though, only possession.

Knock-on: 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.

So, one could argue - and I think this must be WB's argument - that the loss of possession doesn't occur until the final contact attempting to gain control.

I can see the argument both ways.

Let's get NO and WB in a room... with Judge Rinder to adjudicate. I'll sell tickets and popcorn 😁

[belladonna]

I am fortunate enough to be in contact with Nigel and wrote to him about the seemingly contradictory information given in the videos. He replied at length but the pertinent bits are below.

I have not seen Wayne’s video on it.
But as far as I am aware the explanation in my video is what the knock on law is.
The law states that if the ball comes forward from your hand [ I wold assume this means juggling aswell ] you must regain possession of the ball before it hits the ground or another player. So I can’t see how knocking a ball back after it has gone forward off your hand is play on.
We had an example of the above in Pro 14 about 5 weeks ago and the ruling was it should be a knock on.
The video I have done is for World Rugby official website on yYouTube so I would assume that they have seen it and sanctioned it.
I think if you read the law on the knock that if the ball goes forward from a players hand then he has to regain possession of it.

Imagine if a player cant catch the ball but then knocks or juggles it forward over another players head then he knocks it back we couldn’t play on from that surely?

I will try and get clarification on it for you un case but reading the law my understanding as always been its quite simple if the ball travels forward form your hand you must regain possession of it..

Thanks so much for the inside track from NO! ��

And yes, in the case of a player deliberately knocking it over a defender's head and regathering, of course KO and penalty.

Raises an interesting scenario of a player genuinely attempting to intercept and knocking it up and over a defender's outstretched arm (say) and then regathering, which would be Play On.

At some point there's a grey area where it's unclear which of these two it is, and where to draw the line, and on what basis.

[Flish]

The possession thing is an interesting point, and part of the back and forth I had on Twitter around Wayne's video, and it then comes down to nuance and 'having to see it' - I could well imaging a scenario a player reaches out to gather the ball, pushes it forward, mostly in contact, arguably in control (but never catches it, maybe some air between hand and ball) and then pushes it backwards and hits the ground that is not an knock on as 'in possession' and gone backwards - this could be the picture WB is trying to paint.

Equally there could be one, similar to LRZ, where you reach out, bat it forward, never quite gain control then it bounces backwards to ground off you, or you whack it back to ground and I'd call that a knock on. Yes, attempting to bring it under control so technically 'in possession' but not really as not juggling, no semblance of control, just went to gather, didn't quite and lost it.

Otherwise half those deliberate 'knock ons' from an intercept (that may end in a YC or even PT) are not at all, as in reaching out and attempting to intercept they are attempting to bring under control no? So in possession.


PS: Am I the only one who consistently mis-spells possession posession!

[Balones]

I have sent a follow up question about the definition of ‘possession’ and the matter of ‘control’, as outlined above in previous posts. I’ll keep everyone updated if I get a response. This may take some time while NO is getting further clarification himself and views the WB video.

[belladonna]

PS: Am I the only one who consistently mis-spells possession posession!

Definitely not! My phone corrects me all the time, LOL. And yeah, good point about there possibly being subtly different scenarios which WB and NO are envisaging.

I have sent a follow up question about the definition of ‘possession’ and the matter of ‘control’, as outlined above in previous posts. I’ll keep everyone updated if I get a response. This may take some time while NO is getting further clarification himself and views the WB video.

Oh great! Look forward to that...