Intentional Knock On rule a load of baloney
Roar Rookie
By Cattledog, 4 Nov 2009 Cattledog is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- rugby refereeing, Rugby Union
As a retired referee, I am perhaps more critical of the man with the whistle than some. However, when we expect them to be mindreaders, then I must draw the line. The contencious issue of the intentional knock-on is the matter to which I am refering.
When will logic dictate that if a player is in a position to interupt a passage of play, he will. In the situation of a player passing a ball to another player where an oponent can get a hand on it, then perhaps he held the pass too long.
Now, if the ball’s taken cleanly, there may well be an intercept try and the intercepting player is a hero.
If he only gets his fingertips to it then best case it may become a knock on, or worst case, the referee, after looking carefully at the eyes of that player, consideing whether the team has pushed the limits somewhat, then quickly reading the player’s mind, may decide that he intentionally tried to intercept that ball, without a hope of getting it, therefore he intentionally knocked it on.
What a load of tripe.
Referees have enough on their plate without having to adjudicate as to what someone was thinking in the split second prior to an incident.
To award a penalty, the referee has to be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that the player was mearly trying to knock the ball away from a player about to receive it. This would have to have been the player’s intent from the start. How the heck is the referee to know that.
If a player is in a position to get to the ball, then good on him. If he can only deflect it’s flight, then so be it.
Let’s make it easier for the referee, not have him read minds as well!
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (43)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (48)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (25)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- rugby refereeing, Rugby Union
pothale said | November 4th 2009 @ 4:15am | Report comment
Yeah! Right on!
wannabprop said | November 4th 2009 @ 4:42am | Report comment
Yes, by all means, lets make it easier on the referee. This particular scenario seems to be becoming all too prevalent in the last two seasons (at least in the Tri Nations). I’m sorry, but when you see a player just slap a ball down, or stick an arm out to deflect a pass without any hope of catching it, then I don’t think you need to ‘look into the eyes’ of the perpetrator – I suggest it is indeed a deliberate knock down. So again, yes, lets take the interpretation away from those poor maligned officials – one suggestion would be if it’s not caught, then possession to the attacking team… oh, hang on, this has been tried before…
Firestarter Bob said | November 4th 2009 @ 5:06am | Report comment
Officiating the game would be so much easier if they simply left the players in the sheds.
Aljay said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Intentional knock-on is a ridiculous rule.
Think about it … Its late in the 2nd half, your’ve been battling, rucking and mauling all game and the scores are still even, all of a sudden the ball is floating through the air in front of you…oh, wait, better not touch it, might be a penalty.
Let’s face it, if the attacking team is careless and unskilled to pass the ball so close to the opposition that they can get a hand to it, they deserve to run the risk of losing it without the possible benefit of a penalty. How can there be anything wrong with defending your tryline by attacking the BALL. Yet another reason this GPS boy now watches more league.
PastHisBest said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:10am | Report comment
Aljay, there are plenty of reasons why I watch LESS league today than I did in the eighties. The equally ridiculous ‘didn’t play at the ball before going into touch’ rule is one that leaps to mind.
Let’s face it, all sports have their stupid laws.
Bay35Pablo said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:00am | Report comment
I’d settle for the refs spotting all the bloody forward passes. What is it about rugby that makes it so hard to spot these quarter back throws? League seems to be able to spot it!! Or is it because they have less to watch (i.e. not policing the 645 rules in the ruck)?
Lee said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:12am | Report comment
I’m sorry but in the games I have watched this year, that rule has been barely called in – when has it happedned recently to gather this type of response?
sheek said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:19am | Report comment
Yeah, I agree with the sentiment.
Let’s just leave all knock-ons as knock-ons without trying to second guess the player’s intentions.
Just another example of when you try to codify everything, you only create more problems, not less.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:32am | Report comment
I know bugger all about rugby, and yet what Cattledog has written (and some of the supporting comments) make perfect sense to me.
1. Any rule requiring refs to guess the motives of players in a split-second decision (both ways) is naturally fraught with danger.
2. As some have said, the ball’s floating an arm’s length in front of you – of course you have to go for it!! Even if it’s a desperate and hopeful all or nothing one handed swipe at it (sometimes the ball will stick, other times it won’t, that’s the way the cookie crumbles).
PastHisBest said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:14am | Report comment
Like ‘simulation’ in AFL pip?
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
What’s like simulation?
ps that particular expression is not used in AFL circles
PastHisBest said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
That’s why I put it in quotes.
>What’s like simulation?
>1. Any rule requiring refs to guess the motives of players in a split-second decision (both ways) is naturally >fraught with danger.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
PHB
I’m still not sure what you’re referring to.
But if we must make a comparison – I would choose the putting the ball deliberately out rule, where the ump has to work out whether the player deliberately tried to put the ball over the line.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a very good comparison because the ump will get a bit of time to take a look and make a decision, i.e. he’s watching the player, watching the trajectory of the ball, the direction , noticing whether any of his team mates are in the vicinity of where the ball lands, etc.
I think that’s very different to this scenario, where it will all happen in a split second.
PastHisBest said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Rushed behinds then?
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:58am | Report comment
Once again, the way it has panned out, it is easier to adjudge the rushed behind rule than what we’re talking about here.
But people are arguing that it rarely arises in a match (confusion with what is and isn’t intentional) – which surprises me – but anyway, maybe it’s not a big deal either if people think that way.
Dean Pantio said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:53am | Report comment
It’s really not that difficult – player isolated in defence who knocks the ball to ground does so intentionally.
Player who makes a grasp for the ball and fumbles it is looking to intercept. Player who knocks ball upwards, rather than towards the ground is less likely to be intentionally knocking it on.
wannabprop said | November 5th 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
Exactly. So why isn’t it being policed? No need to answer really…
Hoy said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
I am of the opposite train of thought.
I would suggest that you don’t need to read minds to determine that a slap down was never intended to be caught.
As for your argument Aljay, it is a little poor. Think about it, you have been battling away all game, you are tired, and they are on the attack, so you just lie on the wrong side of the ruck to get a rest? Doesn’t work there, doesn’t work in your argument.
If you make a genuine effort to intercept it, it is obviously a genuine effort. If you slap down with your hand, then that is not a genuine attempt to catch the ball.