By Cattledog -
November 4th 2009 @ 1:59am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Intentional Knock On rule a load of baloney
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!
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(39)
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.
fox said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Make it easier on referees? Come on, they already only police a section of their choosing of the applicable laws in any one game! And then they change what they focus on the next match!
CaughtOffside said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:31am | Report comment
You believe that??? Or are you just stirring?
CaughtOffside said | November 4th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
It is hardly seen in the game is it?
As dean says, it isnt that difficult, however, it can be in the heat of the momment.
As a student of the game, and an active player and coach, there is a bigger issue to address. Read on:
I would rather see people discussing the amount of pile ups in Saturdays bledisloe. What is it with international games at the moment that sees players continuously on the ground, still playing or impeding the ball. There are laws at the moment that if policed by refs and adherred to by the players, would speed the game up.
This is not a go at refs,(they do a hard job pretty well) but a look at the whole psyche of players coaches and refs at the elite level…
I watched a replay of the GF 2000 between Brumbies and Crusaders. What a game. Players on feet, quick ball, good skills. What has happened in the last decade, why dont we adhere to Law 15 & 16 anymore?
Watching Shute Shield, it is wonderful to see the attacking spirit encouraged as referees in this competition are vigilant on players off their feet being “negative”. Can one of the Elite referees who may monitor this site explain to me why at the higher level, players appear to me to be allowed to play off their feet or delibrately go to ground, where as at club level it is not allowed? Is this just my perception, or do we “allow” these transgressions to “supposedly” allow better entertainment and continuity, thus actually shooting ourselves in the feet as players get more and more daring off their feet, then slowing the game.
I play at a low level, and I am not training 5 days a week, but I do know what I am allowed to do at the breakdown (even though i am a back), I do understand that International level has alot more riding on it, however, surely we are using the same laws… (even though the sanction is different).
If referees at club level can encourage us low skilled park players to get up on our feet and play positively, can the iRB refs have a meeting and agree to do the same to the fit, highly skilled players. I feel the iRB guys missed an opportunity to set the standard for all rugby at the WC2007, and we have seen pile up after pile up since then. The 2007 final was a wonderful advertisement for the game???? Pile up, pile up pile up!!!!
There is no need to tinker with laws. There isnt even a need to use the ELV’s (even though i think they are great). All we need is the elte referees, players and coaches to adhere to the current laws, and the filter down effect will win out. However the poor referee who sticks his neck out to change the behaviour is going to cop it in the media….(Matt Goddard as discussed elsewhere) Maybe the Media could help and start blasting players and coaches who play negatively???
Jerry said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:36am | Report comment
If you’re talking about the Goddard reffing performance in the Canes v Bulls game, I’d say it’s a perfect example of why those people who say “Refs should just apply the letter of the law and enforce it with cards from the get go” are wrong. The decisions for 3 of the 6 cards he issued were patently wrong – they shouldn’t even have been penaltes, let alone cards.
CaughtOffside said | November 4th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
Ok , yes, but if ALL the referees were as vigilant as Matt was that night (ok I accept maybe not as vigilant, but at least more vigilant) on players slowing the game down, would the behaviour of the teams schange to adapt to the laws.
I know it would, because as a player we certainly adapt quickly to the way the referees interpret, in my grade (4ths) we get a varity of “standards” of refereeing. We adapt, because we have to to avoid being penalised. My point is the elite referees have a narrower “standard” gap, they are all good, otherwise they wouldnt be there, and if all of them were prepared to be vigilant as Matt was that night, then low and behold a game of rugby might break out?
Jerry, i entrely agree that there needs to be a level of empathy for the players and the game, but not at the expense of the shape of the game. Clearly the referees at iRB level are more concerned with empathy rather than enforcement of the laws. This is my opinion, and am certainly open to responses telling me my opinion is flawed, or those that have a reason why our game allows this type of play.
Hoy said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
I agree with you completely Caughoffside.
stillmissit said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
I think the laws are there but the interpretation is what is wrong.
1. Put the effing ball in straight at scrum time.
2. Dont be so pedantic about throws to the back of the lineout.
3. ‘Hands off the ball’ is rarely heard these days – why not? Penalise them and they won’t do it. I think the forwards could help in this area (maybe they should fix the issue themselves) by shouting and pointing to a dumb ref who is too concerned at being in the right position rather than looking for quick ball from the breakdown.
4. Goddard wasn’t so far off in his calls in my book, a few more performances, maybe a lttle more clinically applied, would have cleaned up a lot of the crap we are seeing on the ground.
5. Stop ref’s trying to interpret rules and just apply them. Do not speak to players in first name terms, speak only to the captain and ensure that back chat is penalised. Simple really but will they do it – NO! too much bloody politics.
Cattledog said | November 4th 2009 @ 7:52pm | Report comment
Caughtoffside
You’ve hit on an important issue here for referees, ‘negativety’. When I started refereeing, I was given what I thought was then; and still is ’sound advice’. My mentor, well known in QLD circles said to me ‘reward positive play and penalise negative play’. I used this throughout my refereeing and found it did a lot of good, here and overseas. Understanding what players are trying to achieve, having played the game as well, also helps in this aspect. At club level, more referees will get better flowing games by utilising this simple bit of advice.
Many roarers have indicated they know an intentional knock down and I probably do to. However, I suggest there have been a number of occasions lately where the knock forward has been called intentional when IMO it looked far more like a reaction rather than intentionally knocking on. Remember, there needed to be ‘intent’ by the player. Call it a knock down, knock on, knock forward whatever, give the opposition the scrum but let’s get away from this ‘intentional’ knock on rubbish!
arbitro storico said | November 5th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Caughtoffside – I’ll have a go at explaining why elite players appear to be allowed to play of their feet.
The most effective breakdown operators (McCaw, Smith, especially) have become skilled at “swimming” through the middle or the edges or rucks/pileups. Watch where they start, and watch where they finish. Of course they are off their feet, but the sheer desparation to get to the ball or the ball carrier has seen them prolong their effect in that mess of bodies even if they were not as soon to arrive as they might have once been, or as in other pileups throughout the match, and only when players are off their feet. It is particularly obvious in “counter rucking” situations. That they are able to have such an effect is a testimony to their fearlessness, but also to the fact that referees at elite level are reluctant to penalise this subtle breach, or unable to detect it because of the insidious nature of it.
I’d penalise every time I saw it, especially in the first 15 minutes when I’m trying to establish the parameters for “this” match – that’s being “positive”. I’m safe in the knowledge that the elite players would alter their practice for the remainder of that match, and revert to getting away with what they can next week. I’m on firm ground when I say the the media “blast” would not be directed at the negativity of the players, but at the “over-zealous” referee. Our commentators are, generally speaking, rubbish at understanding these subtleties – such gems as, “can you believe it, he’s penalised the attacking team!” Refereeing 20 tests gives one a better understanding of the legalities of player behaviour at the breakdown than playing in 100 of them, but that doesn’t stop these former greats from pronouncing to an admiring public these wrongheaded prejudices.
wannabprop said | November 5th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Wholeheartedly agree. I do think that ’slap downs’ are just another manifestation of the negative play that is escalating in rugby currently. Absolutely, it’s up to elite referees, coaches, and players to address it – but I won’t hold my breath.
PastHisBest said | November 4th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
This feels like a reeaaalll slow day on the roar…
stillmissit said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Yes as an ex ref myself I would rarely call on this option. The only time I would use it is if the ball is ’slapped’ down rather than attempted to grab it. Over 30 years I guess I called that one less than 10 times.
Intentional knocking from the field of play is different and I was onto that one although that still requires some judgement as opposed to fact.
captain nemo said | November 4th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
i have never been a fan of this rule. What about the player going for the intercept?? If the defender takes the chance to come up early in the defensive line (ie Ryan Cross the other night in Tokyo
) and have a crack at the ball, he is taking a big risk but if the ref pings him with an intentional knock on if the pill slips through his fingers, I think thats a crap ruling. Obviously the defender is intentionally going for the ball but there is no way he is intentionally knocking it on and giving the opposition a scrum usually in an attacking position, yet I have seen refs give a decision either ay on this call
netrug said | November 4th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
Ah yes, I remember Clive Norling awarding a penalty try to Australia at the SCG because an Argentine “deliberately knocked-on” at the 22 metre mark.
It was a ridiculous decision then, (completely knocking the wind out of the Argentine sails) and remains so. Let’s get rid of this penalty from the books post haste.
A player doesn’t deliberately knock-on, he is trying to get at and catch/intercept the ball. I suppose next, the powers that be will want to award a penalty for a deliberate forward pass.
westy said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
I agree it is a poor rule. There are many on here who have a superiority in scrummagimg /mauling etc but I have to say in backline play where a pass is knocked down a serious question is raised mark in relation to a defect in technical skill by the passer. Bluntly many times the pass has been knocked down by a defensive player or been allowed to be knocked down because of a failure to draw properly or passing to early or with a hope and a prayer. On such occassions I baulk at rewarding poor attacking and passing skills with a sometimes dubious interpretation of a penalty of intentional knockon.
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 6:37pm | Report comment
Anyone in favour of re-introducing the Sean Fagan Tom Brown’s Schooldays rule of being allowed to punch the ball forward with a clenched fist?
Cattledog said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Became really popular in Melbourne, I believe!
Pippinu said | November 4th 2009 @ 8:50pm | Report comment
That’s what I’ve heard!
AndyS said | November 6th 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Hardly, but I have often wondered about the use of a clenched fist for long passes in the wet or when the player is directly facing his target.
Michael C said | November 6th 2009 @ 1:18pm | Report comment
there’s a variety of ways to make the contact, and how much you attempt to impart spin or tumble or the like on the ball.
A lot of handballs are glorified ‘throws’, the fine line is that the ‘fist’ ought end up in front of the hand that held the ball, but, a lot of CLOSE quarters handballs are effectively a little ‘toss’ with a little knuckle nudge to make it legal,
however, over 30-40 metres, a skilled handball exponent stands out……in the REAL wet though, you may as well just lay it across your boot and attempt a mungrel torp as far forward as possible.
sledgeandhammer said | November 6th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Regarding the knock on rule, it seems in RL the rule as commonly applied has now changed. A knock on in RL occurs when a player loses control of the ball whether or not it travels forward. I prefer the more generous interpretation in RU, but do think the intentional knock on is a silly rule. The equivalent in say soccer would be to penalise a defender for intercepting a pass – yes it’s negative, but that is the defending team’s role.