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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

ps that particular expression is not used in AFL circles

Let’s face it, all sports have their stupid laws.

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???

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.