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!
sledgeandhammer
Guest
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.
Michael C
Roar Guru
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.
AndyS
Guest
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.
wannabprop
Guest
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.
wannabprop
Guest
Exactly. So why isn't it being policed? No need to answer really...
arbitro storico
Guest
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.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
That's what I've heard! :)
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Became really popular in Melbourne, I believe!
Cattledog
Roar Guru
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!
Pippinu
Roar Guru
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?
westy
Guest
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.
netrug
Guest
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.
CaughtOffside
Guest
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.
captain nemo
Roar Guru
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
stillmissit
Roar Guru
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.
stillmissit
Roar Guru
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.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I agree with you completely Caughoffside.
Pippinu
Roar Guru
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.
PastHisBest
Roar Guru
Rushed behinds then?
Jerry
Guest
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.