How often has each of us had a doubt about a so-called knock-on during a game and what it meant to the opposing team?
More so in recent times and certainly a lot lately with the fingertip touching of a ball following a high kick that often means awarding or not awarding a following try.
In a game that is meant to have uniform decisions on interpretation of the rules of everyday breaches, our referees express wide variations on what constitutes a knock-on.
During my youth some 60-odd years ago, a knock-on occurred when the ball was lost forward, on the ground, or resulted in an advantage to the offending side, for example, being dropped sideways where the ball then ran forwards, so that if the ball was then picked up by the offence it would have had an advantage.
As far as I remember, if the ball was lost into a defending player and then regained by the ball player or a teammate who was onside, it was not adjudged to be a knock-on. It all made sense to me and was, most of the time, logical.
(Photo by Ian Hitchcock/Getty Images)
We still allow a knock-on to be legal play if the ball is dropped but kicked before it hits the ground, whether or not it goes on to hit an opposing player without hitting the deck, and that rule doesn’t seem to have been caught up in the rest of it.
Nowadays, it depends on which referee it is or which week it is – and there seems to be no possibility of sorting it out because the decision is often not logical. It is certainly not consistent from one offence to another or one referee to another, on top of which there are interpretations from the Bunker, often different again.
Sound confusing? Well of course it is, and why it ever came to this, I for one will never know. But to be practical, there doesn’t appear to be any attempt to resolve it by the judiciary or the referees, so here is my solution.
Change the name of the offence to ‘lost ball’. The ball has to be lost for the current ruling practice to apply, and although I’m not a fan of penalising a team for not gaining an advantage from losing the ball, I don’t see the possibility of a common-sense change back to what a knock-on once was, or ought to be, and this at least gets away from the confusing misnomer of a knock-on.
As this appears to be a universal problem, someone brighter than me somewhere in the world should come up with a better solution. Otherwise, consider making this change to the rule internationally as well as locally.
Greg
Roar Pro
Im fine with the knock on rule the way it is, i dont personally believe the interpretation is inconsistent. However, i also wouldnt be opposed to removing the lost into an opponent part (provided its regathered before hitting the ground). It would make assessing the real subtle ones that are near impossible to see live and still difficult to see in replays much easier to call for the referee/video ref.
Greg
Roar Pro
This no longer applies to the deadball line for general play kicking. But this rule also doesnt bother me, amazed that more wingers dont take advantage of it.
criag
Roar Rookie
I have in the past got annoyed at that rule when it looked like a player was going to regain possession, but I'm happy to leave it as it is. The rule I don't like is the one discovered by a smart fullback some years ago. He must've spent a nice evening sitting by the fire studying the rule book. It is the one where if you put your foot over the touch line or dead ball line and catch the ball, somehow it is the kicker who is responsible for kicking the ball dead. As far as I'm concerned, if you carry the ball dead, you carry the ball dead.
Ben Pobjie
Expert
Nope. Next.
Paul
Roar Guru
I'm not sure I see the need to make a change Rod. There are going to be tickey-tack knock on calls from time to time and you're right, they can and probably will affect games, but I'm not sure I see why we need to change the rule, bearing in mind how many other tickey-tack calls are made in the game, eg forward passes.
Kent Dorfman
Roar Rookie
RL is so anal about knock ons. The beauty of French club rugby years ago (maybe the 80's or 90's) was "was it a knock on? Ah too close to call - play on" - spectators want to watch a game of footy, not everyone stand around for 20 minutes while they analyze from 20 different camera angles if it did or didn't flick his fingernail as he reached for the ball. Also some KO calls are a joke - I could be facing the opponents try line, touch the ball and it lands behind me - the ball landed behind from where it was touched yet it will be called a knock on! Sure - from a physics standpoint while it did go backwards it was actually starting to accelerate in the opposite direction - but it landed behind from where it was touched and that should be enough for play on. Oh - unless Gus Gould calls it a knock on (that is unless his favorite team scores from it then it's the best try ever & wasn't a KO)
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Changing the rule to that of a lost ball or a fumble as in US and Canadian football would make it easier to judge but I'd prefer to stay with the present rule.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Referees sometimes make mistakes. I recall a game between Easts and Souths many years ago on a sunny but very windy day. The Souths half threw a long pass looking to cut out a couple of players. It was a legal pass as it left his hands in a backward direction and he was moving slowly in a diagonal direction. The wind caught the ball and it floated over the heads of the Easts players who were moving up in a line. A Souths centre ran through and caught the ball after one bounce well behind the Easts defenders and headed for the try line. The referee ruled a forward pass even though there is a clause in the rules that say a pass is legal if it is thrown backwards but bounces forward or is blown forward by the wind. Referees sometimes make mistakes.