It has taken a while. I last wrote the article in 2012. However, it’s occurred.
Players sent from the field in general play may now be replaced after a period of 20 minutes. This is fair to say the least, even if nearly ten years too late.
It’s especially important when it happens in the first five minutes, as happened in a recent Test last year when a player was sent from the field in the first five minutes after making what the referee considered a high tackle.
I was there… God, give me strength. I really thought I was watching a football international against Italy, but alas, it was against the French.
Same actor, though different country.
The judiciary saw it for what it really was – a referee error – and didn’t provide any further punishment.
A similar incident several years ago against Wales. A game was ruined by what was a dangerous tackle, but considering everything, a 20-minute loss of a player (25 per cent of 80 minutes) would have been a better outcome.
(Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
Anyway, there are many more examples but enough is enough. The powers that be have seen the light and changes are (slowly) being made.
As an aside, I note rugby league is moving with the times considerably quicker than our international game, possibly as they don’t have the stuffed coats calling the shots from afar. It’s becoming a better spectacle. Watch out, rugby union.
Okay, let’s talk about this contentious intentional knock-on. Back in 2009, I first alluded to the stupidity of this rule, and it seems the refereeing of this contentious area of the game has only got worse.
As I noted back then, a player either becomes a hero if they hold the ball and score through an intercept, or a villain as they’re penalised for intentionally knocking it on.
It’s interesting to note that in general play, there is absolutely no way of being penalised for knocking it on, just the embarrassment that accompanies the aftermath, especially if a try was to be scored.
I just can’t see how on most occasions referees can call this intentional. Someone may correct me here but I think the law was first established to prevent the ball from being slapped out of the halfback’s hand.
This is certainly still the case, but you don’t see it, or rarely see it anymore. It’s progressed.
Now, if the best form of defence is offence and attempting an intercept is the best means of offensive play, then so be it.
Teams must recognise there’s considerable danger in holding up a pass until it’s nearly too late. But no, they’re given the benefit of the doubt and rewarded, generally with a penalty when their passing skills were a bit lacklustre.
Please, let’s reward positive play and penalise negative play. Missing an intercept, therefore not gathering the pass fully, isn’t necessarily negative play.
Slapping the ball from the halfback’s hand is and should be penalised fully by the referee. Once again, let’s not make them mind readers as well.
Harry Jones
Expert
Yes, I think it's just one more cause for long stoppage and TMO microscopes and intent divinations. A knock on is a knock on. Play advantage and keep the game moving.
piru
Roar Rookie
This is the crux of the issue, it's not even against a particular law, you have to combine a couple of them and then add in a dose of interpreting what someone's intent was to reach a penalty. It's silly and against the spirit of the game imo - the ball is supposed to be in contest
piru
Roar Rookie
Agree 100% Spoiling passes is just considered defence in literally every other sport
Double Agent
Guest
You're welcome Carlos.
soapit
Roar Guru
the ones ive seen its more like a juggled catch from a pass and they bat it forward and catch it past the defence. reckon ive maybe seen 2 in my 30 years of watching
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Disagree. Defences start advancing once half back lifts the ball. By the time the ball has moved into the backline, via 10/12, the defence is easily capable of positioning themselves between the 13,11, 14 or 15 (and 7 if your Aussie). Essentially they just rush and hang out in between players, ready to slap at anything going past. The attack will never be able to get a clean attacking move. The inside sliding defence can then pick off the ball carrier with ease. This adjustment would vastly help the defence and hinder the attack, which is the exact opposite direction WR want the game to move.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
It is correct. You won't get penalised for knocking it on. Intentionally knocking it on is a different ball game!
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
Nah. It’s a deliberate negative play and needs to stop. If you allow this then players will start slapping the ball away across the field and that will make for a crap game. It’s too easy to stuff your defence up and then resort to slapping at the ball rather than attempting a tackle. I’m not sure why it’s being pushed as an attacking issue when it’s clearly a defence issue
jcmasher
Roar Rookie
That never works mate.
scrum
Roar Rookie
You are entitled to your opinion but what you are doing is legitimatising an infringement to stop positive attacking rugby. Most of the PKs the offender had no chance of catching the ball. It’s similar to the argument that the ball carrier is at fault for head contact. You are promoting negativity rugby
Cattledog
Roar Guru
That's fine JC, were all entitled to our opinions. I suppose you need to understand knock-on...not deliberate knock-on. As I said, a deliberate knock down from the half backs hand, or another player in that or another position is just that...a deliberate knock-on. I'm talking about the attempted intercepts that appear to have a player penalised or given a yellow if a try may have been scored. As I said in the beginning, if a player is tardy enough to have his pass interfered with, then perhaps he needs to improve his passing skills or hold the ball.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
No it doesn't. Risk versus reward. Often a flat pass leads to a great try...but often an intercept as well. To disallow an intercept attempt due to the current enforcement is stupidity
Cattledog
Roar Guru
It's risk versus reward. Pass the ball late and you risk an intercept...if not, a try may be scored. Just because he didn't quite gather it doesn't mean he's a villain...the opposite in fact. They need to be a little more 'savvy' with their passing :happy:
Cattledog
Roar Guru
It gets back to my original point, Scrum...they shouldn't pass when an intercept is likely! I'm not calling a failed intercept an infringement, merely a knock on if not collected. It will change the attitude of teams.
Cattledog
Roar Guru
No Carlos...'it's occurred'...the replacement after send off :thumbup:
Cattledog
Roar Guru
Hahahaha :)
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Completely agree, it’s because it is a 360deg game that head on collisions are far less common then Union. It’s not about knowing where the opposition is coming from though, it’s about the relative vectors they bring into a collision. The ideal intent of a kick in AFL is to have an unmarked player mark the ball, you typically don’t want a contest for possession. If your player is marked, your kick is targeting them to run away from the opposition, meaning both players a re moving in same direction. In union, with some obvious exceptions aside, you are deliberately trying to contest a kick. As you have opposing lines, players are normally running directly at each other when there is a contest. Of course, these are generalising statements, and their are exceptions, but they are exceptions. The games are completely different from each and comparing the two in a discussion about high kicks is meaningless. And also, people do get hurt in AFL, so the original premise of the comparison was wrong anyway.
The Ferret
Roar Rookie
There are a lot of good comments in this thread and some good points made in the article. Points I agree with: The introduction of the TMO is what has made this decision so controversial. Any time a player touches the ball when a pas is made is slowed down to the frame. Let’s the refs make a call. Did it look like in real time that their actions were deliberate and against the spirit of the game. In a two on one situation and the attacking player hold the ball up so long it is touched during the tackle (Kurtley Beale comes to mind) than that should be on the attacker and not the defender. Ruling is a a scrum to the attacking team. Any slap down of the ball. The incident in the Wallabies v Wales game is a great example. There was 0 intent to catch that ball. Mark commented that the difference between a yellow and a try was inches. Maybe a change in the wording of the rule to be a deliberate knock down vs knock on - a player from the defending team deliberately slaps or hits the ball to prevent a pass being completed. Something like that but in more lawyer talk. And finally a player who goes for an intercept should not be punished by a yellow. It is clear and obvious to all fans of both sides in real time when a player is going for an intercept. I yellow is always harsh but at most it should only be a penalty under the current laws. In conclusion I don’t think the rule needs to go 100%. We can’t have players Willy Nilly slapping down passes and we can’t have players spending 10 in the bin for having a crack at an intercept.
Otago Man
Roar Rookie
Daft idea brought into the game that somehow refs are meant to determine intention of a player. If the intent was to prevent this negative play then it has not worked as it is still in the game. Give a penalty if the ref suspects negative intent but leave it at that.
Micko
Roar Rookie
AFL is a full 360 degree game Paulo. You don't know from what direction, what distance, or what speed someone will come at you in a marking contest! The rugby codes are easy in comparison, as they're just two lines of teams facing each other.