- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined June 2019
0
Views
0
Published
262
Comments
Published
Comments
I think Adam Beard is a top class player too. But the front row is a real problem for Wales. Agree with your assessment that Aus would win a full strength game by a length.
Why it's not all doom and gloom for the Wallabies
Are you talking about the Beale one? If so I agree. (If you’re talking about Tompkins then big nope, it went backwards so no foul)
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
Apologies, I missed that one line. But really it proves exactly what I wrote above – your revised wording is a reasonable first draft, but I can already see that it would cause issues elsewhere. “A player must not intentionally knock the ball to the ground with hand or arm”. Players often deliberately knock the ball backwards to the ground when they’re competing for the lineout, or under a garryowen. You can refine it further to say it doesn’t apply in these situations, or more about the intent, but it’s going to add more detail and/or subjectivity. More complexity in the rules, to address an incredibly rare situation that nobody even cared about 3 days ago.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
Mate, I’m just doing this to take a break for a few minutes from banging on about Andy Haden’s dive
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
The difference is that Tompkins was trying to knock it backwards – look at the shape of his hand – and he did regather it (after it had hit the ground, but that’s not relevant since it went backwards). So his intent was to legally gather the ball, and Beale’s intent was to illegally knock it on with no possibility of regathering, and hope that the ref didn’t spot that it was deliberate. Big difference.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
Have a look again – his reaction was to turn back to the ref and shout “Back”. He did slow down, I assume because he thought play had stopped because every player around him stopped, but he knew it had gone backwards. I’m not surprised he was amused though, it’s not often you get a bit of luck like that and the entire defence just stops and lets you run in unopposed.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
In case I didn’t explain it well enough, I’ll try a different way: Current the law is quite simple “A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.” But you couldn’t simply change this to say “…knock the ball forwards or backwards…” because there are many situations in a game where it is entirely valid to knock the ball backwards. So you would need to go into precise detail to define what you’re trying to outlaw. Which leads to complexity and quirks and interpretation etc. Which we really don’t need any more of…
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
If you fancy a challenge you could have a go at re-writing the law. And then I could be devil’s advocate and have a go at finding holes in it 😛 I suspect it would end up needed to be pretty convoluted to define the scenarios you think should be penalised but not the ones you don’t. For example, what if Tompkins’ knock-back was caught by a teammate? Or by an opponent? Or came off his boot? What if he jumped for a high pass and swiped it backwards, would that be the same as Tompkins’ one?
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
While I’m having a good moan about the section on the knockdown law below (it’s a “knock-on” not a “knockdown” 😛 ) , I did enjoy the first part of the article, good stuff. A mixed year for the Wallabies, but nice to think about a lot of the positives that have come out of it.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
That’s true – I was referring to the rule that it is legal to play the ball backwards as one that has been around forever. That would need to change to make a knock-down / knock-back illegal. And as I say, I don’t see any need to do that.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
I’d suggest that there are also very few controversies or arguments about this law in union as well. This is obviously a big one, but it’s an extremely rare occurrence. We’re talking about it now because it happened in a big close game. But I suggest that this problem is only as big as it is because a large number of people – including the Stan Sport commentary team – don’t understand the laws. They should have called it as a correct decision after they saw the replay (even if they added “but I think it’s a stupid rule”), but instead it was described as a refereeing howler. And now many people on this, and every other Aussie rugby site, including contributors as well as BTL, are writing that rugby is a farce and the Wallabies are robbed by an incompetent referee. Even though the ref was bang on with his decision. There is a problem with the quality and consistency of refereeing, but we can’t possibly hold them to account when we’re also raging at them for correct decisions.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
There’s no such thing as a deliberate knock down law, it’s a deliberate knock on. Important distinction. You could change it to make it broader to cover knock downs / knock backs. But why would you want to add more complexity in the rules to address a very very rare event? My original question was why is it only Aussie fans who are confused by this? I’m curious, I think just about everyone else gets that a deliberate knock on has to go forwards.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
But why would we remove the distinction? It’s been OK to knock the ball back for 150 years. Even if you don’t like what happened on Saturday (and I suspect that most neutrals would not have a problem with it, and would just see it as an unusual but perfectly valid passage of play) is it really worth adding more complexity to the rules by changing them to address a very, very rare occurrence?
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
I haven’t missed your point in the slightest, you made your point clearly and I fully understand but completely disagree. Tompkins most certainly did regather – he picked up the ball and scored a try. The fact that it hit the ground before he regathered is completely irrelevant (again you could write a law after the fact that makes it relevant, but as it stands today it is irrelevant).
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
I’m curious why you say it was crying out for discussion – does anyone recall a similar incident to this happening in the past? Seems like a very unusual and obscure scenario, and tailoring a new rule for it feels like reactive overkill to me.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
But what if it’s not luck? What if a player jumps up and deliberately slaps a high pass backwards to a teammate, or to the ground? If you look at the replay, Tompkins does actually try to reach around and claw the ball back. He’s still lucky that it came off, 9 times out of 10 he probably couldn’t do it again, but there was an element of skill in it too – Beale’s slap forward for example could never have gone backwards.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
Geoff, the point I made yesterday was that at least one person didn’t need slow mo replays or protractor to work out if it went forwards or backwards, and he was the bloke with the whistle. We all needed the slow mo to check if he got it right, and it turns out he did, so credit to him. Yes, it’s a marginal call, but no more so than whether a flat pass is forwards or backwards, and we have no problem with the idea that the ref / lino has to made a snap decision on those (even though they do get the wrong at times). In fact in recent times the direction has been to give the benefit of the doubt to try scorer if it’s not clearly forward, so I see no logical reason to take the opposite view here. You mention the way it’s been played for 150 years – for 150 years it’s been legal to play the ball backwards from the hand, but not forwards. Yes you could introduce an exception (like the kick charge down), but why would you? This would add more complexity to already over complicated rules. What if a player deliberately smacks it back to a team mate? Or to himself? Or to the ground?
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
Also just to add:
“If then, when a defending player makes deliberate contact with the ball to impede the attack, and they are in no position to regather the ball – the benchmark for at least a penalty – why then does the ball going forward or backward matter?”
It matters because the law of the game has always been that you can play the ball backwards but not forwards. But in this case that’s not even relevant, as Tompkins did regather the ball. Not legally under the rules that you would like to see in place, but perfectly legally under the current rules.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
He knocked it backwards, and he regained it. It’s no more cynical than intercepting a pass or stealing a line-out.
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
No, I have not missed the point in the slightest, I understand your point but I disagree. A deliberate knock-on is a type of knock-on. It can’t be a deliberate knock-on if it’s not a knock-on in the first place. (I note that you refer to a “knock-down” – although this is a common term, there’s no such thing in the laws of rugby. I suspect the common use of this term is contributing to why a lot of people are confused about the decision.) Of course you could change the definition of a “deliberate knock-on” to include knocking it backwards, which I think is closer to the league rule. But why would you bother? This is such a rare event that I don’t recall seeing one like it before. Changing a 150 year old law to address a very rare event is the kind of overkill and over-legistlation that has caused the laws to be a bit of a mess, we should be simplifying them if anything. And why shouldn’t you reward player who can legally intercept a ball – whether that’s by catching it, knocking it forward and then catching it, or knocking it backwards and then regaining it?
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
I think a more pertinent question to ask is why are so many Australian fans – including apparently a number of professional commentators and coaches – unaware of such a basic rule as “a knock on has to go forwards”? We’ve been playing this game for 150 years, and that rule hasn’t changed. I’m sure there is no other country where many, if any, fans would be shocked to learn this. Maybe it’s the influence of NRL? I understand that league has a different rule on this. But really this is a bit of a freak event, I don’t recall ever seeing one quite like this and might never again, so calls to change the rules are nothing to do with improving the game and all about trying to justify a misguided feeling of having been cheated. Maybe the answer to every Wallabies defeat shouldn’t be to change the rules to make it more like league?
Genuine flames, if not a roaring bonfire of momentum, to end the Wallabies’ year
It’s worth talking about because it was a rare, weird, noteworthy incident in the game. It’s the controversy over the ref’s decision that I just don’t get.
Help me out, please – do you think the ball went forwards off Tompkins’ hand? Or do you think that the ball doesn’t need to go forwards for it to be a knock on?
The Wrap: Three epic Test matches all swing to the north
Seriously? We teach 5 year olds to play to the whistle.
The Wrap: Three epic Test matches all swing to the north
Genuine question, because as I say I am confused. Are you saying that it should be a knock-on because the ball went forwards off his hand? Or are you saying that it didn’t go forward, but a knock on doesn’t require the ball to go forward?
Discipline was part of the problem, but they were also unlucky – not least with this Tompkins try. And there were a couple of key decisions that went against them too – Thomas should have had a red for that ridiculous clean out, and that maul right by the welsh tryline should have been a penalty to green and not red.
The Wrap: Three epic Test matches all swing to the north
I think he’ll be a regular for Wales for some time, so I guess time will tell
Why it's not all doom and gloom for the Wallabies