Is this a knock on?
- Thread starter Gagger
- Start date
- Status
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
of course it is, the ref just dumbed down his level of game to the skill set of both england and australia so we could have a better game.
C
chief
Guest
Yeah it is. Bryce is just a shit referee.
R
rugbywhisperer
Guest
I cannot see how it is. The ball must travel toward the opponents dead ball line after coming off the hand or arm.
From what I can see the ball, while seemingly travelling in that direction in relation to the player did in fact travel backwards.
Watch the ball again - it never stops travelling in the same direction - at no time before it hit the ground did it reverse direction and travel towards the Australian dead ball line.
From what I can see the ball, while seemingly travelling in that direction in relation to the player did in fact travel backwards.
Watch the ball again - it never stops travelling in the same direction - at no time before it hit the ground did it reverse direction and travel towards the Australian dead ball line.
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.[/center]
Guys, if you want to bag a ref for bad mistakes then do so but please - learn the laws and look at the play - the ref's in reality don't make half as many errors as people think and many of the calls they do make that get people offside are the ones they deem to be the more offensive - negative to play or the spirit.
forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the
ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or
another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.[/center]
Guys, if you want to bag a ref for bad mistakes then do so but please - learn the laws and look at the play - the ref's in reality don't make half as many errors as people think and many of the calls they do make that get people offside are the ones they deem to be the more offensive - negative to play or the spirit.
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
Personally I don't think it is. The trick is to watch the ball and the background powerade sign but to ignore the english player). This seems to show the ball going towards the english try line at all times even though the player is goijng backwards faster than the ball.
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
Well, no, it's not a knock-on, because the ball travelled backwards.
But "forwards" and "backwards" are slightly relative ideas, even with the clause about the dead ball line. If you don't believe me, have a look at two guys passing the bal between them at speed. The ball generally goes forward. Because he was moving backwards, the ball went relatively forwards and could easily have been called for knock-on.
But "forwards" and "backwards" are slightly relative ideas, even with the clause about the dead ball line. If you don't believe me, have a look at two guys passing the bal between them at speed. The ball generally goes forward. Because he was moving backwards, the ball went relatively forwards and could easily have been called for knock-on.
My take:
As Scarf says, and Whisperer admits, it's about relativity to the player.
That the ball has travelled NET backwards is irrelevant. Monye knocked it forwards from himself, that's what counts.
I don't read anything the the rule statement (also on the video) that says anything else.
It's the same for forward passes. If we didn't measure it relative to the passer's hand, then every pass from a runner at pace would be forward.
As Scarf says, and Whisperer admits, it's about relativity to the player.
That the ball has travelled NET backwards is irrelevant. Monye knocked it forwards from himself, that's what counts.
I don't read anything the the rule statement (also on the video) that says anything else.
It's the same for forward passes. If we didn't measure it relative to the passer's hand, then every pass from a runner at pace would be forward.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
I don't think that relativity is generally an issue with knock ones, and the ref generally won't consider it. It's not a knock on, it went backwards (according to the rules), and they got it right. If a player is running backwards and knocks the ball backwards, the ref will never give a knock on.
RE Bryce Lawrence, I re-watched the game last night and think there's a lot of stuff he got wrong that wasn't on the video. However, most of his penalties against the Wallabies WERE justified - it's just that he only reffed one team initially. Here's some examples: he got Alexander twice for coming in at a 45 degree angle - fair enough, if you're consistent. Yet he lets Thompson (the hooker?), for example, come in on one clearout at 90 degrees - directly from the side from right in front of him.
RE Bryce Lawrence, I re-watched the game last night and think there's a lot of stuff he got wrong that wasn't on the video. However, most of his penalties against the Wallabies WERE justified - it's just that he only reffed one team initially. Here's some examples: he got Alexander twice for coming in at a 45 degree angle - fair enough, if you're consistent. Yet he lets Thompson (the hooker?), for example, come in on one clearout at 90 degrees - directly from the side from right in front of him.
B
brokendown gunfighter
Guest
ball went back towards the player's own goal line
play on
mind you,in the mungo game,it would have been called
play on
mind you,in the mungo game,it would have been called
R
rugbywhisperer
Guest
Actually a knock on and a forward pass are adjudicated differently even though the wording is similar. For a forward pass, with 2 players running alongside each other it is very unlikely that a pass between them will not travel towards the opponentd dead ball line after leaving the hands,. It it the motion of the ball as it leaves the hands that is assessed and if a ball leaves the hands in a forward manner then it is deemed to be forward pass.
In a knock on the ball must travel toward the opponents dead ball. Its motion WRT the player is irrelevant. It is direction of travel that is what is assessed.
In a knock on the ball must travel toward the opponents dead ball. Its motion WRT the player is irrelevant. It is direction of travel that is what is assessed.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
The ball did not go forward.
Like may others, I suppose, I was sure it wasn't forward watching it live and didn't have to see the replay, even on the night. Those kinds of referee errors happen all the time and should not be included in the catalogue of egregious errors made by Lawrence. Doing so would so would dilute the argument that he is a dud ref.
You can't use a definition of "forward" that covers forward in relation to the player trying to catch the ball because as we saw on the night: the player was running towards his own goal line. That's why, as whispers indicates, the wording of the knock on law is what it is.
It just goes to show, to those few of us who hadn't realised it, that one shouldn't take the words of TV commentators as gospel.
I agree with this because you used the word "most": there we a few of them I called to myself before the whistle blew and posted just after the game: Some of the penalties seemed inexplicable but I saw 3 coming in from the side events from us when all it would have taken would have been another step or two to near enough to the back of the ruck and then a drive forward. It's just laziness.
But some looked wrong, though it is hard to get a clear view of the transactions during every infraction whistled up, or not whistled.
As for refereeing one side I started to ask myself: "What about the the other guys. If the players in the gold jerseys are doing that and getting pinged, what about the men in white?" Then I recalled that I had the same thought about Lawrence when he refereed the 1st Lions test v the Boks.
He is a dud, and I'm glad to say that after a win - but we can't say that because of the particular event under discussion.
Like may others, I suppose, I was sure it wasn't forward watching it live and didn't have to see the replay, even on the night. Those kinds of referee errors happen all the time and should not be included in the catalogue of egregious errors made by Lawrence. Doing so would so would dilute the argument that he is a dud ref.
You can't use a definition of "forward" that covers forward in relation to the player trying to catch the ball because as we saw on the night: the player was running towards his own goal line. That's why, as whispers indicates, the wording of the knock on law is what it is.
It just goes to show, to those few of us who hadn't realised it, that one shouldn't take the words of TV commentators as gospel.
Ash said:
I agree with this because you used the word "most": there we a few of them I called to myself before the whistle blew and posted just after the game: Some of the penalties seemed inexplicable but I saw 3 coming in from the side events from us when all it would have taken would have been another step or two to near enough to the back of the ruck and then a drive forward. It's just laziness.
But some looked wrong, though it is hard to get a clear view of the transactions during every infraction whistled up, or not whistled.
As for refereeing one side I started to ask myself: "What about the the other guys. If the players in the gold jerseys are doing that and getting pinged, what about the men in white?" Then I recalled that I had the same thought about Lawrence when he refereed the 1st Lions test v the Boks.
He is a dud, and I'm glad to say that after a win - but we can't say that because of the particular event under discussion.
rugbywhisperer said:
Similar?
In this respect they're exactly the same "towards the opposing team's dead ball line"
You seem to be picking and choosing your interpretations.
I see nothing in either set of words that talks about the ball overall having travelled forward. It's all in relation to the offending player.
Relative to Monye, the ball went forward from his hand. He knocked it on.
Or, if you want a different version; overall the ball would have gone further backwards if he had not got involved. His part in the balls overall travel was to knock it towards the oppositions dead ball line, thus knocking it on.
Scarfie, surely there's a French philosopher who had a take on this?
Scarfman
Knitter of the Scarf
I don't think so. Those guys were at the opposite end of the political spectrum to the rugby crowd.
But I found this. A book called Foucault, Sport and Exercise. Chapter 6 is of particular interest: "A Discursive Analysis of Rugby Experiences and the Construction of Gendered Identities".
Available at all good book stores.
But I found this. A book called Foucault, Sport and Exercise. Chapter 6 is of particular interest: "A Discursive Analysis of Rugby Experiences and the Construction of Gendered Identities".
Available at all good book stores.
R
rugbywhisperer
Guest
Scarfman said:
I am not quite sure how your comment Scarfy fits in with the technicalities of a knock on.
Anyway, Foucault also wrote a great tale on 'The Emergence of the Homosexual'. It is a key text and reference in the new and emerging Queer Legal theory which seeks to question anything and everything wrt identity tags and binary categorization. He is hailed as a sort of hero in those circles and there is a certain direction he is taking with his writings..
- Status