Refereeing decisions

[liquor box]

On the weekend Kuridrani was declared to have knocked the ball on inside the in goal area ad a line dropout was given.

He knocked the ball on from inside the field and it then went into the in goal. (first bounce in field, second bounce in goal).

Should this have been a normal knock on just short of the line?

 

[Pfitzy]

On the weekend Kuridrani was declared to have knocked the ball on inside the in goal area ad a line dropout was given.

He knocked the ball on from inside the field and it then went into the in goal. (first bounce in field, second bounce in goal).

Should this have been a normal knock on just short of the line?

Tricky one. Where were his feet when he lost possesion?

 

[molman]

Owen Farrell may finally be about to get his comeuppance for this effort:

Sundry UK pundits calling for a 10-week ban & as more than one has mentioned, imagine the shit storm if a PI player did that to Lord Owen...

That is just bad on so many levels. Farrell has really gotten away with being a grub at times with the optics of the decision making around consequences looking suspect to say the least.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ I hate seeing guys stretchered off but for Farrell I'd make an exception.

 

[John S]

That is just bad on so many levels. Farrell has really gotten away with being a grub at times with the optics of the decision making around consequences looking suspect to say the least.

And the NRL pundits are debating whether this is worth a send off!

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ that would depend on whether he was wearing a Warriors jumper.......

(Google Jazz Tevaga sin-bin).

 

[Brumby Runner]

On the weekend Kuridrani was declared to have knocked the ball on inside the in goal area ad a line dropout was given.

He knocked the ball on from inside the field and it then went into the in goal. (first bounce in field, second bounce in goal).

Should this have been a normal knock on just short of the line?

I assume you mean the incident where he lost the ball while scoring a try. If so, then I think Pfitzy's response is just not applicable. If the facts are as you describe, and while I watched the game, I cannot be sure that the ball was knocked on twice, but if so, then it should have been a 5m scrum with Reds feed.

If you're referring to a different incident, then please disregard my comment.

 

[HJ Nelson]

I hate how the rugby.com.au/Youtube highlights only show tries, but not anything else interesting that may have happened.
The Foxtel Minis have a better highlights package

I saw it as the ball was knocked loose when TK's elbow hit the ground short of the line, but it didn't hit the ground until it was
over the try-line.

P.S. About at the 21 minute mark

 

[Pfitzy]

I saw it as the ball was knocked loose when TK's elbow hit the ground short of the line, but it didn't hit the ground until it was
over the try-line.

As a ref - well I'd be back about 40 metres due to a lack of fitness so would have no fucking idea

Didn't realise we were talking about a player in the act of scoring a try on the deck.

So if the video angles show he lost control in the field of play, it is a knock on 5m red scrum.

Similarly, if the player was in-goal but dropped the ball forward into the field of play, it would count as a knock-on in goal.

 

[molman]

And the NRL pundits are debating whether this is worth a send off!

NRL pundits can think what they like, in this day and age of knowing the effects of such tackles and the career ending potential it could have, the guidelines are pretty clear. The thing with Farrell that bugs me is that his technique has always been suspect as it was throughout this game like many if you watch him closely. He has gotten away with things that you just know other players wouldn't have on a number of occasions. He really needed some sanctions in the past for his transgressions because he’s never been forced to fully clean up his act and he often defaults to this poor approach when he's trying to put on a hard hit or influence the game.

Anyway, I suspect he'll walk away with 3 weeks which will impact Saracens chances against Leinster in the Champs Cup.

 

[molman]

As a ref - well I'd be back about 40 metres due to a lack of fitness so would have no fucking idea

Didn't realise we were talking about a player in the act of scoring a try on the deck.

So if the video angles show he lost control in the field of play, it is a knock on 5m red scrum.

Similarly, if the player was in-goal but dropped the ball forward into the field of play, it would count as a knock-on in goal.

I think they know that. I think the debate is when in the action/motion is that point of loosing control determined. When I watched it live I thought it looked like he potentially lost control a little before the line, but honestly it was a little 50/50 as you could get into weeds a little over which freeze frame you call it.

 

[Pfitzy]

I think they know that. I think the debate is when in the action/motion is that point of loosing control determined. When I watched it live I thought it looked like he potentially lost control a little before the line, but honestly it was a little 50/50 as you could get into weeds a little over on which freeze frame you call it.

As I think the line dropout is an abomination, I would opt for the scrum at all times.

But I'm a prop so I would say that

 

[Braveheart81]

It's not a knock on until the ball touches the ground or another player so my take would be that it isn't a knock on until Kuridrani is in the in goal and hence a drop out was the correct call.

 

[Braveheart81]

As I think the line dropout is an abomination, I would opt for the scrum at all times.

I have to say (and I think I'm in the minority here), I still like the goal line drop out. I think it offers a small carrot to the defensive team in what is otherwise a very difficult situation.

 

[liquor box]

It's not a knock on until the ball touches the ground or another player so my take would be that it isn't a knock on until Kuridrani is in the in goal and hence a drop out was the correct call.

His last legal point of contact should be what is important, otherwise if you thought forcing a goal line drop out was beneficial you would "knock" on from 5 metres out and make sure the ball lands in the in goal.

The last legal point of contact should be what counts, just like a forward pass, you get the penalty where the pass was thrown from, not where it ended up.

I was not really concerned by this play, but thought it was an interesting discussion point.

 

[molman]

It's not a knock on until the ball touches the ground or another player so my take would be that it isn't a knock on until Kuridrani is in the in goal and hence a drop out was the correct call.

No, I don't believe that is true if you already have possession of a ball. It’s considered a knock-on when you loose possession of the ball and it goes forward, not at the point of it hitting the ground/another player (obviously barring regathering). The hitting another player or ground is a different element of the knock-on criteria. ie. If I fumble, it hits my knee and flys 10m down the field, we don't pack the scrum where it landed but where I initially fumbled the ball.

Definition of Knock-on (World Rugby) - 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.

 

[KOB1987]

And the NRL pundits are debating whether this is worth a send off!

^ that would depend on whether he was wearing a Warriors jumper...

(Google Jazz Tevaga sin-bin).

There was actually a doozie of a send off the weekend just gone

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/09/07/townsend-regrets-send-off-incident-let-my-teammates-down/

 

[molman]

I have to say (and I think I'm in the minority here), I still like the goal line drop out. I think it offers a small carrot to the defensive team in what is otherwise a very difficult situation.

I like it too, but on the flip-side I think refs need to have clearer protocols around multiple infringements from defending teams.

 

[Braveheart81]

His last legal point of contact should be what is important, otherwise if you thought forcing a goal line drop out was beneficial you would "knock" on from 5 metres out and make sure the ball lands in the in goal.

The last legal point of contact should be what counts, just like a forward pass, you get the penalty where the pass was thrown from, not where it ended up.

I was not really concerned by this play, but thought it was an interesting discussion point.

No, I don't believe that is true if you already have possession of a ball. It’s considered a knock-on when you loose possession of the ball and it goes forward, not at the point of it hitting the ground/another player (obviously barring regathering). The hitting another player or ground is a different element of the knock-on criteria. ie. If I fumble, it hits my knee and flys 10m down the field, we don't pack the scrum where it landed but where I initially fumbled the ball.

Wouldn't in both these situations you have the knock on from where the player last touched it?

My take is that it isn't a knock on when he first starts losing the ball, it's when he actually loses it which is in the in goal.

If a player juggles the ball a couple of times then ultimately drops it, the knock on isn't where the first juggle occurred, it's where the last juggle happened.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

Farrell's 10-week high end ban halved partly due to "previous good behavior". What a fucking joke.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/international/122707031/owen-farrell-banned-for-five-matches