Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Surely not, that means every time a player goes to catch a ball and has to juggle it a bit to get it under control they'd be penalised.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Surely not, that means every time a player goes to catch a ball and has to juggle it a bit to get it under control they'd be penalised.
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
Yeah, if you're allowed to essentially volley an intercept up and as long as you catch it it's not deemed a knock on, then this in theory could work if acted out right.
We could be onto something here lads.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
You mean i'm onto something. me. I'm the genius.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
I think that is a different scenario to what is being described here.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Late to this one, so firstly: FUCK Owen Farrell. Clumsy mental midget should have been absolutely smashed out of the game with yellow cards and suspensions years ago.
Secondly: if you're throwing it forward to yourself, you deserve to be tackled as you're in possession. Try to avoid a knock on in that scenario and you can have it, genius.
Secondly: if you're throwing it forward to yourself, you deserve to be tackled as you're in possession. Try to avoid a knock on in that scenario and you can have it, genius.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
KevinO
Geoff Shaw (53)
Rebels winger got a yellow card against the Force for a deliberate knock down when he knocked it up and just couldn't gather it on the second attempt. Angus said he was not in position for a intercept, when he was and nearly pulled it off to.
The law is deliberate knock on not knock down.
It was a deliberate knock on and the only thing that could have stopped it from being that is if he did catch it to complete the intercept and avoid knocking it on.
As soon as you stick out one hand it's going to be a deliberate knock on unless you intercept it.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Deliberate Knock-on automatic yellow was a Sevens thing not 15s. However they did add the protocol that Braveheart mentions above to bring consistency.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Mauls.
A defender enters legally and legally fights his way through the melee to get his hands on the player with the ball.
Now I understood at this point if he brings player and ball down it is OK.
Certainly I thought he does not have to release player or ball.
In the semi-final there was a maul situation that I read as above but fans went off about it. What are the laws? Am I right?
A defender enters legally and legally fights his way through the melee to get his hands on the player with the ball.
Now I understood at this point if he brings player and ball down it is OK.
Certainly I thought he does not have to release player or ball.
In the semi-final there was a maul situation that I read as above but fans went off about it. What are the laws? Am I right?
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
^ the ELV that allowed a maul to be taken down by a player coming from an onside position & tackling the ball carrier should never have been rescinded IMO, in the brief period it was in use in NZ the number & effectiveness of what I'd consider obstruction declined dramatically & with no significant injuries occurring ("too dangerous" being the excuse for canning it).
dru
David Wilson (68)
Just to be sure here - you are not allowed to tackle the player with the ball?
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=16
There is a video there from RWC15 as an example of Law 16 - 11.a , which I think shows what you described. Defender comes through the middle legally, brings ball carrier to ground. Penalty for collapsing the maul.
dru
David Wilson (68)
It is weird - the game is meant to be about contest but pretty much the contest is removed from the maul.