Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Perese led with 1 arm - that's why he got carded.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
If you get lucky with the bounce and the ball goes down or backwards its play on. However, that Welsh example is a deliberate effort to kill the ball rather than intercept it.
KOB1987
John Eales (66)
Possibly but it was a genuine intercept attempt and that’s where the downward force criteria would come in, and referral to the TMO for a common sense interpretation. He only led with one arm because it was above his head and he’s clearly trying to catch it, not knock it down.
Samson
Chris McKivat (8)
In instances that are definitely yellow but may be red then the Ref could issue a yellow with a red cross to show that the TMO is reviewing the matter and the player goes to the bin and play continues. If the TMO subsequently recommends a Red then play can halt to allow the ref to look at the angle the TMO used to make his recommendation. The Ref would only need a few seconds to make the call not the minutes taken under the present system.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
^ aka an Orange card.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
I don't believe this system would save any time unless you fully delegate the decision to the TMO. If not, it will take just as long for the referee to view it andd would be even bigger intrusion when we stop the game several minutes later.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
In a way, we just created a verson of an Orange Card with the 20 min Red. It has worked well but doesn't have global support. Australia winning the first test with 14 men probably didn't help our cause for the introduction of the 20 min Red.
Also if you think we have inconsistency with 2 cards, I think it would just create extra debate as to what is PK only vs Yellow vs Orange vs Red.
brokendown
Bill McLean (32)
Imagine if the ref was colour blind,lol
O
Old High Boy
Guest
What utter nonsense...
It doesn't matter if his arm was up, down, sideways or even if he used both arms.
After reading this site after the recent games on TV, It staggers me that so many rugby stakeholders simply do not know the laws of rugby - let me explain.
The 'old' law about adjudicating intentional or deliberate knock ons was based on a refereeing management perspective, which was to see if the defenders arm was moving upwards (which signified a legitimate attempt to intercept) or if the defenders arm was moving downwards (which signified a deliberate knock on) - this rule was changed
The deliberate knock on rule interpretation was introduced back in 2018 - the following is copied from the Game Management Guidelines 2018 For Community Rugby, and this management guideline is for all forms of the game...
Knock-on and intentional knock-on
• If a player, in tackling an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball
carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on. If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an
opponent’s hands and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is not a knock-on.
• The decision-making process for an intentional knock-on is:
o Was there a reasonable expectation the player could regather the ball? If no = PK.
o Was there an opportunity for a clear line break? If yes = YC.
o Was there an opportunity for a probable try to be scored? If yes = Penalty Try + YC.
The key here is the phrase - reasonable expectation: so what exactly does this mean?
It means as follows:
If the defender can realistically catch the ball on the full, after he has tapped it, touched it, moved it upwards, (regardless of the way it was touched and how it moved forward), then that is not an intentional KO, play on (or scrum to the attacking team)
HOWEVER:
If the defender cannot realistically be expected to catch the ball on the full - after he has touched it - then the decision-making steps a ref follows above are followed.
Perese Touch:
1. He had Buckley's chance of catching his on the full, as it landed so far away from him, so it was deemed an intentional knock-on (correct call by the ref)
2. Had England lost an opportunity for a clear line break? Absolutely, as there was no-one to defend the England winger if the ball had got to him - therefore YC to Perese (correct call by the ref)
3. Was there an opportunity for a try to be scored? No, I remember the ref said the Aus #9 was looming in cover defense, so answer No to Penalty Try.
Smith Touch:
1. He had no chance of catching his on the full - he only got a small touch, but the ball went fizzing onwards, so it was deemed an intentional knock-on (correct call by the ref)
2. Had Australia lost an opportunity for a clear line break? Absolutely, as there was no-one to defend the Australian player if the ball had got to him - therefore YC to Smith (correct call by the ref)
3. Was there an opportunity for a try to be scored? No, too far out from the England tryline, and too many defenders in tow - so answer No to Penalty Try. (correct call by the ref/ TMO)
As a ref myself, this bleating about incorrect ref rulings on deliberate knock-ons in the Aus v Eng match is rubbish - please everyone get with the laws and read them...
Last edited by a moderator:
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Nice explanation but trying to catch the ball with 1 hand is definitely one of the factors that referees use to assess the reasonable chance to regather. I think you will find many people on this site understand the interpretation of this Law but they believe it to be wrong.
O
Old High Boy
Guest
Sorry EaE - you dont understand the revised law here... (or you are still referring to the old law/ interpretation?)
Its got nothing to do with catching the ball with one or two hands - when we (I am a ref) assess the reasonable expectation to regather the ball, the key is whether they have a realistic chance of actually catching the ball - that can be with one or two hands.
Thats why you will see some situations where the defender does not actually catch the ball, and is not penalised for a deliberate KO; it was they tried to catch it and it ended up being just out of reach for example.
I will try and dig up a video that Angus Garner did on this law interpretation change a few years back, and I will post it here..
liquor box
Peter Sullivan (51)
is the reasonable expectation based on the player involved, or an average player?
I think Perese would intercept about 1 in 20 attempts given the same circumstances, at what point is he a reasonable chance?
John S
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Surely that comes down to professional judgement based on the ref's experience backed up by the laws
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Cheers @Old High Boy... here's that Gardner video you mentioned:
www.facebook.com
4 万次播放 · 270 个心情 | Kick & Chase - Knock-On Explanation | Confused about the intentional knock on rule? Australian referee Angus Gardner explained it on Kick & Chase. | By FOX Sports Rugby | Facebook
Confused about the intentional knock on rule? Australian referee Angus Gardner explained it on Kick & Chase.
www.facebook.com
O
Old High Boy
Guest
The reasonable expectation is based on whether he can catch the ball - does the ball land close to the player (but doesn't catch it), then KO - if like Perese' and the ball was nowhere near his reach, then sanctions apply
This was brought in (with WR (World Rugby)'s wisdom) so such attempts were discouraged, but all it has done is cause some confusion
O
Old High Boy
Guest
Cheers @Old High Boy... here's that Gardner video you mentioned:
4 万次播放 · 270 个心情 | Kick & Chase - Knock-On Explanation | Confused about the intentional knock on rule? Australian referee Angus Gardner explained it on Kick & Chase. | By FOX Sports Rugby | Facebook
Confused about the intentional knock on rule? Australian referee Angus Gardner explained it on Kick & Chase.
Good man, thanks!
LeCheese
Greg Davis (50)
Going with two hands would improve the perception of how realistic a chance it would be though, wouldn't it?
O
Old High Boy
Guest
No
It all depends on whether he can catch the ball (which then satisfies the question concerning reasonable expectation)
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Yes, Old High Boy is correct about the regather but to dismiss the one hand impact on that determination is incorrect. It's an instant trigger to the referees. Even in this video, Angus Gardner regularly refers to one hand as a factor. If you get 2 hands to it and aren't trying to just knock it down, then it will almost always be a scrum. Hill from Saturday is an example.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Good example in the just-completed Maori AB v Ireland match where ref & TMO specifically referenced the use of only one hand & how far in front of the player the ball landed (so far he couldn't quite get a boot to it). Deemed deliberate & hard to argue against that. Given YC due to there being cover defence.