Refereeing decisions

[JRugby2]

It's dead ball line, and you own the dead ball line you’re running away from when in possession, the opposite doesn’t make logical sense and would mean every backwards pass was forwards, knock backs would be knock ons, etc.

And I strongly disagree with your assertion that the “knock” is the key action in that sentence.

“A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm.”

To me - the sentence relies on the premise that the ball must travel forwards off the hand or arm, for it to be triggered in law. Ball goes backwards.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The law makers used that wording for a reason. They specifically use a different wording for when a player is hitting or knocking the ball forward .

Refs used to take an even stronger view of this historically. You would be penalised if you knocked it forward and regathered

Knock-on: 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.

 

[JRugby2]

Again, all of the definitions require the ball to travel forward, it clearly goes backwards.

Etzbeth in the world cup comes to mind here, ball goes backwards (apparently) so play on

Alex White on Instagram: "Should Eben Etzebeth have been penalised for a deliberate knock down? No. There is no such thing. The law prohibits a deliberate knock FORWARD. The ball has gone backwards. Play on. #rugby #rugbylaws #rugbyreferee #rugbyre

49K likes, 1,672 comments - aw_wild on October 15, 2023: "Should Eben Etzebeth have been penalised for a deliberate knock down? No. There is no such thing. The law prohibits a deliberate knock FORWARD. The ball has gone backwards. Play on. #rugby #rugbylaws #rugbyreferee #rugbyref #referee...

www.instagram.com

 

[Strewthcobber]

I just disagree with you on that. A and C require the ball to go forward. B has a different definition.

B is written the same as the throw forward section of the laws.

Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.

 

[JRugby2]

agree to disagree - the inference of your interpretation is that it’s purely the action that trigger the law, not the outcome of the play, but to me this is inconsistent with how the laws are applied in practice. For example; it’s not an uncommon feature of an intercept for someone to knock the ball forward and regather before it hits the ground, which under your interpretation would immediately be a knock on (or even deliberate) the moment it travels clearly forward.

be interesting to see if Argentina challenge this and its clarified.

 

[Pfitzy]

agree to disagree

Thank goodness

 

[Derpus]

Anyone got a clip of the Ireland yellow?

 

[Wilson]

x.com

x.com

or here if you don't want to visit the hell site:

 

[Derpus]

So what was the reasoning for that not to be a red? I can't see what mitigation there could be? Tucks his arm and shoulders him in the head...

 

[Wilson]

Assessed as low-medium danger, see @Strewthcobber post here

 

[Braveheart81]

It didn't require mitigation. It was assessed as not being of high degree of danger so was maxxed out at yellow card level.

 

[Derpus]

How do they determine how dangerous it is?

 

[Strewthcobber]

These days ref refers and then TMO decides, but ultimately it's a qualitative judgement call.

The framework gives guidance via trigger words

 

[Tomthumb]

What exactly was the reason for the ref blowing up the game when the Wallabies had a penalty advantage and were 5m out from the Scottish line? Surely it's either advantage over or play on?

 

[John S]

I can't recall it now.

 

[JRugby2]

when did it happen?

 

[Wilson]

If it's the one I'm thinking of it was early on, the penalty he blew was the first one we kicked, around 10 or 11 minutes on the game clock.

 

[Tomthumb]

In the first 10 minutes. It was our first 3 points. We had gone from the 22 down to the 5m line with dominant carries and looked like we were going to score, only for it to be stopped for no reason

 

[JRugby2]

I'm with you now.

This is the law

Advantage ends when:

1. The referee deems that the non-offending team has gained an advantage. The referee allows play to continue; or
2. The referee deems that the non-offending team is unlikely to gain an advantage. The referee stops the game and applies the sanction for the infringement from which advantage was being played;

Typically, infringements that close to the try line will see the non-offending team given the opportunity to score points, either by virtue of a try or awarding the penalty (and they can choose the 3) because what realistic advantage can be gained otherwise.

But I agree, not really seeing the reason to stop at that phase. Would have thought the nothing ball to Potter would have made more sense, or playing on for a few more - rather than off the back of 5 good carries

 

[Th0mo]

Thats the not law book definition, ball must travel forward.

Unless theyve poorly phrased the penalty for being a deliberate knock from the field, then its a clear error

Not sure how they worded it without going back but at the time I thought they called it under

9.7 b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.

You slap the ball away in or near the in goal at your own peril.