Auckland vs Otago
-
The ref did not mention knock on during the delivery of his decision. I thought he simply said something like "deliberately knocking it back" which is not a penalisable offence much less a yellow card one/ You might recall TBW got dealt to for a deliberate knock back in a HB v Otago game in Dunedin a few years back. Might even have been the game we relieved them of the Shield.
-
-
Stargazer said:
@anonymous It's a stupid rule. Kicking a ball out deliberately is okay, but not knocking it out with your hand. It went backward too. Ughh.
It's only stupid if you also think deliberate knock forwards are stupid. It's to prevent the defending team from easily stopping attacking moves. Just look how easy it is to rugby league for teams to knock the ball dead instead of grounding it.
-
Anonymous said:
@higgins It's the knocking it into touch that was the issue.
A player must not: b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from the playing area.OK, thanks for that. Wonder when referees will start issuing cards for deliberate knock ons when players intentionally drop the ball forward when in possession of the ball playing under penalty advantage then.
-
Stargazer said:
@anonymous Disagree. There's a big difference between knocking it forward and knocking it back.
Yes, but knocking the ball out of play helps the defending team more as it allows them to reset their defence. Whereas knocking it forward doesn't necessarily result in a stoppage.
-
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
-
@anonymous I expect it would depend what the first offence was...
-
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
-
-
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
-
Anonymous said:
Higgins said:
Anonymous said:
taniwharugby said:
@higgins they would then just go back to the first offence, which is why there was an advantage?
Technically they could reverse it as it could be classified as foul play. But carding them without it being a repeat infringement would be a bit harsh.
So Collins' infringement was a first offence and not a repeat one but still earned a yellow. Surely a deliberate infringement is a deliberate infringements and be met with equal sanction no matter how many times it has previously occurred.
Collins' infringement was classified as cynical though since Otago was in a compromised position.
And so are any deliberate knock ons to bring penalty advantage play to an end.
-
