• Categories
Collapse

The Silver Fern

NH International Rugby

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Sports Talk
3.1k Posts 88 Posters 301.5k Views
NH International Rugby
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • KruseK Offline
    KruseK Offline
    Kruse
    replied to GibbonRib on last edited by
    #1680

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @kruse said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    What you're saying makes perfect Rugby sense, but I don't think that's what the laws say. They say it's a knock on if you lose possession off the hand / arm, and the ball travels forward and hits another player/ the floor. Doesn’t say anything about kicking.

    A kick is not counted as a knock on because you're losing possession off the boot, rather than the arm / hand. In which case, it doesn't matter if it's intended or not.

    I'm pretty sure that "it's in the definition of what constitutes a kick" is the bit you're missing. Plus maybe the URL to confirm that is "what the laws say".

    Edit: Sorry. Drunk. But what @antipodean was pointing out is, that according to the laws, he did not kick it. "what the laws say" - is that a kick has to be an intentional act. And therefore...

    Yeah I understand, what you're saying makes sense. The thing is that the laws on knock ons don't care if it's a kick or not. This surprised me when I read them for the first time today - I assumed they would say something like "it's a knock on ... except in the case of a kick", in which case we'd need to look up the definition of a kick. But they don't, they just talk about when the player loses possession of the ball off the hand or arm etc.

    Here's the link to the laws:

    https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2021/02/16/31af949d-cf47-4838-a790-b5e869b0b78d/World-Rugby-Laws-2021-EN-v3.pdf

    P19 for the definition of knock on
    P22 for the definition of possession
    P63 for the law about knock ons

    Edit: not drunk. Yet. But assuming you're in NZ then I'm a couple of hours behind, so I'll try to catch up.

    Yeah. Understand where you're coming from... even as I was drunkenly thinking through it, I spotted the loophole. There is no law about if one loses control of the ball, maybe a little forward, but then decides to "intentionally" kick it once that's happened.

    But - as somebody here said a while ago - that's why these are called "laws"... in that it's actually the job of the ref to interpret them on the field, rather than just blindly follow "rules".
    It's a complicated game, and I like the fact that's been recognised by the naming of "laws".

    And - in this case... I think we all agree the end-decision was wrong, but... Better Call Saul could argue the case for it. (I just start watching that, am enjoying it more than I thought I would)

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • N Offline
    N Offline
    Nevorian
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #1681

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    What you're saying makes perfect Rugby sense, but I don't think that's what the laws say. They say it's a knock on if you lose possession off the hand / arm, and the ball travels forward and hits another player/ the floor. Doesn’t say anything about kicking.

    A kick is not counted as a knock on because you're losing possession off the boot, rather than the arm / hand. In which case, it doesn't matter if it's intended or not.

    I'm not arguing whether it was a knock-on, I'm simply pointing out by the very definition of the word as defined by the game, it doesn't constitute a kick for the purposes of ruling out a knock-on.

    If the knock-on determination of possession is the same as for a tackle, i.e. you can tackle someone juggling the ball after a pass because they're held to be in possession, then a player juggling the ball and losing it forward as per the law shall be judged to have knocked-on.

    It seems to me the TMO either didn't believe the player had lost possession when it came off the back of his leg (unlikely) or was adjudged as per law 11.4: It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

    For what little it is worth, I don't believe the try should've been awarded.

    I may have missed something but I thought they ruled ok because the ball traveled backwards as he lost possession and then hit the England player which made it look as though it had gone forward

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    GibbonRib
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #1682

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    What you're saying makes perfect Rugby sense, but I don't think that's what the laws say. They say it's a knock on if you lose possession off the hand / arm, and the ball travels forward and hits another player/ the floor. Doesn’t say anything about kicking.

    A kick is not counted as a knock on because you're losing possession off the boot, rather than the arm / hand. In which case, it doesn't matter if it's intended or not.

    I'm not arguing whether it was a knock-on, I'm simply pointing out by the very definition of the word as defined by the game, it doesn't constitute a kick for the purposes of ruling out a knock-on.

    If the knock-on determination of possession is the same as for a tackle, i.e. you can tackle someone juggling the ball after a pass because they're held to be in possession, then a player juggling the ball and losing it forward as per the law shall be judged to have knocked-on.

    It seems to me the TMO either didn't believe the player had lost possession when it came off the back of his leg (unlikely) or was adjudged as per law 11.4: It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

    For what little it is worth, I don't believe the try should've been awarded.

    I agree that it doesn't constitute a kick. But I think that's irrelevant - the definition of a knock on (surprisingly) doesn't depend on whether it was a kick or not.

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Nevorian on last edited by
    #1683

    @nevorian said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    What you're saying makes perfect Rugby sense, but I don't think that's what the laws say. They say it's a knock on if you lose possession off the hand / arm, and the ball travels forward and hits another player/ the floor. Doesn’t say anything about kicking.

    A kick is not counted as a knock on because you're losing possession off the boot, rather than the arm / hand. In which case, it doesn't matter if it's intended or not.

    I'm not arguing whether it was a knock-on, I'm simply pointing out by the very definition of the word as defined by the game, it doesn't constitute a kick for the purposes of ruling out a knock-on.

    If the knock-on determination of possession is the same as for a tackle, i.e. you can tackle someone juggling the ball after a pass because they're held to be in possession, then a player juggling the ball and losing it forward as per the law shall be judged to have knocked-on.

    It seems to me the TMO either didn't believe the player had lost possession when it came off the back of his leg (unlikely) or was adjudged as per law 11.4: It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

    For what little it is worth, I don't believe the try should've been awarded.

    I may have missed something but I thought they ruled ok because the ball traveled backwards as he lost possession and then hit the England player which made it look as though it had gone forward

    I'd say from when he first touched it to when he last touched it it had clearly travelled forward - he was running after all.

    N 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to GibbonRib on last edited by
    #1684

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    What you're saying makes perfect Rugby sense, but I don't think that's what the laws say. They say it's a knock on if you lose possession off the hand / arm, and the ball travels forward and hits another player/ the floor. Doesn’t say anything about kicking.

    A kick is not counted as a knock on because you're losing possession off the boot, rather than the arm / hand. In which case, it doesn't matter if it's intended or not.

    I'm not arguing whether it was a knock-on, I'm simply pointing out by the very definition of the word as defined by the game, it doesn't constitute a kick for the purposes of ruling out a knock-on.

    If the knock-on determination of possession is the same as for a tackle, i.e. you can tackle someone juggling the ball after a pass because they're held to be in possession, then a player juggling the ball and losing it forward as per the law shall be judged to have knocked-on.

    It seems to me the TMO either didn't believe the player had lost possession when it came off the back of his leg (unlikely) or was adjudged as per law 11.4: It is not an intentional knock-on if, in the act of trying to catch the ball, the player knocks on provided that there was a reasonable expectation that the player could gain possession.

    For what little it is worth, I don't believe the try should've been awarded.

    I agree that it doesn't constitute a kick. But I think that's irrelevant - the definition of a knock on (surprisingly) doesn't depend on whether it was a kick or not.

    I refer you back to where I came into this discussion. @cgrant asked if it could be a kick and I said no. (https://www.forum.thesilverfern.com/post/548911))

    G 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    junior
    replied to cgrant on last edited by
    #1685

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    But almost every kick - intentional or not - goes forward from the hand and then onto the foot...?

    CatograndeC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    GibbonRib
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #1686

    @antipodean
    Apologies, I missed that, thought you were arguing something else

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    GibbonRib
    wrote on last edited by
    #1687

    Definitions from the 2021 laws, for anyone nerdy enough to care:

    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.

    Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

    (Theres more in LAW 11 about intentional knock-ons, tackles, ripping, charge downs etc. but I don't think any of that's relevant here)

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to junior on last edited by
    #1688

    @junior said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    But almost every kick - intentional or not - goes forward from the hand and then onto the foot...?

    Exactly. A further example would be if you’re defending a grubber kick and it suddenly keeps low and bangs you on the shins. Not a knock on. LZR lost it forward but it did not hit the ground or another player, it hit his leg (ok) and went backwards from there (ok).

    antipodeanA 1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • J Offline
    J Offline
    junior
    replied to antipodean on last edited by
    #1689

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?

    CatograndeC G antipodeanA BonesB 4 Replies Last reply
    0
  • Victor MeldrewV Offline
    Victor MeldrewV Offline
    Victor Meldrew
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by Victor Meldrew
    #1690

    @catogrande said in NH International Rugby:

    Ach. Shithouse. Firstly, awful refereeing. First try was a complete shocker. Big ups for Biggar and Adams for the foresight and execution but damn that was poor from the ref

    Ian McGeechan in the Telegraph thought the try bizarre and England hard done by. Interestingly, asks if Gauzere said time-on as he believed Biggar was going for a penalty kick, which begs the question: did Biggar indicate he was going for goal?

    Apart from that, I thought Gauzere was OK. Pretty consistent at the breakdown and communicated well.

    CatograndeC sparkyS 2 Replies Last reply
    1
  • CatograndeC Offline
    CatograndeC Offline
    Catogrande
    replied to junior on last edited by Catogrande
    #1691

    @junior said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?

    That very move has been done in a lower league game in England a few years ago. It's on youtube somewhere. A feller called Alan Knuckley if I recall. Good skills and pretty funny to watch.

    CatograndeC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to Catogrande on last edited by
    #1692

    @catogrande said in NH International Rugby:

    @junior said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    But almost every kick - intentional or not - goes forward from the hand and then onto the foot...?

    Exactly. A further example would be if you’re defending a grubber kick and it suddenly keeps low and bangs you on the shins. Not a knock on.

    Because it didn't hit the hand or arm. Same reason a catch that completely misses the arms and bounces off the chest isn't a knock-on.

    CatograndeC 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    GibbonRib
    replied to junior on last edited by
    #1693

    @junior said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?

    Even if it's not officially a kick, I don't think there's any rule saying that you can't do it is there?

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • antipodeanA Offline
    antipodeanA Offline
    antipodean
    replied to junior on last edited by
    #1694

    @junior said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?

    Yes, there goes some tricks. I've no idea why the heel is ruled out.

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • sparkyS Offline
    sparkyS Offline
    sparky
    wrote on last edited by sparky
    #1695

    Neither of the first two Welsh tries should have stood. Dodgy refereeing but these things happen. That said England did well to get back in the game. With 18 minutes to go it was 24-24. England had the momentum.

    The big story of the match was how England totally fell to pieces in the last eighteen minutes. Wales scored 16 unanswered points in that time and England failed to score at all. England never looked as effective once Ben Youngs at halfback was hooked for Dan Robson. The organisation and the discipline for England in that last 20 minutes were appalling.

    I know he is a very confident man with a mouth to match his enormous ego, but serious questions need to be asked of Eddie Jones' coaching and leadership of the England squad at the moment given the players and resources he has available. Did his players and finishers really understand their roles in the last eighteen minutes there? What was said to the players at half time? What is the coach doing to sort out England's obvious penalty problems?

    Arrogance can only get you so far in life. What England need is a hands-on coach who is prepared to work harder to improve his players. By all accounts, Eddie Jones has spent most of the twelve months in Japan. If he can't turn things around against France and Ireland, I can see the RFU parting ways with him.

    1 Reply Last reply
    1
  • sparkyS Offline
    sparkyS Offline
    sparky
    wrote on last edited by
    #1696

    Highlights of Wales- England 2021

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
  • BonesB Online
    BonesB Online
    Bones
    replied to junior on last edited by
    #1697

    @junior said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    @antipodean said in NH International Rugby:

    @cgrant said in NH International Rugby:

    To Bones :
    The ball went clearly forward, IMO. But it fell on Zammit's leg, so could it be considered like a kick ?

    I'd say no because a kick has to be intentional.

    Is there anything about intent in the laws? I don't think there is, so it makes no difference.

    It's in the definition of what constitutes a kick.

    Kick: An act made by intentionally hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee. A kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

    World Rugby Passport - Definitions

    That's interesting. So, by that definition, I couldn't throw the ball over my shoulder and then kick it back over my head with my heel, regather and then score?

    You thinking Tons Fili? His go to!

    J 1 Reply Last reply
    0
  • G Offline
    G Offline
    GibbonRib
    wrote on last edited by
    #1698

    The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.

    And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.

    BonesB sparkyS gt12G 3 Replies Last reply
    0
  • BonesB Online
    BonesB Online
    Bones
    replied to GibbonRib on last edited by
    #1699

    @gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:

    The more I rewatch both those tries (and reread the rules) the more sure I am that they're both perfectly valid.

    And the more English pundits (or anyone else) complain about the ref rather than their own discipline, the happier I am.

    Pretty sure you wouldn't even flinch if they were scored against Wales huh?

    G 1 Reply Last reply
    0

NH International Rugby
Sports Talk
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.
  • First post
    Last post
0
  • Categories
  • Login

  • Don't have an account? Register

  • Login or register to search.