NH International Rugby
-
I think crime is overstating it a bit. Players regularly make errors and get away with it through dumb luck.
I wouldn't have felt aggrieved if it had been given as a knock on (I'm Welsh BTW). LRZ obviously thought it was. Just pointing out that if we have to look at the details of the laws, and even then it comes down to figuring out at what point, if any, he stops trying to gain control of the ball, then it's a close call and not the heinous travesty of justice that some are claiming
Edit: also if you check the replay, he actually knocked it down with both hands onto the back of his thigh, and from there it bounced down onto his calf. He clearly was trying to control it when he bought it down onto his thigh. The more I look at it, the more clear it is that the ref & TMO got it right (at least by the letter of the law - the spirit is a different question)
-
@delicatessen said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
So if he was attempting to bring it under control, he was in possession? In which case knock-on? Or have I read you wrong?
Nearly, not quite. If he was still trying to bring it under control when it hit his leg, then he was still in possession (as per the definition of "possession" in the laws). And a knock on only occurs after a player loses possession (as per the definition of "knock on"). So it wasn't a knock on before it hit his leg, and it can't be a knock on off the leg, so no knock on.
That's what the laws say. Of course once you're getting down into the minute detail of the laws then things can start getting niggly and away from what "feels" like the right call
-
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
I think crime is overstating it a bit. Players regularly make errors and get away with it through dumb luck.
I wouldn't have felt aggrieved if it had been given as a knock on (I'm Welsh BTW). LRZ obviously thought it was. Just pointing out that if we have to look at the details of the laws, and even then it comes down to figuring out at what point, if any, he stops trying to gain control of the ball, then it's a close call and not the heinous travesty of justice that some are claiming
Edit: also if you check the replay, he actually knocked it down with both hands onto the back of his thigh, and from there it bounced down onto his calf. He clearly was trying to control it when he bought it down onto his thigh. The more I look at it, the more clear it is that the ref & TMO got it right (at least by the letter of the law - the spirit is a different question)
I wasnt saying it was a crime! I was comparing it to a legal case where a guilty party gets off on a technicality.
-
@billy-tell said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
I think crime is overstating it a bit. Players regularly make errors and get away with it through dumb luck.
I wouldn't have felt aggrieved if it had been given as a knock on (I'm Welsh BTW). LRZ obviously thought it was. Just pointing out that if we have to look at the details of the laws, and even then it comes down to figuring out at what point, if any, he stops trying to gain control of the ball, then it's a close call and not the heinous travesty of justice that some are claiming
Edit: also if you check the replay, he actually knocked it down with both hands onto the back of his thigh, and from there it bounced down onto his calf. He clearly was trying to control it when he bought it down onto his thigh. The more I look at it, the more clear it is that the ref & TMO got it right (at least by the letter of the law - the spirit is a different question)
I wasnt saying it was a crime! I was comparing it to a legal case where a guilty party gets off on a technicality.
Fair enough, maybe I was the one over egging or a bit
-
@mikethesnow said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
Congratulations to George North on his 100th Test for Wales. Below are the 42 Test tries he has scored for Wales:
Italy must hate the sight of him
That comment is quite funny when you watch the video, as he goes for nearly 20 tries without scoring a try against Italy.
-
@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.
-
@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.
From the Laws website (below).
The ruling I have generally seen refs adopt is that if you drop it, you lose possession- and that's the knock-on. Kicking it doesn't change the 'loss of possession' action.
It's one of those nasty little bits that generally gets reffed one way, but the laws probably don't fully explain it
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.
-
@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.
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.
-
@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.
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...
-
@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.
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.
-
@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.
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:
P19 for the definition of knock on
P22 for the definition of possession
P63 for the law about knock onsEdit: not drunk. Yet. But assuming you're in NZ then I'm a couple of hours behind, so I'll try to catch up.
-
@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.
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:
P19 for the definition of knock on
P22 for the definition of possession
P63 for the law about knock onsEdit: 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)
-
@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.
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
-
@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.
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.
-
@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.
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.
