RWC QF: France v South Africa
-
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@voodoo said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
It would be so much easier if we just ditched the intentional knock-on rule. If you can get to the ball from an onside position, good for you. Most likely you're probably going to try and catch it, but if you can't catch it you can disrupt the play by knocking the ball down - if it goes forward, attacking scrum awarded.
Easy
All would be solved if they applied it the way league do it.
Forgive my league ignorance, but what’s the go there?
-
@voodoo said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@ACT-Crusader said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@voodoo said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
It would be so much easier if we just ditched the intentional knock-on rule. If you can get to the ball from an onside position, good for you. Most likely you're probably going to try and catch it, but if you can't catch it you can disrupt the play by knocking the ball down - if it goes forward, attacking scrum awarded.
Easy
All would be solved if they applied it the way league do it.
Forgive my league ignorance, but what’s the go there?
Nothing. Knock on. Set a scrum.
-
-
@pakman Kind of agree. Smith's card was a tad excessive IMO because there was no real try scoring opportunity. Gibson-Park was about to be tackled by 2 players and Mo'unga was clearly covering too, and there was no Irish support player near GP.
Etzebeth's would have been a clear yellow card and penalty try if it had been deemed a knock on in that scenario. The French were clearly going to score and his action was to slap the ball down/back - he never tried to catch it.
-
@Bones I've not seen a great angle camera angle. BOK and his AR were, I assume, in better positions to make the call. I can't imagine it was excessively forward, if at all.
However, if Etzebeth had been pinged for it, few (outside South African supporters) would have complained. he took the risk; he won.
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@pakman I've probably missed a lot, did EE's go forward? On initial watch it looked like he tapped it in front of the line and it landed behind.
It was borderline, but for me he tried to knock it backwards (hands went backwards) but it may have actually gone a few inches forward.
As much a yellow as Nuggie's.
-
-
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@pakman said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Bones in my opinion, IF the protocols were sensible neither could have been yellow.
Knocking the ball back isn't even a penalty.
Like I said above, IMO the ball went a few inches forward, so knock on.
Argument for YC is that EE didn’t try and catch with both hands and affected try scoring opportunity.
I don’t like the rule, but it is what it is.
-
@pakman said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
catch with both hands
I thought it just has to be a genuine attempt is the thinking? If there's absolutely zero law against knocking the ball down or back, I would rule it's a genuine attempt at an intercept (it was a realistic chance).
-
I would be tempted to agree, but in the spirit of being nerdy (what can i say, i enjoy the mental gymnastics), he also raised his leg to block the passing lane, it was an attempt to stop the pass way more than it was an attempt to catch the ball, he did appear to try to knock it backwards but if it went forwards then i would have had no issue with a yellow card and a penalty try. Had that happened, the Saffas would have argued he was trying to catch it and had a realistic chance, for which i would also have had some sympathy.
I think this is a perfect example of rugby laws not being able to be interpreted in a black and white fashion and I don't have a problem with that
-
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
I would be tempted to agree, but in the spirit of being nerdy (what can i say, i enjoy the mental gymnastics), he also raised his leg to block the passing lane, it was an attempt to stop the pass way more than it was an attempt to catch the ball, he did appear to try to knock it backwards but if it went forwards then i would have had no issue with a yellow card and a penalty try. Had that happened, the Saffas would have argued he was trying to catch it and had a realistic chance, for which i would also have had some sympathy.
I think this is a perfect example of rugby laws not being able to be interpreted in a black and white fashion and I don't have a problem with that
It's not illegal to kick the ball unless it's in a ruck/scrum or someone's possession. And now you're yellow carding or at least penalising people for tap passes and lineout taps that go forward.
-
Re the Etzebeth thing:
Most refs tend to rule any loss of possession that does not clearly go backwards as a knock on, same with deliberate actions. I don't think many people would be outraged had Etzebeth gotten a YC there for a deliberate knock on, as the ball did not clearly go backwards. You don't want ugly play like this rewarded.Anyone remember the Super Rugby match between the Bulls and Brumbies, when Jonker (haha) ruled this as play on? Technically, he might have been correct, it looks like, but everyone was expecting a knock on call.
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
I would be tempted to agree, but in the spirit of being nerdy (what can i say, i enjoy the mental gymnastics), he also raised his leg to block the passing lane, it was an attempt to stop the pass way more than it was an attempt to catch the ball, he did appear to try to knock it backwards but if it went forwards then i would have had no issue with a yellow card and a penalty try. Had that happened, the Saffas would have argued he was trying to catch it and had a realistic chance, for which i would also have had some sympathy.
I think this is a perfect example of rugby laws not being able to be interpreted in a black and white fashion and I don't have a problem with that
It's not illegal to kick the ball unless it's in a ruck/scrum or someone's possession. And now you're yellow carding or at least penalising people for tap passes and lineout taps that go forward.
I'm not sure i follow your first point, i'm not arguing kicking the ball is illegal. I'm arguing the fact he also went with his leg makes it harder to argue he was trying to catch it
As for all tapping becoming a yellow card, i'm also not sure i follow this logic. Are you arguing that because he tried to tap it back, if it then went forward, it shouldn't be a penalty / yellow? That's not a bad shout, don't know the answer or what I think.
Quick question (from a position of ignorance), are intentional knock ons always yellow? I was under the impression that 'intentional knock ons' are not always yellow cards, they are yellow cards if they are a. massively cynical i.e. team on a break, stopping a move in its tracks (similar to going off your feet at a ruck to kill a ball on your line after a 50m break would be, where as on the half way in regular play it wouldn't be), or b. directly prevent a try scoring opportunity.
Circumstance of an offence in rugby is almost as important as the offence itself in multiple cases isn't it, i don't see why this should be different
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
The first 3 SA tries were a trio of sucker punches lovingly gift wrapped by the French through high ball ineptitude. I mean, they must have known the kicks were going to come, no?
No it was très disrespectful! Nobody shows catches in the highlights (unless you're Ben Smith) so why bother practising catching them?!
-
@Dodge is "catch it" actually a thing? I'm not convinced it is - if it is it's wrong and opens up a can of worms. Better terminology for me would be " play the ball legally".
If it comes off his leg below the knee it's a kick right? So don't even flinch and play on. If it's above the knee, was it a realistic chance of below the knee?
Same for a tap down/back that goes forward - was it a realistic chance? If it doesn't go forward, carry on.
