RWC QF: France v South Africa
-
@pakman thanks! I'm too lazy to read it properly - strikes me as odd that players can tap pass or tap from a lineout (or even bat a ball out of a scrum/ruck). None of these are intending to catch the ball, so does the law only relate to if a ball has been passed by the opposition?
If a player does a tap pass, does that mean an opposition player can deliberately knock it on without fear of penalty because the previous player that tapped it didn't attempt to catch it?
-
-
@Bones said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@pakman thanks! I'm too lazy to read it properly - strikes me as odd that players can tap pass or tap from a lineout (or even bat a ball out of a scrum/ruck). None of these are intending to catch the ball, so does the law only relate to if a ball has been passed by the opposition?
If a player does a tap pass, does that mean an opposition player can deliberately knock it on without fear of penalty because the previous player that tapped it didn't attempt to catch it?
Fair point. Attempting to 'knock back' is clearly not attempting to catch. Nor can it sensibly be construed as a deliberate knock on.
-
@Dodge I think EE exaggerated hooking movement is likely what gave him all the benefit of doubt...BOK said it went back, he can only rule what he sees.
We lament over use or constant interruptions from the TMO, so I am certain if they thought it went forward, they'd have called it.
I loathe cards, I loathe teams playing for pens, sure some pens and cards are.deserving but we do need to make decisions easier for refs to make.
To clear this one up, basically if you go for it and don't get it, ball goes forward, pen every single time, or, then other way, knock on every single time.
Aaron Smiths was a pen all day, but not.deserving of a card IMO.
-
@taniwharugby said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Dodge I think EE exaggerated hooking movement is likely what gave him all the benefit of doubt...BOK said it went back, he can only rule what he sees.
We lament over use or constant interruptions from the TMO, so I am certain if they thought it went forward, they'd have called it.
I loathe cards, I loathe teams playing for pens, sure some pens and cards are.deserving but we do need to make decisions easier for refs to make.
To clear this one up, basically if you go for it and don't get it, ball goes forward, pen every single time, or, then other way, knock on every single time.
Aaron Smiths was a pen all day, but not.deserving of a card IMO.
I agree entirely with your reading of the EE decision. I totally understand why it was given the way it was given and totally support the decision even if I don’t know if that’s 100% correct (don’t know whether it went forward off his hand)
Re the Smith one, given the way that it’s reffed according to the law clarifications tagged above, it was a stone wall yellow for me. Separately, I’m in favour of the way the law is written and interpreted. Don’t want a yellow in that situation, don’t stick a hand out
-
@ACT-Crusader Ok mate, I genuinely thought O'Keefe called it knock on and was playing advantage.
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@TeWaio Slippery slope there. There was nothing wrong with the French pass that Etzebeth slapped down. Etzebeth took the risk, not the French passer. He got away with it. I imagine he wouldn't if Wayne Barnes was reffing
I thought he had his hand in front of ball and was trying to reef/knock it backwards, and that was why I thought BOK got it right. I definitely didn't see it as a knock down. But then again I haven't ben back to study it again, as I not sure I would get anything out of it.
-
@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.
Nah, catch it in that circumstance or PT and YC.
-
@pakman said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@chimoaus said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@Canes4life said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
The angle no one saw. Bloody questionable.
74K views · 13K reactions | The angle you didn't see 😳 #rugby...
The angle you didn't see 😳 #rugby #rugbyworldcup #worldcup #springboks #cheslinkolbe #sarugby #motivation.
I thought it odd at the time they did not check it, perhaps they simply did not have the footage but you would think that would be standard. Anytime someone can block a conversion surely they need to check if they were onside. I guess we will never know if he would have kicked the conversion but that is not the point. I do wonder if they will introduce the offside technology they use in soccer in Rugby when chasing kicks etc.
Andy Goode reckons that Ramos should have just stood (he hadn't taken a step). Barnes would have been forced to order a no charge take/retake.
Coz Ramos was watching Kolbe ... he had no idea what was coming.
He had however commenced his approach when Kolbe started his charge.
Am also on the Eben did not deliberately knock it on wagon.
-
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
that is very clearly what he should have done (although does seem a bit off blaming Barnes for not picking it up...)
Could blame that apparent lack on TMO review.
But if the TMO did review I reckon it would have stood.
-
-
@stodders said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@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.
So nothing illegal then?
-
@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.
Trying to knock the ball backwards isn't either
-
@pakman said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
@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.
But did he try to knock it forward? No
-
@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
I see this as very black and white. He tried to knock it backwards, therefore absolute certainty that it was not an intentional knock on.
Secondly, kicking the ball or blocking a pass is not illegal.
-
@booboo if I "try" to knock the ball backwards and in the process get it slightly wrong, the ball can still go forward.
His action was to try and knock the ball down/back - the pro-French argument (not that it matters now) is whether he succeeded in doing so.
I can try and catch the ball for an intercept with both hands, but still knock it on.
If I knock the ball forward and deny a clear scoring opportunity at the try line, I shouldn't be surprised if I get sanctioned. In that scenario it is a penalty and a yellow card at least, if not a penalty try too as the try would likely have been scored if the transgression had not happened.
Are refs adjudicating on what a player is attempting to do or on what actually happens?
-
@Tordah said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
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.
I would have been outraged as it was anything but ugly. It was extremely clever and athletic. Dude knew the laws and tried to knock it backwards.
Your video, as bad a decision as it is, is not really relevant to this discussion.
-
@Dodge said in RWC QF: France v South Africa:
Are you arguing that because he tried to tap it back, if it then went forward, it shouldn't be a penalty / yellow?
I'm not @bones but if you had asked me YES.
The offence is INTENTIONAL knock forward.
-
