Deliberate Knock On

I think there are too many opportunities to get this wrong, which could potentially swing a game in any teams favour, either by being awarded a crucial penalty, or a player gets issued with a yellow card, or even being awarded a penalty try.

In my opinion, this is a b ig grey area..... Willie got penalized for this, and in this last game, so did DDA and I think the interpretations of this rule, by different officials, is just not consistent enough.

At what point can you conclusively say or prove that a player has not attempted to intercept the ball, but has deliberately knocked it on?

This rule about having to go with both hands is also stupid because to get the effective long distance reach, most people would always go with the one arm for maximum reach to increase your chances of successfully collecting the ball.

Surely one can see a clear deliberate knock on or knock down, especially if there is any overlap, which happens in most intercept attempts, and then let the TMO decide on the intent..... not that that always works, as in the DDA case.

Knocking, pushing or punching the ball away would be a clear yellow card, but surely if there is some attempt to collect the ball with one or two hands, a player would be seen as trying to intercept it?

We don't want players to stop attempting this, concerned that they could or would automatically face a yellow card if they get it wrong.....

It's actually very simple. Go for the ball with both hands and if you can only reach with one hand then don't go for it at all unless you want to give up a penalty and potentially get a yellow card.

What's complicated about that?

I think the video does get this wrong though...

"Passing it back across halfway from a scrum or lineout for an immediate kick is therefore not a 50:22 option. When this happens, which it inevitably will, the throw-in stays with the receiving team.

It is also important to understand that a new phase starts after each breakdown, which can be a tackle, ruck or maul."

"Agreed. If you can catch the ball with one hand then go ahead and score your intercept try. If you knock it on, be prepared for a yellow card if the opposition had numbers on the outside."

Yes, we know this is your stance, Rooi.

The question is why it's your stance?

"Rooi should show us where it states that attempting and failing to intercept a ball while using one hand is an offence."

This is what the law says:

"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."

It's pretty obvious that referees do not consider a one-handed attempt as a reasonable expectation of catching the ball, so use two hands when attempting an intercept. Simple enough if you ask me.

At what point can you conclusively say or prove that a player has not attempted to intercept the ball, but has deliberately knocked it on?

When the referee states so.

It is how refereeing works in rugby, many situations can be determined in one way or another without the determination being considered a mistake.

The referee's subjectivity dominates a decision that is eminently subjective. He is the one who draws the line and only his opinion matters as he is the referee.

In other words, the ref's decision makes the deliberate knock on. And nobody else's opinion.

In a way the Ref doesn't have an opinion and discretion because the rule kicks in.

Certainly not in rugby. Situations may be interpretated in many ways, including opposite and non compatible ones. Without any of these interpretations being against the rules.

In the case of a knock on, the very same one may be seen as deliberate as it may be seen not deliberate without any of the interpretation infringing the rules.

In this matter, as for many others in rugby, only the subjectivity of the ref matters.

Damian isn't conscious enough for there to be intent, therefore no penalty or card. Ende. 

"It's actually very simple. Go for the ball with both hands and if you can only reach with one hand then don't go for it at all unless you want to give up a penalty and potentially get a yellow card"

Not as simple as you would like us to believe.... DDA went with one hand and only got a penalty, but Willie got a yellow card...…

"DDA wasn’t a million miles away from catching it and the slow-mo showed he had his hand up as well as attempting catch the ball after making contact with it."

This is actually what prompted me to post this topic..... and I also alluded to this in my opening post..... DDA did not deliberately knock on or knock down that ball, and I now see that other refs are also commenting on that being a wrong or rough call for DDA.

"When the referee states so"

That's the start of the problem..... because this rule is not implemented consistently.

"In a way the Ref doesn't have an opinion and discretion because the rule kicks in."

100% Correct, however I don't believe the rule is applied consistently enough, or interpreted the same, hence the inconsistency.

"In the case of a knock on, the very same one may be seen as deliberate as it may be seen not deliberate without any of the interpretation infringing the rules"

I fully agree Trad, and this is exactly what happens, very often.

"I’m sure most pro rugby players fancy their chances of intercepting a pass, using one hand, a reasonable percentage of the time. You’re happy for refs to consider a genuine yet failed one-handed attempt at an interception as an intentional knock

If that was the intention then the laws would say so. Unfortunately, they don’t. All that is required is a reasonable expectation."

Spot on, well said Plum, and this is my main issue with this specific rule...… who decides on the "reasonable expectation" of a deliberate knock on, especially with 2 minutes to go in a crucial world cup game......it's just not good enough or clear enough, nor is this specific rule applied consistently enough.

"Damian isn't conscious enough for there to be intent, therefore no penalty or card. Ende." 

This gave me a good Friday morning  chuckle

"In error, most would assume a reasonable expectation to be 50/50"

Agreed Plum

The problem is that someone could hide behind that "reasonable expectation" and make a bias decision in the game, and just say that they saw it differently than the next person.

For instance Willie got a yellow..... but DDA got a penalty

I assume mitigating or extenuating circumstances changed how these penalties were initiated, but it still remains that it leaves far too much open for incorrect interpretation or incorrect or inconsistent  "reasonable expectations"

Catching a rugby ball whilst running with one hand like a slip catches a cricket ball is one hell of a feat and if a player pulls it off he becomes a hero and is brilliant on the otherhand if he fails he penalises himself and team and is criticised left right and centre. It's a high risk venture.

There was a man who could do it...Frik Du Preez and that was with bigger and heavier old leather rugby balls.

But he had hands the size of Boban Marjanovic.

"Willie got a yellow because he prevented a near certain try"

If it was a near certain try, as you say here, then Willie would have got the yellow card and they would have also awarded a penalty try...… that did not happen, and I don't have access now to view what actually happened with Willie's intercept attempt, and if it was one or two arms

"Fury v Wilder 3 this weekend man"

Can't wait...…. Wilder looks and acts very "different" this time.... can't put my finger on it

I'm hoping Fury knocks the living shit out of Wilder...… I have lost all respect for him as a man and a fighter    

"Then Canelo v Plant shortly after…did you see the press conference and scuffle"

I did, quite funny actually …...that should be a good fight

I must say, it is going to take someone special to take Canelo out..... he is a absolute beast

Oh I see, so you'll bleat about the naughty ref treating Willie's deliberate knock on differently to Damian's . . . even though you either didn't actually see it at all or else don't remember it?

Talk about bleating...