3-2-1 v Titans

[Iafeta]

This is going to get bad. All the show ponies will become Hollywood actors like Football players showing "No Intent" but we all know there is because it's the same people week in week out that are getting away with it. Smith and Slater come to mind.

Shouldn't all tip forwards be ruled knock on? I don't see why this is not in place now.
To read body language or minds is still crazy.

Slater's boot in the head incident is a prime example of good acting and bad officiating, that cat knew he had his boot where it was, to come out and say their was no intent to hit the player is ludicrous, the cats past performances clearly show that he has a habit of using his legs/feet as a shield/deflector to the opposing player.

I could go on with example after example but I'm sure you get my drift.

They're not judging body language. They're reading if he was trying to bring the ball under control.

Again, similar to if a ball is kicked at your hand. Did you play at it? If yes and it goes forward, knock on or 6 to go. If not, play on.

 

[Wheeled Warrior]

Good points I know I wouldn't want to be in Daniel Anderson's shoes hence I give the man the most respect for cleaning it all up.

 

[Rich102]

Simple for me:
If it goes forward from the hand - knock on, scrum.
If it is deliberately knocked forward - penalty.

 

[Meth]

I'd hate to go as far as Rugby Union goes with their deliberate knock on rule. I have no problem with a last defender in an imminent try scenario trying to disturb the last pass. What's he supposed to do? Just stand there and surrender a try? In Rugby Union, that's a yellow card. I think it should only be a knock on, scrum.

Johnson's play is as rare as hen's teeth. He clearly deliberately tipped the ball on because it would have been more advantageous for him to regather the ball than to take the ball cleanly then and there.

 

[ozbash]

Simple for me:
If it goes forward from the hand - knock on, scrum.
If it is deliberately knocked forward - penalty.

Is this a new amendment to the knock on rule ?

I understood a player could fumble/tip the ball forward and regain it, and as long as it never hit the ground or touched an opposition player, it was play on.

If you fumbled/tipped the ball forward and it was touched or caught by your team mate, knock on/forward pass/offside (depending who was reffing and what mood they were in)

Shouldn't all tip forwards be ruled knock on?

They were, many years ago..

 

[Rich102]

Is this a new amendment to the knock on rule ?

I understood a player could fumble/tip the ball forward and regain it, and as long as it never hit the ground or touched an opposition player, it was play on.

If you fumbled/tipped the ball forward and it was touched or caught by your team mate, knock on/forward pass/offside (depending who was reffing and what mood they were in)



They were, many years ago..

Just the way I see it. Keep it simple.
The referee is there to ensure one team doesn't get an unfair advantage over the other team.
After all we have knock-on's all the time where the ball isn't propelled forward, just dropped. Where is the advantage in that?

 

[Iafeta]

I'd hate to go as far as Rugby Union goes with their deliberate knock on rule. I have no problem with a last defender in an imminent try scenario trying to disturb the last pass. What's he supposed to do? Just stand there and surrender a try? In Rugby Union, that's a yellow card. I think it should only be a knock on, scrum.

Johnson's play is as rare as hen's teeth. He clearly deliberately tipped the ball on because it would have been more advantageous for him to regather the ball than to take the ball cleanly then and there.

I would be happy with either a try or no try call. I believe he's tried to bring the ball under control under pressure. Like sometimes you're under a bomb and you don't have the time to catch it so you tap it. Obviously though the fact it goes forward over an opponent is a bit dodge city. To me he's clearly deliberately tapped the ball instead of catch it. The trick is why? Was he unable to catch it due to the pressure so he taps it to get another chance at it or does he instead tap it to go past a defender? My understanding is Dally Messenger used to deliberate passes or taps over oncoming defenders which is not really in the spirit of the contest and this is why the rule exists. It'd be interesting to see footage of what he did to see a contextual comparison.

 

[Meth]

Is this a new amendment to the knock on rule ?

I understood a player could fumble/tip the ball forward and regain it, and as long as it never hit the ground or touched an opposition player, it was play on.

If you fumbled/tipped the ball forward and it was touched or caught by your team mate, knock on/forward pass/offside (depending who was reffing and what mood they were in)

Yeah, but you can't run up to a defender, throw the ball in the air, run around the defender and regather the ball. That's essentially what Johnson did.

 

[Meth]

I would be happy with either a try or no try call. I believe he's tried to bring the ball under control under pressure. Like sometimes you're under a bomb and you don't have the time to catch it so you tap it. Obviously though the fact it goes forward over an opponent is a bit dodge city. To me he's clearly deliberately tapped the ball instead of catch it. The trick is why? Was he unable to catch it due to the pressure so he taps it to get another chance at it or does he instead tap it to go past a defender? My understanding is Dally Messenger used to deliberate passes or taps over oncoming defenders which is not really in the spirit of the contest and this is why the rule exists. It'd be interesting to see footage of what he did to see a contextual comparison.

Either way, in my mind, it would be a no try. He's deliberately tapped the ball forward to gain an advantage.

 

[hitman82]

Yeah, but you can't run up to a defender, throw the ball in the air, run around the defender and regather the ball. That's essentially what Johnson did.

Nah... Johnson didn't have possession prior to the tap forwards. If he had, the try wouldn't have been awarded.

 

[Meth]

Nah... Johnson didn't have possession prior to the tap forwards. If he had, the try wouldn't have been awarded.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that Johnson's try was identical to the scenario I presented or Dally Messenger-esque. But he did deliberately tap the ball forward to gain an advantage.

 

[ozbash]

Just the way I see it. Keep it simple.
The referee is there to ensure one team doesn't get an unfair advantage over the other team.
After all we have knock-on's all the time where the ball isn't propelled forward, just dropped. Where is the advantage in that?

ok, not arguing (this time ), just wanted clarification....;-)

 

[hitman82]

Yeah, I wasn't saying that Johnson's try was identical to the scenario I presented or Dally Messenger-esque. But he did deliberately tap the ball forward to gain an advantage.

Yeah... He gained an advantage, but the reason he got away with it: he is entitled to say he accidentally tapped it forward in the act of securing possession. Because he didn't already have possession, the ref can't really argue with it. I believe the call was the correct one.

What I do remember is a number of games a few years ago where the last player with possession would hurl the ball away (often forwards) just before the final hooter... this could actually have been penalised under the "deliberate knock on" rule and potentially could have changed the outcome of matches. Would have been hilarious also!

 

[Meth]

Yeah... He gained an advantage, but the reason he got away with it: he is entitled to say he accidentally tapped it forward in the act of securing possession. !

If ever there was an obviously deliberate tap forward, it was this one.

 

[hitman82]

If ever there was an obviously deliberate tap forward, it was this one.

Subjective. Put it this way: if he had possession and tapped/threw it forward, the try would have been denied. He didn't, therefore it wasn't.

 

[Meth]

Subjective. Put it this way: if he had possession and tapped/threw it forward, the try would have been denied. He didn't, therefore it wasn't.

I don't see how possession makes a difference either way.

 

[hitman82]

I don't see how possession makes a difference either way.

Because if you have the ball in possession (under control) it is easy to "know" what is an accidental knock on and what is an intentional throw/pass forward.

 

[Rich102]

Yeah... He gained an advantage, but the reason he got away with it: he is entitled to say he accidentally tapped it forward in the act of securing possession. Because he didn't already have possession, the ref can't really argue with it. I believe the call was the correct one.

What I do remember is a number of games a few years ago where the last player with possession would hurl the ball away (often forwards) just before the final hooter... this could actually have been penalised under the "deliberate knock on" rule and potentially could have changed the outcome of matches. Would have been hilarious also!

The only occasion I recall seeing the word "accidental" in the rule book is "accidental off-side" ie the player found himself in front of a teammate with the ball "by accident". I don't recall it ever referring to what a player does himself.

 

[Meth]

Because if you have the ball in possession (under control) it is easy to "know" what is an accidental knock on and what is an intentional throw/pass forward.

Sure.

But it was also easy to know that Johnson intended to tap the ball forward for an advantage in this play as well.

 

[Meth]

I'm not sure that possession has anything to do with the rule as it stands.