Hypothetical Knock-on ruling

[jono]

Just a poser for the rule trivia buffs,
I just watched the Hayne try v Tigers and want to pose a hypothetical.
When he chips over the top , he and Moltzen both charge at the ball and Hayne catches it and scores.
But I noticed Moltzen tried to knock it forward out of Hayne's reach.
So
is this an intentional knock-on and thus penalised?
and further , if he'd knocked it forward ,regathered and scored , would it be the same ruling as Hayne's no try v Cowboys?

 

[PJ Marshal]

itd be a knock on cuz moltzen played at it and if it hit the ground, doubt it wud of been seen as intentional, you only ever see such crap rulings like that in the game of union


if he had of tapped it and caught it play on....but it is moltzen and i doubt he is talented enough to do that

 

[Suitman]

itd be a knock on cuz moltzen played at it and if it hit the ground, doubt it wud of been seen as intentional, you only ever see such crap rulings like that in the game of union


if he had of tapped it and caught it play on....but it is moltzen and i doubt he is talented enough to do that

........and by Jamie Lyon.

Suity

 

[Stagger eel]

........and by Jamie Lyon.

Suity

you see, I was happy to cop the Hayne ruling against Pete's Raiders but then the Lyon try blew my mind a bit...

 

[jono]

you see, I was happy to cop the Hayne ruling against Pete's Raiders but then the Lyon try blew my mind a bit...

Exactly!
Always the issue of consistency

 

[B-Tron 3000]

they will make the decision based on how obvious it is - with Lyon's there is a decent argument that it was in the process of controlling the ball - any small tap-up can be controlling it.

Hayne's was obviously a tap over Bowen's (??) head. I think that if Bowen was reaching for the ball and Hayne just tapped it and then regathered it would have been ok, but he knocked it up in the air from a greater distance away and with greater force.

 

[Gaba]

I think that if Bowen was reaching for the ball and Hayne just tapped it and then regathered it would have been ok, but he knocked it up in the air from a greater distance away and with greater force.

Thats still a penalty ,because he had it under control and deliberately tapped it forward

 

[Stagger eel]

Thats still a penalty ,because he had it under control and deliberately tapped it forward

lol..because between the time it left his boot and time he deliberately tapped it forward, he had the ball on string didn't he??? :lol:

so are you still bitter and twisted girlfriend..;-)

 

[Gaba]

lol..because between the time it left his boot and time he deliberately tapped it forward, he had the ball on string didn't he??? :lol:

that is a penalty if he tapped it away from from another player reaching for the ball, as the rule states cant tap the ball in the air forward for personal gain.

So hayne had control of the ball to tap it forward enough for his personal advantage

 

[strider]

i actually really believe hayne did not intentionally tap it forward - the kick just didn't work and in trying to quickly grab it he knocked it forward and was good enough to get to it again .... i honestly think lyon had more intent to knock it forward ..... i'd be happy if they were both called a knock on, but hey :?

 

[Gaffman]

I reckon they would have let it go if it was any other player in the league than Matty Bowen, he's such a little fella, tapping the ball over his head is almost cruel

 

[The Engineers Room]

To answer the question it would not be a penalty as he was not in possession. The ruling is deliberate forward pass. Tapping it to yourself whilst in control is a forward pass, it is the distinction between juggling possession and throwing the ball forward to gain advantage.