Katoa Forward Knock-on Pass

[Birdee_Num_Num]

Annesley explains Katoa knock-on decision https://www.nrl.com/news/2021/07/05/annesley-explains-katoa-knock-on-decision/

what a pile of bullshit.

 

[Inferno]

It is but it is what expected after the bunker got involved.

The right call was made it was clearly forward but calling it a knock on when it was clearly a pass is just absurd.

 

[snout]

The right result in the end but how they got there was...well, everyone in the game knows it was wrong.

I just knows teddy or brett morris aint getting called back for it.

 

[bad boy bubby]

Katoa loses possession and taps it forward. That’s been a knock on forever in Rugby League. I saw it on the replay on Sunday, not some frame by frame press conference. Blame Katoa for bad hands.
If he’d actually passed it the only controversy would be how blind the officials were.

 

[bad boy bubby]

It is but it is what expected after the bunker got involved.

The right call was made it was clearly forward but calling it a knock on when it was clearly a pass is just absurd.

He clearly lost possession and tapped it on.
The bunker get involved in every single try that gets scored, not just controversial ones, this has been the way all season.
They changed the way they adjudicate a try now in regards to the bunker, you didnt know this?

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

Katoa loses possession and taps it forward. That’s been a knock on forever in Rugby League. I saw it on the replay on Sunday, not some frame by frame press conference. Blame Katoa for bad hands.
If he’d actually passed it the only controversy would be how blind the officials were.

The issue I have BBB is this.
The ball clearly starts to leave his arm in a forward motion yes.
Annesley says that he does not re-gain control of the ball.
If that's the case.. are tap ons by players that go forward called forward passes or knock-ons?
They are called forward passes.
So the act of tapping a ball on must therefore be considered "controlling" the ball.
The ball doesn't just miraculously turn left into the arms of the inside man after coming away from the arm.
Katoa has completed the passing action by controlling the ball.
Other incidents I can think of similar to this are when players lose possession and get a foot to it before it hits the deck.

anyone remember the Justin hodges crap about charge downs in origin years back with Bill harrigan?

Trying to find a way in the definition to justify it what happened.

It was a forward pass that got missed.. and you know what.

IDGAF because I've seen 1000 by that f**king team against us the other way and no one gives a shit.

 

[Craigshark]

What was their explanation for allowing the forward pass form haas to bullemore under the posts?

 

[Quigs]

It was just another pharhk up conveniently introduced by the Bunker/NRL to make more changes to a game that once was running smoothly and supported and understood by most punters.

It was a blatant case of covering the touchies and the refs arse. They missed the forward pass. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[bad boy bubby]

The issue I have BBB is this.
The ball clearly starts to leave his arm in a forward motion yes.
Annesley says that he does not re-gain control of the ball.
If that's the case.. are tap ons by players that go forward called forward passes or knock-ons?
They are called forward passes.
So the act of tapping a ball on must therefore be considered "controlling" the ball.
The ball doesn't just miraculously turn left into the arms of the inside man after coming away from the arm.
Katoa has completed the passing action by controlling the ball.
Other incidents I can think of similar to this are when players lose possession and get a foot to it before it hits the deck.

anyone remember the Justin hodges crap about charge downs in origin years back with Bill harrigan?

Trying to find a way in the definition to justify it what happened.

It was a forward pass that got missed.. and you know what.

IDGAF because I've seen 1000 by that f**king team against us the other way and no one gives a shit.

If the person who loses control of the ball catches it again it is not a knock on, or if they get a kick to it, it has always been this way. The fact he didn’t regain control but tapped it on forward constitutes a knock on, if he had tapped it backwards it would be a knock back. These are not new rules, they have always been this way.
If they hadn’t picked it up there would have been a great deal of heads rolling once it had been by Seen the Fox commentators.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

If the person who loses control of the ball catches it again it is not a knock on, or if they get a kick to it, it has always been this way. The fact he didn’t regain control but tapped it on forward constitutes a knock on, if he had tapped it backwards it would be a knock back. These are not new rules, they have always been this way.
If they hadn’t picked it up there would have been a great deal of heads rolling once it had been by Seen the Fox commentators.

But he did control the ball.
the ball clearly comes away fractionally at the last minute in a forward direction.
as in towards the try line.
he completes the pass .. which was forward yes.
the fact the ball got to the intended player on the inside indeed indicates a secondary "controlled" action.
otherwise he would have just spilt it forward and it would have hit the deck.

 

[Big Bloke]

What was their explanation for allowing the forward pass form haas to bullemore under the posts?

Mate, if you think that was forward you need to go and sign up as a touchie. Your eyes are just as good.

 

[bluefox68]

The bottom line is that the NRL have simply proved what we all know - if you are connected with certain teams you WILL be given the benefit of the doubt, and if you are connected with certain other teams, the reverse is true.

I have not been as disillusioned about a game (and the game) for a LONG time!

Of course, I will keep watching and supporting, but it makes me angry!

Any game is a series of events, all of which effect ‘what comes next’ so the theory that we would’ve lost anyway does not hold water.

 

[Cheese sandwich]

The bottom line is that the NRL have simply proved what we all know - if you are connected with certain teams you WILL be given the benefit of the doubt, and if you are connected with certain other teams, the reverse is true.

I have not been as disillusioned about a game (and the game) for a LONG time!

Of course, I will keep watching and supporting, but it makes me angry!

Any game is a series of events, all of which effect ‘what comes next’ so the theory that we would’ve lost anyway does not hold water.

The leg up Souths got to beat us was proof of that

 

[bad boy bubby]

But he did control the ball.
the ball clearly comes away fractionally at the last minute in a forward direction.
as in towards the try line.
he completes the pass .. which was forward yes.
the fact the ball got to the intended player on the inside indeed indicates a secondary "controlled" action.
otherwise he would have just spilt it forward and it would have hit the deck.

I'm just watching it again now, 11 minute mark.
Front on view, a Broncos player pulls Katoa's ball carrying arm away, Katoa loses the ball then taps it forward with his forearm. Never to catch it again and regain it, clear knock on. Which has been the rule forever.
Totally correct decision.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

I'm just watching it again now, 11 minute mark.
Front on view, a Broncos player pulls Katoa's ball carrying arm away, Katoa loses the ball then taps it forward with his forearm. Never to catch it again and regain it, clear knock on. Which has been the rule forever.
Totally correct decision.

he doesn't need to catch it again.
the secondary event is deemed control.
the same reason a person batting the ball on in a back line shift that goes forward is called a forward pass and not a knock-on.
they are deemed to have controlled the ball through flight even though they don't physically catch the ball.

 

[Inferno]

I'm just watching it again now, 11 minute mark.
Front on view, a Broncos player pulls Katoa's ball carrying arm away, Katoa loses the ball then taps it forward with his forearm. Never to catch it again and regain it, clear knock on. Which has been the rule forever.
Totally correct decision.

Rubbish no broncs players touches his ball carrying arm

It is in the first 20 seconds of the NRL highlights package here https://www.nrl.com/tv/news/match-highlights-broncos-v-sharks-1235064/

It is an errant pass which went forward which from what I understand has been called a forward pass since time immemorial and not a knock on.

 

[bluefox68]

Rubbish no broncs players touches his ball carrying arm

It is in the first 20 seconds of the NRL highlights package here https://www.nrl.com/tv/news/match-highlights-broncos-v-sharks-1235064/

It is an errant pass which went forward which from what I understand has been called a forward pass since time immemorial and not a knock on.

Yeah, I think the reason we are firing up is that the refs did not call a forward pass, and the video ref cannot adjudicate on whether a pass is forward or not.
Therefore, the controversy is that there was a conspiracy to correct the decision when the judging authority had no right to reverse the decision according to the rules.

WE ALL KNOW IT WAS A FORWARD PASS - but other teams have had tries allowed on the basis of the above rules.

 

[bad boy bubby]

Rubbish no broncs players touches his ball carrying arm

It is in the first 20 seconds of the NRL highlights package here https://www.nrl.com/tv/news/match-highlights-broncos-v-sharks-1235064/

It is an errant pass which went forward which from what I understand has been called a forward pass since time immemorial and not a knock on.

You are correct about the Broncos and the arm, from front on it looked as though he did. I mistook Katoas wrist strap as a hand. My bad. Its a loose carry and tap on knocked forward without regathering, not a pass, there's the difference, but like with Birdee I get your point. To the letter of the law it is a knock on, thats the only real issue here.

he doesn't need to catch it again.
the secondary event is deemed control.
the same reason a person batting the ball on in a back line shift that goes forward is called a forward pass and not a knock-on.
they are deemed to have controlled the ball through flight even though they don't physically catch the ball.

For it not to be deemed a knock on or back he needs to catch it again after he fumbles. Very different from batting it on, but I do get your point. Not the same but similar as batting it on means it has been passed to the player, not him fumbling first without regathering.

 

[Birdee_Num_Num]

For it not to be deemed a knock on or back he needs to catch it again after he fumbles. Very different from batting it on, but I do get your point. Not the same but similar as batting it on means it has been passed to the player, not him fumbling first without regathering.

I don't see it any different to fumbles that have been followed by a kick before hitting the ground.
the element of control is re-established through the kick not the catch.

I distinctly remember a Penrith game at Penrith years ago where this happened to us and a try was scored (fumble with kick).

more importantly you have to ask whether the same application of the rules would have occurred if this was staggs on the receive to Corey oats inside ball in the same circumstances.

absolutely f**king NOT.

they'd have been straight into that f**king annoying as f**k song and dance they carry on with.

 

[bad boy bubby]

I don't see it any different to fumbles that have been followed by a kick before hitting the ground.
the element of control is re-established through the kick not the catch.

I distinctly remember a Penrith game at Penrith years ago where this happened to us and a try was scored (fumble with kick).

more importantly you have to ask whether the same application of the rules would have occurred if this was staggs on the receive to Corey oats inside ball in the same circumstances.

absolutely f**king NOT.

they'd have been straight into that f**king annoying as f**k song and dance they carry on with.

I'm going to agree with you here, there is absolutely no difference between having the fumbles and getting a kick in before it hits the ground. The major difference is a kick propelled forward is not a knock on, off the hands propelled forward is.
I look at it this way, if it was in the middle of the field and the carrier was getting tackled and they lose it forward, try and regather, it goes further forward, and then finally their own team mate catches it in front of where the last touch was.. Would they call it a forward pass or a knock on? Keep in mind that it was never regathered cleanly