The Knock-on rule

[attila_the_gorilla]

I'm having this discussion on the Warriors forum with my fellow fans, thought I`d throw it up here to the wider NRL audience.

In relation to Ropati`s try where Benji was stripped off the ball, I`ve heard a few interesting comments about the knock-on rule. Specifically it has been stated that the knock-on rule was originally designed meaning that it`s not allowed to intentionally propel the ball forward with your hands, unlike in AFL.

http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showpost.php?p=4678773&postcount=16

I actually would prefer the game to go back to this origin of the rule and completely allow for dropped balls. Dropping the ball is bad enough for the attacking team, cos they lose control of it and where it will bounce. No need to punish them further by giving a scrum to the opponent.

Nowadays in the NRL there`s so much emphasis on ball security, loose carry etc, so much time spent on trying to work out if the ball was knocked backwards or forward, when it should all be irrelevant. Only intentional knock forwards should be ruled against, maybe even penalized. For example when Brett Stewart scored a try this year by bouncing it forward over the head of a defender and collecting it. Or when someone knocks the ball forward as a means of spoiling a pass. These are good examples of what the knock-on rule was originally made to outlaw.

Thoughts?

 

[KempoKnight]

If you drop the ball and it travels forward then the other team gets the scrum. Simple as that, doesnt matter if it was accidental you should be punished for bad ball control.

 

[RL1908]

The knock-forward rule was never meant to punish errors i.e. someone accidentially dropping the ball or rebounds (hence the charge-down rule).

The problem is (in both rugby codes) "knocking" and has come to be taken to mean the same as "dropping".

Two instances point to dropping not being a knock-forward:
1. the play-the-ball rule (player shall regain his feet and than drop or place the ball on the ground)
2. taking of a drop-kick (dropping the ball from the hands to the ground, and kicking the ball the instant it rises back up).

I agree with you attila_the_gorilla but it will be a very hard argument to convince others of, and the benefits that can come to the game.

It would also make for a scrappier game, and plenty of RL fans simply couldn't stomach that sort of approach -and many simply are struggling to accept that the Ropati try was legit for that very reason.

Yet, if we took the heavy-handed view that all drops are knock-ons, then we would have been denied yet another great RL try - is that really what we should be doing? I would have thought we should be looking for reasons to open play up - and being less ruthless with the application of knock-forward is one of the ways (and is not new, it is simply bringing back to RL the way it was originally).

Interestingly, allowing the "fumble" rule is still in application in the NFL - which split from RU in 1876 - the Americans simply kept the knock-forward rule the way it always was intended in RU, while RU and RL would later evolve "knocking" into = "dropping".

"Knocking" in the dictionary is making a deliberate movement. Someone dropping a ball thrown to them is not knocking the ball - it is a rebound or deflection.

I'd like to see a bit more looseness in the application of the knock-forward rule by referees (hence Ganson & Klein should be applauded), but it will never go back to the original law/intention. It's beyond winding back I think.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Thanks for the contribution, RL1908. When did the two rugby codes move away from the original interpretation? I think it`s not a good direction cos the game is caught up with technicalities and makes for more stoppages.

 

[rupertpupkin]

Don't mind the concept at all. Problem with it, however, is exactly how does one conclude what is, and isn't, an "intentional" forward "drop" of the ball? It may not be as easy to prevent exploitation, as it would appear. The rule could work well. But it would largely depend upon the ethics of players. Suspect it would not take long for some players to develop their acting skills to take advantage of it.

 

[no name]

You see this type of thing all the time when defenders knock the ball down whilst tackling.
This so called 'rule' will never come back as you can not determine the intent of a player.

 

[hellteam]

Not sure if this is what you are alluding to, but I don't like the 'played at it rule'. If someone knocks down the ball, even if it is in the motion of making a tackle (therefore didn't play at it), I think it should just be a knock on. It seems stupid to penalise the attacking team if the defending team are able to regain the ball just from an accidental knock down.

 

[Slackboy72]

Well one of the things they wanted to stop were players running to the line, throwing the ball forward over the defenders heads, running through the line untouched and catching it before it bounced. The defenders couldn't tackle cause the player was n't holding the ball. Hence the need for intention. This is why an intentional knock-on is a penalty in rugby union still.

Personally I think we have gone way too far with many dropped balls called knock ons as though we are playing touch football. This sort of creeped in with Bill Harrigan and his 8 metre long 5m rule. Remember Lockyer's no-try last Saturday? Did he propel the ball toward the opponents dead ball line? No. He dropped it downwards. That isn't a knock on in any sport except touch football.

 

[RL1908]

These are all interesting comments/observations.

All I'd ask all of you to do is to forget about what you have always understood a "knock forward" to mean, and to just think about for a few minutes what the words themselves mean - forget about their use in modern RL and sport generally - just ask yourself what does the word "knocking" mean, and how is that different to the words "dropping" or "rebounding" or, better still, look them up in the dictionary.

As Slackboy quite correctly points out, Lockyer's "no try" was actually a ball that dropped downwards from his hands. Lockyer didn't "knock" the ball forwards - it spilt "downwards" from his hands. By modern RL's rulings, it is always a "no try" - but in a reading of the rules, and what those words mean in plain English, it was a try - he didn't knock the ball forward, he dropped it downwards, or it rebounded downwards. Lockyer made no movement with his hand to knock the ball forwards toward the dead ball line - why would he? He was trying to get hold of it!

Well one of the things they wanted to stop were players running to the line, throwing the ball forward over the defenders heads, running through the line untouched and catching it before it bounced. The defenders couldn't tackle cause the player was n't holding the ball. Hence the need for intention. This is why an intentional knock-on is a penalty in rugby union still..

That is actually a myth. That sort of tactic never happened. Messenger didn't do it either. What Messenger did (and the source of the myth) was pretty much what Brett Stewart did in the last minute try he scored against Wests Tigers from an Orford kick. Stewart put his hand/arm in a position to knock the ball forward so he could get it in his possession.

At Rugby School in the 1850s you could deliberately knock (even punch) the ball forward - it used to happen a lot at line-outs - it was easier to punch the ball ahead and chase, than to catch the ball and do something with it. That is why punching the ball exists in the rugby-derived game of Aust rules - it split in 1858 when knocking forward was still legal in RU.

When did RL become more ruthless with the knock-forward rule? It has been a gradual evoltion - but if you can catch a game from the 1960s on Late Night Legends or elsewhere you will see players dropping passes, bending over, picking the ball up, and playing on.

 

[RL1908]

You see this type of thing all the time when defenders knock the ball down whilst tackling.
This so called 'rule' will never come back as you can not determine the intent of a player.

It wouldn't be so hard to police if referees (and everyone else) recognised that "knocking" the ball requires a deliberate movement of the hand/arm, while an "accidental knocking" of the ball is impossible - it isn't an "accidental knocking" but a "rebound".

A charge-down provides an interesting comparision. It originally was a matter of the defender throwing his arms up to block the path of the ball - that is a rebound, and is legal as it is not "knocking" the ball.

However, a modern charge-down (per Steve Price) is sometimes very close to a deliberate knock-forward, as his arms/hands are coming downwards AND forwards, to block the ball. That is a lot different to simply throwing your hands above your heads as you sometimes see in RU games where the defnders try to block the post try conversion attempt.

Anyway, I don't think we (in this thread) are going to change the way RL is played in 2009, but, hey it is the off season, and it is good to debate and perhaps look at some aspects of the game with a fresh or alternative view.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

When did RL become more ruthless with the knock-forward rule? It has been a gradual evoltion - but if you can catch a game from the 1960s on Late Night Legends or elsewhere you will see players dropping passes, bending over, picking the ball up, and playing on.

I wouldn`t mind that sort of stuff allowed again. I mean it`s bad enough for a player to fumble the ball and make his own job harder, no need to punish him further for making a handling error. It would also eliminate a lot of stoppages too.

I know I`m just dreaming, cos especially with video referees, the game has been going in the complete opposite direction.

 

[RL1908]

I wouldn`t mind that sort of stuff allowed again. I mean it`s bad enough for a player to fumble the ball and make his own job harder, no need to punish him further for making a handling error. It would also eliminate a lot of stoppages too.

I know I`m just dreaming, cos especially with video referees, the game has been going in the complete opposite direction.

Well, it's just interesting to consider that referees jump on dropped passes (i.e no/little tolerance for "knocking" forward), while at the same time there are 10 examples every season of defenders going for intercepts, who deliberately knock the ball forward (in the air) to gain possession and bolt away upfield with it.

Which of those is truly breaking the rule? Is it the mistakenly dropped pass? Or is the defender who swatted the ball forward to get an intercept?

The man deliberately attempting the intercept is given plenty of scope to get away with it, while the man making a mistake is punished ruthlessly.

 

[*Paul*]

I know I`m just dreaming, cos especially with video referees, the game has been going in the complete opposite direction.

Not entirely, after all how many fumbly tries have been awarded in the last of seasons? Plenty. Merely waving your arms nearby will soon be sufficient*. And each one leaves a sourer taste than last.

Fumbleball may be of interest to some, but there's already AFL and yawnion catering for that demographic.


*Note to the humourless: Not really

 

[RL1908]

Not entirely, after all how many fumbly tries have been awarded in the last of seasons? Plenty. Merely waving your arms nearby will soon be sufficient*. And each one leaves a sourer taste than last.

Fumbleball may be of interest to some, but there's already AFL and yawnion catering for that demographic.


*Note to the humourless: Not really

Perhaps - but if RL pursues perfection, and all errors are punished, the end result is less risk taking with the ball.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Yes, good point RL1908. Like I said before, making an error (fumbling the ball) is punishment enough for the team in possession. Just because it were not an offense to drop the ball, teams would still try to have ball control, because dropping it is no way to execute attacking plays and may easily gift possession to the opponent.

 

[Loudstrat]

I think any rule where a referee has to make a judgement on themental state of a player "ie did he intend to do that?" s fraught with danger. The stripped ball rule, and the "played at" when a defending player touches a ball in flight, where so much controversy has errupted when a tacklers arm touches a ball when a try is on.

Good historical points, but keep it as it is.

 

[griff]

Interesting stuff.

What really annoys me is that messy play the balls are called knock ons, and a scrum awarded to the opposition, even though the ball clearly goes backwards, and even though the play the ball rule still states that the ball shall be dropped or placed on the ground.

If it is an illegal play the ball, penalise it as an illegal play the ball. It isn't a knock on.

 

[Parra]

Interesting stuff.

What really annoys me is that messy play the balls are called knock ons, and a scrum awarded to the opposition, even though the ball clearly goes backwards, and even though the play the ball rule still states that the ball shall be dropped or placed on the ground.

If it is an illegal play the ball, penalise it as an illegal play the ball. It isn't a knock on.

This seems to happen every game.

Who gave the direction for these messy plays to be called knock-ons - when they clearly are not?

There is no "messy" play the ball rule. You must be square, and you must play it with your foot - but it would seem you can have as many hacks at it as you need to (according to the rules) . According to today's refs, it must also be neat - even with this invention - why is the result a knock-on?

 

[RL1908]

I think any rule where a referee has to make a judgement on themental state of a player "ie did he intend to do that?" s fraught with danger. The stripped ball rule, and the "played at" when a defending player touches a ball in flight, where so much controversy has errupted when a tacklers arm touches a ball when a try is on.

Good historical points, but keep it as it is.

What is difficult about determining if a person "knocked" a ball "forward" with their hand or not?

You can't "knock" a football forward unintentionally.

You can "touch" a football unintentionally and it might bounce off you forward.

This is the point I am trying to get across - "knocking" and "touching/dropping" are not the same thing.

They are the same thing by the manner in which they are enforced in the NRL, but the words themselves actually mean different things.

The problem is we all hear "knock" in RL and think that means "rebound" or "touch" or "drop" - these are not the same.

"Knock" - to strike a sounding blow with the fist, knuckles, or anything hard.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knock

How can a "knock" be anything but intentional? It can't.

I'm not advocating rule changes with this discussion. I'm just merely pointing out that the original laws of rugby (both codes) never intended to punish players/teams for fumbling the ball.

Now we've got to the point where everyone believes that handling errors must be punished, where it is the attacker's fault if the defender can knock the ball away, and we wonder why teams (coaches) are reluctant to chance the pass.

 

[Loudstrat]

So what you are saying is if a player drops the ball, and it goes forward, it's OK?

If you want to change the fundamentals of the game to that degree to be pedantic, go right ahead :roll: