six nations 2021
Discussion
On the knock-on;
Law 12 definitions defines a knock on:-
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
The key part is the "and touches the ground" here. It's down from hand to leg, so not forward, then the leg, then behind him. So the ref was correct.
The fact is that it's pretty common to be ref'd wrong. It's the hand to ground/other player that has to be forward. It can back then roll/bounce forward and it's not a knock on.
The first one was a bit more dubious... Need to watch the timings around ref telling Farrel to talk to them, and saying time on. Shrewd ref management from Biggar though.
Law 12 definitions defines a knock on:-
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
The key part is the "and touches the ground" here. It's down from hand to leg, so not forward, then the leg, then behind him. So the ref was correct.
The fact is that it's pretty common to be ref'd wrong. It's the hand to ground/other player that has to be forward. It can back then roll/bounce forward and it's not a knock on.
The first one was a bit more dubious... Need to watch the timings around ref telling Farrel to talk to them, and saying time on. Shrewd ref management from Biggar though.
That has to be the only explanation of the knock on incident that I have seen which concludes that the ref was correct. Are you his mum?
With regard to the other 'try'. There should be a procedure for reviewing decisions that are clearly flawed and result in a try.
Players get cited and banned overturning on field decisions which are deemed incorrect. There should be consistency.
With regard to the other 'try'. There should be a procedure for reviewing decisions that are clearly flawed and result in a try.
Players get cited and banned overturning on field decisions which are deemed incorrect. There should be consistency.
XCP said:
That has to be the only explanation of the knock on incident that I have seen which concludes that the ref was correct. Are you his mum?
Not sure where you've been looking? The decision was correct, despite many (myself included,admittedly) initially thinking it was a knock on. I'm not sure what reading of the rules could reasonably conclude that the decision was incorrect?XCP said:
That has to be the only explanation of the knock on incident that I have seen which concludes that the ref was correct. Are you his mum?
With regard to the other 'try'. There should be a procedure for reviewing decisions that are clearly flawed and result in a try.
Players get cited and banned overturning on field decisions which are deemed incorrect. There should be consistency.
What? With regard to the other 'try'. There should be a procedure for reviewing decisions that are clearly flawed and result in a try.
Players get cited and banned overturning on field decisions which are deemed incorrect. There should be consistency.
Are you suggesting the score should be changed after the whistle?
What is your preferred score?
I like 40-24 and the bonus point!
Us Welsh lose graciously and win with humility. 'Try' it.
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Not sure where you've been looking? The decision was correct, despite many (myself included,admittedly) initially thinking it was a knock on. I'm not sure what reading of the rules could reasonably conclude that the decision was incorrect?
The ball goes from hand forward to leg to ground. Are you saying the fact that it hits his leg means it is not a knock on?I can't see any mention of that exemption in the law. It goes forward from his hand and hits the ground. The fact that it hits his leg en route is immaterial if you read the law itself.
TheGreatSoprendo said:
XCP said:
That has to be the only explanation of the knock on incident that I have seen which concludes that the ref was correct. Are you his mum?
Not sure where you've been looking? The decision was correct, despite many (myself included,admittedly) initially thinking it was a knock on. I'm not sure what reading of the rules could reasonably conclude that the decision was incorrect?https://youtu.be/7Xfth-l6dw4
XCP said:
The ball goes from hand forward to leg to ground. Are you saying the fact that it hits his leg means it is not a knock on?
I can't see any mention of that exemption in the law. It goes forward from his hand and hits the ground. The fact that it hits his leg en route is immaterial if you read the law itself.
You ever seen a rugby player kick the ball from hand? I can't see any mention of that exemption in the law. It goes forward from his hand and hits the ground. The fact that it hits his leg en route is immaterial if you read the law itself.
XCP said:
The ball goes from hand forward to leg to ground. Are you saying the fact that it hits his leg means it is not a knock on?
I can't see any mention of that exemption in the law. It goes forward from his hand and hits the ground. The fact that it hits his leg en route is immaterial if you read the law itself.
In your world any kick ahead is a knock on then isn't it?I can't see any mention of that exemption in the law. It goes forward from his hand and hits the ground. The fact that it hits his leg en route is immaterial if you read the law itself.
Hand to leg to ground?
England lost. Wales won. Ace!
Evanivitch said:
You ever seen a rugby player kick the ball from hand?
Yep. And they don’t throw it forwards before kicking it. It travels vertically downwards to the foot. Nor do they lose possession of it. LRZ knew it was a knock on. Players know.
It didn’t make a difference to the final score. Nor really did it make a difference to the momentum of the game, as England drew level after it had happened. It’s just a very poor decision. The sort of decision you expect to see when the ref is the Dad of the kid who knocked on. That sort of thing.
Trophy Husband said:
In your world any kick ahead is a knock on then isn't it?
Hand to leg to ground?
England lost. Wales won. Ace!
Not my world, Law 12. It's pretty clear. No mention of legs.Hand to leg to ground?
England lost. Wales won. Ace!
ETA My guess would be that kicking ahead is not 'losing possession' Hence no knock on.
Edited by XCP on Saturday 27th February 22:52
Evanivitch said:
Regarding the Josh Adams try. How come. The England left-wing were set but the England right-wing were enjoying a gentle walk?
well the difference is that the Welsh didn't have to get together to be told to watch their penalty count and so would be in the right position. That was an absolute shocker from the 16th manEvanivitch said:
BlackWidow13 said:
Yep. And they don’t throw it forwards before kicking it. It travels vertically downwards to the foot. Nor do they lose possession of it.
LRZ knew it was a knock on. Players know.
Errr, except LRZ didn't knock the ball backwards onto his rear leg...LRZ knew it was a knock on. Players know.
Law 12 definitions defines a knock on:-
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
Break it:
Law 12 definitions defines a knock on:-
A knock-on occurs
(1) when a player (a) loses possession of the ball and (b) it goes forward, or
(2) when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or
(3) when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and
[in each case] the ball (a) touches the ground or (b) another player
before the original player can catch it.
‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.
There is no mention of “leg” anywhere. The fact that the ball touched LRZ’s leg between his hand and the ground makes no difference.
He lost possession of it, it went forward, it touched the ground before LRZ could catch it. Knock on.
None of (1), (2) or (3) occur when kicking from hand or drop kicking.
irocfan said:
Evanivitch said:
Regarding the Josh Adams try. How come. The England left-wing were set but the England right-wing were enjoying a gentle walk?
well the difference is that the Welsh didn't have to get together to be told to watch their penalty count and so would be in the right position. That was an absolute shocker from the 16th man
Trophy Husband said:
What?
Are you suggesting the score should be changed after the whistle?
What is your preferred score?
I like 40-24 and the bonus point!
Us Welsh lose graciously and win with humility. 'Try' it.
No, clearly not. It could be reviewed by the TMO on appeal by the captain in a similar way to cricket umpiring. Or some other way could be introduced. What we saw this afternoon is clearly wrong on several levels and was not a good advert for the game. Are you suggesting the score should be changed after the whistle?
What is your preferred score?
I like 40-24 and the bonus point!
Us Welsh lose graciously and win with humility. 'Try' it.
As to losing graciously, I didn't expect England to win and I am glad they lost. Can't be more gracious than that!
XCP said:
No, clearly not. It could be reviewed by the TMO on appeal by the captain in a similar way to cricket umpiring. Or some other way could be introduced. What we saw this afternoon is clearly wrong on several levels and was not a good advert for the game.
As to losing graciously, I didn't expect England to win and I am glad they lost. Can't be more gracious than that!
What would the TMO review in the Josh Adams try? As to losing graciously, I didn't expect England to win and I am glad they lost. Can't be more gracious than that!
I’m enjoying the simpletons claiming that without the ref’s help, England would’ve won 
England played well for 10 minutes either side of half-time. For the other 60 minutes they were I’ll-disciplined and out-played.
If the ref did a better job England would’ve been down to 14 once or twice. Cuts both ways.
Nobody in their right mind can pretend England played a better game.
Time for a leadership change. Jones and Farrell are stifling a great team of individuals.
England played well for 10 minutes either side of half-time. For the other 60 minutes they were I’ll-disciplined and out-played.
If the ref did a better job England would’ve been down to 14 once or twice. Cuts both ways.
Nobody in their right mind can pretend England played a better game.
Time for a leadership change. Jones and Farrell are stifling a great team of individuals.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff