Wales vs England

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Answer this: If he instead had tapped the ball back with his other hand without "regaining possession" would it be a knock on?

Obviously not, cause he would have tapped it backwards.

theVersatile

prawnsambo wrote: »

The LAW for knock ons and forward passes are the same one. LAW 11


Answer this: If he instead had tapped the ball back with his other hand without "regaining possession" would it be a knock on?

The law is the same, but in the definitions section of the law book ; they are different. Very different.
It depends on whether tapping the ball backwards is "an attempt to bring the ball under control."

I feel like this conversation would be a lot easier if you just confessed that you don't quite get the definition of possession as defined in the rule book.

Akrasia

prawnsambo wrote: »

The LAW for knock ons and forward passes are the same one. LAW 11


Answer this: If he instead had tapped the ball back with his other hand without "regaining possession" would it be a knock on?

No because tapping the ball back is not a knock on, he would have regained control/possession of the ball. Dropping the ball and having it bounce off his thigh on the way down is not having possession of the ball
His last possession was to knock it forward

fryup

that ref should be retired and the video ref too

woeful is not the word

Dave_The_Sheep

thecomedian wrote: »

Do you have a huge dislike of Farrell?

Well, I hope so. It's only rational.

ckeego

tanko wrote: »

Who is that interviewer for the BBC, she's some woman for asking dumb questions.

Awful... Go interview soccer players if you want a reaction to decisions from a ref.

It’s not that she gives female sports reporters a bad rap (and the same for the way she interviewed AWJ) she gives all interviewers a bad name.

Both players walked away from her while she was still talking.. says it all really

prawnsambo

Akrasia wrote: »

No because tapping the ball back is not a knock on, he would have regained control/possession of the ball. Dropping the ball and having it bounce off his thigh on the way down is not having possession of the ball
His last possession was to knock it forward

I just said he didn't regain control. Tries to catch it with his right hand, goes forwards, tries to catch it with his left hand and knocks it back. No control whatsoever. Is it a knock on?

thomond2006

Elliot Daly was awful today.

prawnsambo

theVersatile wrote: »

The law is the same, but in the definitions section of the law book ; they are different. Very different.
It depends on whether tapping the ball backwards is "an attempt to bring the ball under control."

I feel like this conversation would be a lot easier if you just confessed that you don't quite get the definition of possession as defined in the rule book.

Or perhaps if you understood the meaning of 'regain' as defined in the dictionary.

hahashake

Strangest part for me wasn't her questions (though they were poor) but the exasperated way she spoke, like she was a frustrated England fan given a chance to air her grievances.

Anyway, pleased for Pivac as most had written him off at the start of the tournament. Even if Wales were lucky in all 3 games, they are playing well as a team.

theVersatile

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or perhaps if you understood the meaning of 'regain' as in the dictionary.

Classy.

Your example is flawed because you're trying to say that an intentional slap backwards and the ball simply hitting off the players leg are the same thing - which is nonsense.

prawnsambo

theVersatile wrote: »

Classy.

Your example is flawed because you're trying to say that an intentional slap backwards and the ball simply hitting off the players leg are the same thing - which is nonsense.

I'm clearly saying it's not intentional. I've made this clear as I can. Now can you answer it?

Also, 'classy' is pretty much what I thought of your comment.

theVersatile

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm clearly saying it's not intentional. I've made this clear as I can. Now can you answer it?

Also, 'classy' is pretty much what I thought of your comment.

This is the first time you're explaining that your example is unintentional. Ironically, you got mixed up in control and possession rather than actually specifying "unintentionally" - hence my comment on why I thought you weren't quite clear on the definitions.

You also realise how far fetched a situation is that a player loses possession forward, and then somehow "unintentionally" plays the ball backward in the thempto-second between the loss of control and the ball hitting the ground?

razorblunt

Akrasia wrote: »

Itoje needs to take a few games off from international rugby, his card is marked, every referee knows that he bases his game on being on the wrong side of the offside line

He’s lucky that he got away with it for this long, but he’s gonna have to find a way around this if he’s not going to be a liability to his team going forward

That should be the way but you could almost bet your house that he’ll enter away with it again next time out.

razorblunt

Deleted User wrote: »

The bbc interviewer is a pain. They aren’t going to talk about the ref.

I’ve not seen it but I’m going to guess it was Sonja McLaughlin?

The second try I’m kind of mixed about. If the ref has blown for a knock on, it wouldn’t have been debated, but because it goes to the tmo then it’s like when VAR reviews an offside decision. And decides that a stray pubic hair was indeed behind the last defender and therefore the player was offside.

The first try though was a completely awful piece of refereeing.

That said, when England got it back to 24-24 I thought they were starting to look the better side and the game was there for the taking. Stupid penalties and mistakes just threw the game away.

Fair play to Wales, they weren’t exactly stunning but deserved the win.

I should add, the officials deciding that Itoje’s first penalty was a deliberate knock on set out their stall.

prawnsambo

theVersatile wrote: »

This is the first time you're explaining that your example is unintentional. Ironically, you got mixed up in control and possession rather than actually specifying "unintentionally" - hence my comment on why I thought you weren't quite clear on the definitions.

You also realise how far fetched a situation is that a player loses possession forward, and then somehow "unintentionally" plays the ball backward in the thempto-second between the loss of control and the ball hitting the ground?

I used the same terminology you used to define a knock on: "without regaining control". I'm terribly sorry if this confused you.

Yes, it's about as frequent as what happened today. Thank you for pointing that out.

Now that we have all that out of the way, knock on or not?

waynescales1

theVersatile wrote: »

The law is the same, but in the definitions section of the law book ; they are different. Very different.
It depends on whether tapping the ball backwards is "an attempt to bring the ball under control."

I feel like this conversation would be a lot easier if you just confessed that you don't quite get the definition of possession as defined in the rule book.

I think that the direction which the ball is moving in, after the player loses possession is the only relevant one. This direction is backwards, as when the ball is moving forwards LRZ is still attempting to gain control of the ball, therefore still technically in possession. Surely the ball cannot be considered knocked on and in a player’s possession at the same time? When the ball hit his leg, he was still attempting to gain control of it.

The moment when the player loses possession, i.e. ceases to be attempting to gain control of the ball, is when it touches the ground or another player. The direction was backwards when this occurred.

AdamD

Aegir wrote: »

I should add, the officials deciding that Itoje’s first penalty was a deliberate knock on set out their stall.

That was blatant, he smacked the ball down as it was leaving the passing player's hands...

prawnsambo

razorblunt wrote: »

I’ve not seen it but I’m going to guess it was Sonja McLaughlin?

She's obviously been getting a lot of targetted abuse. Not nice.

Dave_The_Sheep

If Wales do win a Grand Slam, we know who to blame, and who Wales have to thank.

Peter O'Mahony.

thomond2006

https://twitter.com/Sonjamclaughlan/status/1365757473462829066

People who use @ really are toxic indeed.

theVersatile

waynescales1 wrote: »

I think that the direction which the ball is moving in, after the player loses possession is the only relevant one. This direction is backwards, as when the ball is moving forwards LRZ is still attempting to gain control of the ball, therefore still technically in possession. Surely the ball cannot be considered knocked on and in a player’s possession at the same time? When the ball hit his leg, he was still attempting to gain control of it.

The moment when the player loses possession, i.e. ceases to be attempting to gain control of the ball, is when it touches the ground or another player. The direction was backwards when this occurred.

I disagree on your second paragraph, and hence your stance, but I can see where you're coming from. I think the point where he loses possession is when the ball travels forward off the hand, therefore the moment the player loses possession, the ball is travelling forward. I dont think the ball hitting off his legs counts as him being still on possession - but you do pose an interesting question as to "when is the exact point that possession is considered loss"

ednwireland

lawred2 wrote: »

Fair degree of self shafting too

indeed got back to 24 all then threw it away . couldn't cope with the welsh in the last 20

paddy no 11

theVersatile wrote: »

I disagree on your second paragraph, and hence your stance, but I can see where you're coming from. I think the point where he loses possession is when the ball travels forward off the hand, therefore the moment the player loses possession, the ball is travelling forward. I dont think the ball hitting off his legs counts as him being still on possession - but you do pose an interesting question as to "when is the exact point that possession is considered loss"

It's not an interesting point hes totally correct

For a knock on to occur the ball must hit the ground or an opposition player neither of these happened, the ball went backwards off his leg- it's a try

paddy no 11

Tv3 studio were a disgrace they should read the rules

AdamD

AdamD wrote: »

That was blatant, he smacked the ball down as it was leaving the passing player's hands...

It was a knock on and was initially judged as such. If his fingers were two inches further forward, he would have knocked it back, which could well have been his intention.

I thought it was very harsh to judge it as deliberate.

theVersatile

prawnsambo wrote: »

I used the same terminology you used to define a knock on: "without regaining control". I'm terribly sorry if this confused you.

Yes, it's about as frequent as what happened today. Thank you for pointing that out.

Now that we have all that out of the way, knock on or not?

Intention and possession/control are completely different concepts? First you said it was a slap back "without gaining control" then you said it was unintentional while eating the head off anothrr user. Absolute rubbish. Complete and utter nonsense.

Before asking me to decide on some arbitrary fantasy scenario, settle on what the exact circumstances are of that scenario first.

theVersatile

paddy no 11 wrote: »

It's not an interesting point hes totally correct

For a knock on to occur the ball must hit the ground or an opposition player neither of these happened, the ball went backwards off his leg- it's a try

The ball did hit the ground? He lost possession forward, and he's not in possession when the ball hits the back of his leg. Therefore it's a knock on.

I've literally explained this about 3000 times over the last two hours

This notion that the ball hitting your leg and going backwards negates the fact that possession was lost forward is nonsense.