Wales vs England

waynescales1

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"

Well, if the ball hit his heel, came up into his hands and he caught it, would you still be saying knock on I wonder? You are right, the point at which people feel possession is lost does seem completely arbitrary. Forward off the hand? How far forward? Below the hip? Etc.

However, I can think of 2 non arbitrary points at which it can be said with certainty that a player is no longer in possession. When the ball touches the ground, or another player. Hence perhaps, why it appears in the knock on rule.

ckeego

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

Targeted abuse like that is not on.

However, her line of questioning was purely along the theme of “England were robbed” and it was the same question asked a dozen different ways of several different players and coaches.

It was embarrassing and she was shown up badly.

Everyone has a bad day at the office.

theVersatile

waynescales1 wrote: »

Well, if the ball hit his heel, came up into his hands and he caught it, would you still be saying knock on I wonder? You are right, the point at which people feel possession is lost does seem completely arbitrary. Forward off the hand? How far forward? Below the hip? Etc.

However, I can think of 2 non arbitrary points at which it can be said with certainty that a player is no longer in possession. When the ball touches the ground, or another player. Hence perhaps, why it appears in the knock on rule.

This seems to make sense.

On the contrary though, you know the way you can't fly hack at a ball as you knock it on and claim its a kick? It's still a knock on - that's generally accepted AFAIK.

If a player drops the ball, fly hacks at it, and slices the ball backwards off his boot (or for the sake of giving a comical image, boots it backwards over his own head) - knock on or no knock on - considering the ball last travelled backwards?

I don't mean this as an "I gotcha" moment - but I think the two examples of hitting ground and other player are the two "clearest" examples of when possession is lost rather than the two "only" examples. I think unintentional contact made, which in no means is related to the actions of the player, which happens to move the ball backwards, shouldn't negate a knock on.

sydthebeat

Yeah using phrases like "robbed by the ref" doesn't come across as very professional and just baiting for a reaction... But to be singled out and targeted by cowardly keyboard idiots is absolutely not on

paddy no 11

theVersatile wrote: »

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.

Throw up the rule he contravened

theVersatile

paddy no 11 wrote: »

Throw up the rule he contravened

Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

Knock-on: 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.

razorblunt

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

I can imagine the type of interview she went for, she’s done it in the past but that sort of targeted abuse is ridiculous. Not one of them from a “genuine” account I’d say.

Graeme Simmons on Sky used to do the same, chasing the soundbite. Lucky for him Twitter wasn’t as big then.

beggars_bush

Look, England got some very questionable decisions v Italy

They can have zero complaints

prawnsambo

theVersatile wrote: »

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.

You have the exact circumstances. You don't need to know intention as refs don't either. Unless I've missed the bit in games where the ref asks a player whether he intended to catch the ball or not. So when you've quite finished with the sophistry, answer the question. Or you can ignore it again, it's all the same to me.

Podge_irl

theVersatile wrote: »

Possession: An individual or team in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control.

Knock-on: 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.

He clearly hit the ball forward and it hit the ground before he caught it. Seems straightforward enough to me that it was a knock on.

theVersatile

prawnsambo wrote: »

You have the exact circumstances. You don't need to know intention as refs don't either. Unless I've missed the bit in games where the ref asks a player whether he intended to catch the ball or not. So when you've quite finished with the sophistry, answer the question. Or you can ignore it again, it's all the same to me.

If intention doesn't matter, then please tell me why you explicitly mentioned it?

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

waynescales1

theVersatile wrote: »

I don't mean this as an "I gotcha" moment - but I think the two examples of hitting ground and other player are the two "clearest" examples of when possession is lost rather than the two "only" examples. I think unintentional contact made, which in no means is related to the actions of the player, which happens to move the ball backwards, shouldn't negate a knock on.

I would say the only 2 definitive times, removing any ambiguity of interpretation, crucial for rule making.

In general though, i think a player can be said to be attempting to gain control of the ball with their thigh, calf, foot, toe, heel etc. Simply because, despite its being rare, I’ve seen it done. Could it be said LRZ was attempting to gain control of the ball with his leg, I think it could. Considering this, I don’t think it can be considered a knock on.

swiwi_

Podge_irl wrote: »

He clearly hit the ball forward and it hit the ground before he caught it. Seems straightforward enough to me that it was a knock on.

That’s the way I see it too. But before hitting the ground it did hit his own leg. The law makes no mention of anything that happens between going forward and hitting another player or the ground but some people have interpreted hitting his own leg as meaning it no longer matters if it then hits the ground.

The law might need to be made more explicit. In the spirit of the game I don’t think the lawmakers intended such a play to result in a legitimate try.

prawnsambo

theVersatile wrote: »

If intention doesn't matter, then please tell me why you explicitly mentioned it?

Because you asked. I try to be polite.



But now that you bring that up, why are you asking the same question again?

paddy no 11

Podge_irl wrote: »

He clearly hit the ball forward and it hit the ground before he caught it. Seems straightforward enough to me that it was a knock on.

He lost possession and it went backwards, the ball when it travelled forward did not hit the ground or an opponent, it's a clear try

theVersatile

waynescales1 wrote: »

Could it be said LRZ was attempting to gain control of the ball with his leg, I think it could. Considering this, I don’t think it can be considered a knock on.

Here's the stem of our disagreement. I don't think anybody can use their hamstring or calf in an attempt to regain control of the ball. Unfortunately though, as much as I hate to say it, I don't think there's anything either of us can say to change eachother's opinion on the matter.

Podge_irl

paddy no 11 wrote: »

He lost possession and it went backwards, the ball when it travelled forward did not hit the ground or an opponent, it's a clear try

He lost possession forwards. The fact it went backwards after it hit his leg is irrelevant. Nor does it hitting the back of his leg imply he lost possession backwards as he is obviously pumping along at a fair pace.

He knocked the ball forwards and never regathered it. That is all that matters.

prawnsambo

swiwi_ wrote: »

That’s the way I see it too. But before hitting the ground it did hit his own leg. The law makes no mention of anything that happens between going forward and hitting another player or the ground but some people have interpreted hitting his own leg as meaning it no longer matters if it then hits the ground.

The law might need to be made more explicit. In the spirit of the game I don’t think the lawmakers intended such a play to result in a legitimate try.

Depends. You must remember Simon Zebo's heel flick? Not the same thing I know, but players can use all their bits to try and control (or not) the ball.

swiwi_

Sure that interviewer shouldn’t get online abuse but she is pure shîte at post match interviews. She seems to want to ask goading type questions, no wonder not ever taken seriously.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Depends. You must remember Simon Zebo's heel flick? Not the same thing I know, but players can use all their bits to try and control (or not) the ball.

And players can kick the ball, but accidently dropping it onto your foot is still a knock on.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

He lost possession forwards. The fact it went backwards after it hit his leg is irrelevant. Nor does it hitting the back of his leg imply he lost possession backwards as he is obviously pumping along at a fair pace.

He knocked the ball forwards and never regathered it. That is all that matters.

Well clearly it's not all that matters. A referee and another one acting as TMO decided it wasn't a knock on. I'd like to see their reasoning on it before we decide that it's cut and dried.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

And players can kick the ball, but accidently dropping it onto your foot is still a knock on.

Ah, come on, you know that's how you take a kick?

theVersatile

prawnsambo wrote: »

Because you asked. I try to be polite.

But now that you bring that up, why are you asking the same question again?

Imagine how much harder the dreaded Leaving Certificate (or any exam) would be if the paper kept changing the questions as you wrote?

prawnsambo wrote: »

Ah, come on, you know that's how you take a kick?

The key word in his sentence was "accidentally". As we've established, kicks require an intentional drop.

prawnsambo

theVersatile wrote: »

Imagine how much harder the dreaded Leaving Certificate (or any exam) would be if the paper kept changing the questions as you wrote?

The key word in his sentence was "accidentally". As we've established, kicks require an intentional drop.

I was talking specifically about how he takes kicks.

And you're still avoiding answering the question. Yawn. Ignore list for you.

theVersatile

prawnsambo wrote: »

I was talking specifically about how he takes kicks.

And you're still avoiding answering the question. Yawn. Ignore list for you.

Apologies for missing out on the joke. Should've figured from the smiley emoji - my bad.

And I literally answered the question you asked in that post?

And ignoring people who offer different opinions isn't exactly a great approach to open discussion.

paddy no 11

Podge_irl wrote: »

He lost possession forwards. The fact it went backwards after it hit his leg is irrelevant. Nor does it hitting the back of his leg imply he lost possession backwards as he is obviously pumping along at a fair pace.

He knocked the ball forwards and never regathered it. That is all that matters.

It's not irrelevant though that's something you've made up, as per the rules it's not a knock on

Podge_irl

paddy no 11 wrote: »

It's not irrelevant though that's something you've made up, as per the rules it's not a knock on

World Rugby wrote:

Knock-on: 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.

The ball went forward. The ball touched the ground before the original player caught it. Its a knock on.

theVersatile

Podge_irl wrote: »

Seems straightforward enough to me that it was a knock on.

You would think so, wouldn't you Podge? Little did you know...:D:p

Ardillaun

Fair play to Wales today - no red card needed. They silenced scoffers like myself. Such quickness of thought across the pitch, refreshing to see from a 6N side. It’s good to have Faletau back in sparkling form again. On the defensive end of the ledger, May wasn’t given any space by North and R-Z, and Billy V was stopped in his tracks. Hard to believe this England team has deteriorated so quickly.

paddy no 11

Podge_irl wrote: »

The ball went forward. The ball touched the ground before the original player caught it. Its a knock on.

It went forward without hitting the ground or another player, it hit the ground travelling backwards - it's a try