Laws Question? Ask here!

Losty Dublin · 16-02-2016 01:06AM

phog wrote: »

The Henshaw knock on that some say wasn't a knock on.

Is there not a technicality of where a receiver knocks the ball on without it touching his hands is still deemed a knock on as he never had full control of the ball?

Similarly a player losing control of the ball and they kick it before it touches the ground it's deemed a knock on.

Perhaps the refs here might enlighten us but I'm pretty sure I've seen refs blow these type of incidents as knock ons.

The determining factor is if the referee considers a player to have been in control of the ball by way of carrying it or by playing it or attempting to play it. If any one of these happens then it's a knock on against.

phog · 16-02-2016 01:33AM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The determining factor is if the referee considers a player to have been in control of the ball by way of carrying it or by playing it or attempting to play it. If any one of these happens then it's a knock on against.

So, back to Henshaw, he attempted to catch the ball but it went forward from his body. Was it a knock on? I think it was.

Yeah_Right · 16-02-2016 01:42AM

In real time, every ref would call that a knock on. Same with the one that came off Trimble's head. They tried to catch the ball and there was no way the ref could see that they didn't get a hand to it. It would have been great if the TMO could have ruled on it but no ref was going to say play on.

It's a different situation to when a player drops it and throws a foot at the ball to kick. They've lost control, it's come off their hands so it's a knock on.

Dave_The_Sheep · 16-02-2016 01:43AM

The question is if he has "lost control" of the ball forward. If it comes off his chest, I think he has.

That's the rule that ref's are ruling by, I suspect.

Dave_The_Sheep · 16-02-2016 01:45AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's a different situation to when a player drops it and throws a foot at the ball to kick. They've lost control, it's come off their hands so it's a knock on.

In deference to my previous post I don't like this rule. If a player knocks on off the hand but manages to kick it before it a) hits the ground or b) hits another player I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and that's a "kick" not a knock on. That's the damn rule after all.

Yeah_Right · 16-02-2016 01:48AM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

In deference to my previous post I don't like this rule. If a player knocks on off the hand but manages to kick it before it a) hits the ground or b) hits another player I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and that's a "kick" not a knock on. That's the damn rule after all.

I agree. If a player is quick enough to get their foot to it then it should be play on.

phog · 16-02-2016 08:54AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

In real time, every ref would call that a knock on. Same with the one that came off Trimble's head. They tried to catch the ball and there was no way the ref could see that they didn't get a hand to it. It would have been great if the TMO could have ruled on it but no ref was going to say play on.

It's a different situation to when a player drops it and throws a foot at the ball to kick. They've lost control, it's come off their hands so it's a knock on.

I'm not asking about in real time, knowing what know now about how the ball went forward from Henshaw, under the current laws & interpretations was it the correct call to say it was a knock on?

I'm of the view it was a knock on. The player who was to receive the ball never controlled it.

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

In deference to my previous post I don't like this rule. If a player knocks on off the hand but manages to kick it before it a) hits the ground or b) hits another player I think they should be given the benefit of the doubt and that's a "kick" not a knock on. That's the damn rule after all.

Saili on sunday evening dropped the ball out of his hands but kicked it away before it touched the ground, ref blew for a knock on. Again, I think it was the correct call.

sydthebeat · 16-02-2016 08:56AM

The question in this is whether the player had possession or not. In both henshaw and trimbles case they hasn't possession but were trying to gain possession. So technically they are not knock ons, but a lot of refs would see henshaws as a knock on as in real time it's very difficult to say whether the ball actually touched his arm or not. Trimbles is easier to call as it obviously came off his head, which he clearly indicated to peyper after.

randomname2005 · 16-02-2016 09:03AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

The question in this is whether the player had possession or not. In both henshaw and trimbles case they hasn't possession but were trying to gain possession. So technically they are not knock ons, but a lot of refs would see henshaws as a knock on as in real time it's very difficult to say whether the ball actually touched his arm or not. Trimbles is easier to call as it obviously came off his head, which he clearly indicated to peyper after.

It is lucky then that we have a TMO who can check events up to two phases before a try. Any kind of doubt and he should have let it go.

sydthebeat · 16-02-2016 10:15AM

Who is 'he' and what is 'it'?

phog · 16-02-2016 10:31AM

sydthebeat wrote: »

The question in this is whether the player had possession or not. In both henshaw and trimbles case they hasn't possession but were trying to gain possession. So technically they are not knock ons, but a lot of refs would see henshaws as a knock on as in real time it's very difficult to say whether the ball actually touched his arm or not. Trimbles is easier to call as it obviously came off his head, which he clearly indicated to peyper after.

But if you knock it on with your body as you attempt to get possession then in my view it's a knock on.

sydthebeat · 16-02-2016 10:44AM

phog wrote: »

But if you knock it on with your body as you attempt to get possession then in my view it's a knock on.

in a lot of refs views it also is... however technically the law says you have to be in possession for a knock on to be called off your body.

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.

i have been told by many refs, rightly or wrongly, that by 'attempting to gain possession' you can knock on the ball off your body.

blackwhite · 16-02-2016 11:02AM

phog wrote: »

But if you knock it on with your body as you attempt to get possession then in my view it's a knock on.

The law states:

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.

If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.

If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier's hands, that is not a knock-on.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=12

You can't lose possession if you didn't have it in the first place.

I've played plenty of games where similar to Henshaw's "knock-on" occurred, but the ball came off the thighs/knees and the ref called "no hands, play on" (or similar).

To be fair to Peyper, it's very unusual for the ball to manage to bounce off the chest of a receiving player without them managing to get some part of their arm/hand to the ball. 99% of refs would likely have made the same call.

Podge_irl · 16-02-2016 11:31AM

I recall being at a game years ago in the Lansdowne were the crowd were rather annoyed a knock-on wasn't called. Ref told the players (who were also complaining) it was off his face and they could see it later on the video. Fair play to him, he was right too!

Quin_Dub · 16-02-2016 11:55AM

To be fair , of all the things I could challenge Peyper on from Saturday , those 2 "knock-ons" are the least of it... In real time he made the right call to be fair to him...

I'd be more concerned for example with him completely ignoring the way Ben-Arous scrummaged when he came on..

The Aerial cam clearly showed that he was driving in and across in those repeated scrums under the posts but Peyper (and/or he assistants) did nothing about it..

Equally, the Welsh loose-head was doing the same thing the previous week in the scrums that led to Faletau's try.

All it would have taken was for the TMO/Touch judge after the 1st or 2nd Scrum to say "Hey Jaco , come around to the other side and watch the French L/H" , that would have force Ben-Arous to stay straight and the French would most likely have moved the ball away from the scrum...

Losty Dublin · 16-02-2016 12:17PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

The question in this is whether the player had possession or not..

Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault

rsh118 · 16-02-2016 12:18PM

Arguing to the letter of the law, you could be right, but I think the spirit of it, and how I've always seen it officiated is between knee and neck it's forward.

Unless the player makes blantantly obvious a show of getting his arms away and making no attempt to catch.

phog · 16-02-2016 12:26PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

in a lot of refs views it also is... however technically the law says you have to be in possession for a knock on to be called off your body.

i have been told by many refs, rightly or wrongly, that by 'attempting to gain possession' you can knock on the ball off your body.

blackwhite wrote: »

The law states:

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=12

You can't lose possession if you didn't have it in the first place.

I've played plenty of games where similar to Henshaw's "knock-on" occurred, but the ball came off the thighs/knees and the ref called "no hands, play on" (or similar).

To be fair to Peyper, it's very unusual for the ball to manage to bounce off the chest of a receiving player without them managing to get some part of their arm/hand to the ball. 99% of refs would likely have made the same call.

I'm well aware of what the law states but laws often have interpretations issued to refs too to give additional guidance and this is probably what I'm trying to find out.

Simply put - under the laws/interpretations of laws was the ball bouncing of Henshaw's chest a knock on?

Edit to add - don't know how I didn't see it before posting

Losty's post is probably close to what I had in mind

Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault

sydthebeat · 16-02-2016 12:28PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault

but in the knock on laws it clearly refers to a player having possession,. not 'team'. So in order for a player to have possession they must have control of the ball. Did henshaw or trimble in those examples have "control" of the ball?
They did not.

The definition of 'possession' in regards to player is actually stated as "when a player is carrying the ball"... so again neither henshaw or trimble wee carrying the ball. i dont agree that the ball being close to a player constitutes control.

Im not vehementally arguing this, ive already said that the henshaw incident would probably always be peeped as in real time its practically impossible to say whether there was a hand or arm involved. However the trimble incident was obvious. I actually remember SOB being peep for a similar incident a few years back too.. the ball was flung at his head and the ref deemed it a knock on.

Losty Dublin · 16-02-2016 01:40PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

but in the knock on laws it clearly refers to a player having possession,. not 'team'. So in order for a player to have possession they must have control of the ball. Did henshaw or trimble in those examples have "control" of the ball?
They did not.

From the World Rugby site....

Possession. This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control...

Once you are close enough to play the ball then yep, that's possession. If the ball happens to hit you by way of a pass which you failed to gather then sorry but you knocked it on.

Yeah_Right · 16-02-2016 03:35PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Possession isn't merely defined as a player having ball in hand, though. A player or team is also in possession if they are in control of the ball. If the ball is obviously close enough to a player that nobody else can possibly be nearer to it or if they a chance to play the ball then you can reasonably assume that they are in control of the ball. In short, Henshaw had control so yeah it's a knock forward. Technical yeah but in all fairness but he should have got ball to hand so it's his fault

There was a game at the weekend, can't remember which one, where a player fielded a kick that was bouncing by throwing his hands wide and stopping the ball with his torso and then picked it up. He controlled it by knocking it forward with his body but the ref (correctly) didn't call a knock on.

Clearlier · 17-02-2016 10:29AM

b.gud wrote: »

So if a kid was moved around by his family after exactly 3 years in a country by the time he was 18 he would be eligible for 6 different countries?

Or does he have to actually be playing rugby there? And if so at what level?

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Doesn't have to be playing Rugby..

But I think if you are in a country before 18 yrs old the duration is shorter....

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

No they wouldn't from my reading of the regs. They are below if you want to read reg 8 which governs eligibility for international rugby
http://www.rugbyeurope.eu/upload/file/1287399004_gfirbregulation8_883.PDF

A few years ago there was a Russian winger called Vasily Artemyev who tore up trees playing for Blackrock in the schools cup and looked like he could be a future Irish international. IIRC he got into the Leinster academy but it didn't work out for him and he ended up (via Russia) at Northampton for a couple of years after the 2011 world cup (he actually scored a try against us).

Anyway, before he turned out not to make the grade there was much discussion about capping him and I remember it being said that he couldn't serve residency until he was 18 years old, i.e. even though he had spent several years in Blackrock college for his education these didn't count towards international eligibility.

As an aside it was interesting to note when reading regulation 8 that there is a small loophole with the restrictions on international eligibility where it seems that if someone plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority (usually 18) they could play for another country after they have reached the age of majority.

Yeah_Right · 17-02-2016 12:38PM

^^^
It was the same with Sivivatu and NZ. He did his last 3 or 4 years of high school in NZ but didn't become eligible for the ABs till 3 years after he left school.

b.gud · 17-02-2016 02:56PM

Clearlier wrote: »

As an aside it was interesting to note when reading regulation 8 that there is a small loophole with the restrictions on international eligibility where it seems that if someone plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority (usually 18) they could play for another country after they have reached the age of majority.

This probably wouldn't be that much of a loophole as U18, and for most tier 1 countries U20 as well, games wouldn't normally be considered the countries second team so caps for those teams don't rule you as ineligible.

For instance Eoghan Masterson at Connacht has represented Ireland and Scotland at U20 level, and Emerging Ireland but he still isn't locked into either of the countries because in Ireland the two teams that lock you in are the senior team and the Wolfhounds. In Scotland I'm not sure which team they have designated as their second team but it's not the U20s anyway.

Wales are the only tier 1 team that I can think of that have their U20s as the second team. I remember recently, possibly last year, there were a couple of players who were eligible for Wales and England who were called into the U20s Wales squad but pulled out before playing as they didn't want to be locked in to Wales for the sake of a couple of U20s games

Clearlier · 19-02-2016 02:59PM

b.gud wrote: »

This probably wouldn't be that much of a loophole as U18, and for most tier 1 countries U20 as well, games wouldn't normally be considered the countries second team so caps for those teams don't rule you as ineligible.

For instance Eoghan Masterson at Connacht has represented Ireland and Scotland at U20 level, and Emerging Ireland but he still isn't locked into either of the countries because in Ireland the two teams that lock you in are the senior team and the Wolfhounds. In Scotland I'm not sure which team they have designated as their second team but it's not the U20s anyway.

Wales are the only tier 1 team that I can think of that have their U20s as the second team. I remember recently, possibly last year, there were a couple of players who were eligible for Wales and England who were called into the U20s Wales squad but pulled out before playing as they didn't want to be locked in to Wales for the sake of a couple of U20s games

I wasn't aware that anyone had nominated their underage team as their 2nd team (it's a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team IMO).

The loophole I was talking about is much smaller and highly unlikely to occur. It's where someone plays for the senior international team at the age of 17. According to my reading of the regulation they wouldn't not be bound to that country as they won't have reached the age of majority (assuming that it's 18 as it is in most places).

The Lost Sheep · 20-02-2016 12:29AM

Clearlier wrote: »

I wasn't aware that anyone had nominated their underage team as their 2nd team (it's a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team IMO).

The loophole I was talking about is much smaller and highly unlikely to occur. It's where someone plays for the senior international team at the age of 17. According to my reading of the regulation they wouldn't not be bound to that country as they won't have reached the age of majority (assuming that it's 18 as it is in most places).

I don't see how its "a bit of nonsense having a 2nd team". Why is it?

There isn't any loophole as the regulations clearly state you are entitled to represent just one nation.

Clearlier · 22-02-2016 10:46PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see how its "a bit of nonsense having a 2nd team". Why is it?

I see it as a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team because there isn't actually a second team. It made a lot more sense in the days of 'A' and (showing my age a little) 'B' internationals but I don't think that it does these days when the 2nd team depends on the nomination of the union and is not consistent across the board. I think that it would make more sense to simply limit it to capped internationals.

N.B. This is just my opinion and I don't generally think that it's a big deal.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

There isn't any loophole as the regulations clearly state you are entitled to represent just one nation.

You would think that and I did too until I read the regulation.

For the purposes of this Regulation, a Player is deemed to have played for the senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team or the next senior fifteen-a-side National Representative Team of a Union if:
...
[lots of bits about what actually playing for a team constitutes]
...
and has, at the time of the Match reached the age of majority

The point I'm making is that if somebody plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority then for the purposes regulation 8 they will not be deemed to have played for that country.

This opening a slightly unlikely loophole where someone who has for example dual eligibility plays for one country at the age of 17 and another at 18. They wouldn't be allowed to represent the first country again of course.

It's basically saying that deciding which country to represent is an adult decision that a minor cannot take.

It would be a rare situation where this could arise but I guess you could imagine a scenario where a very talented player was selected for a minor rugby country like Switzerland at the age of 17 and then picked up by a French club who subtly pressurise him to prioritise the club ahead of the country and who is then selected to play for France either after a residency period or if they already had dual eligibility.

The Lost Sheep · 22-02-2016 11:52PM

Clearlier wrote: »

I see it as a bit of a nonsense having a 2nd team because there isn't actually a second team. It made a lot more sense in the days of 'A' and (showing my age a little) 'B' internationals but I don't think that it does these days when the 2nd team depends on the nomination of the union and is not consistent across the board. I think that it would make more sense to simply limit it to capped internationals
N.B. This is just my opinion and I don't generally think that it's a big deal.

But then some international games are not capped and others are. I don't think its a nonsense that there is a second team. Yes the differences between nations and their second team can be an issue but it wont change. There will always be room to move nation for some reason and having a second team will play a role in this.

The point I'm making is that if somebody plays for a country before they have reached the age of majority then for the purposes regulation 8 they will not be deemed to have played for that country.

I don't think so as regulations clearly state in 8.2 that if you have played for the senior International team or the 7s side of a country you cant play for another nation.

Clearlier · 23-02-2016 12:55AM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't think so as regulations clearly state in 8.2 that if you have played for the senior International team or the 7s side of a country you cant play for another nation.

Regulation 8.2 does do that but 8.3 talks about how you determine if someone has played for the senior international team, the 2nd international team or the 7's side and it states exactly what I quoted in my previous post. i.e. for the purposes of regulation 8 you will only be deemed to have played for the senior international side, 7's etc. if you have reached the age of majority.

I don't think that it's a stretch to say that this means that if you're 17 years old then for the purposes of regulation 8 you haven't yet committed yourself to a country for international rugby even if you have represented one.

Podge_irl · 23-02-2016 08:39AM

b.gud wrote: »

Wales are the only tier 1 team that I can think of that have their U20s as the second team. I remember recently, possibly last year, there were a couple of players who were eligible for Wales and England who were called into the U20s Wales squad but pulled out before playing as they didn't want to be locked in to Wales for the sake of a couple of U20s games

France also I believe. I may be wrong here, but I think playing for Wales U20 only makes you ineligible for other teams if you played versus France? Having an U20 team as a "second" team is a joke anyway - they should just not have a designated second team if that was possible.

Laws Question? Ask here!

Comments