Round 6 - Tigers vs Broncos - Post Match Discussion

[Coxy]

I want AP to go for his referee ticket and rule that situation play on. He will be laughed out of the ref club.

It's a knock on. Even if the rules can technically be interpreted how he says, there is not a referee in the world who would agree with him.

The rule doesn't need changing. Everyone except AP understands the definition of a knock on and the definition of a drop goal.

 

[Dexter]

I agree technically AP is correct however it is not a situation that we should put the refs in to rule on because it would be too hard to tell if the hands touched last after it hit the chest.
There just wouldn't be many clear cut incidents and really leaves the refs open to making heaps of bad calls. It's so much cleaner and easier to rule them all the same.

 

[Coxy]

I agree technically AP is correct however it is not a situation that we should put the refs in to rule on because it would be too hard to tell if the hands touched last after it hit the chest.
There just wouldn't be many clear cut incidents and really leaves the refs open to making heaps of bad calls. It's so much cleaner and easier to rule them all the same.

Yep. It's fabric of the game. In that situation the player failed to catch a pass. It's inconceivable that the player or his team could then gain an advantage after such a fundamental mistake.

Hence, anyone with even an ounce of common sense would rule knock on.

 

[Anonymous person]

Think of this idea - if you drop the ball from your out stretched hands and the ball lands an inch in front of your boot and never attempted to kick it. Though the ball has technically travelled backwards from your hands, your position is defined by your feet and this is a knock on. This is why they define onside by your feet when scoring from kicks.


We are 100% quoting the same rules but your understanding of the rules are wrong and the only thing I can see that you are stubbornly disputing is because they do not have a sub section regarding contact with the "chest" like they do the head.

epic lolz.

you are 100000000% wrong. knock-ons arent defined by where your feet are!!! hahahahahahahahahaha

if you have an outstretched arm and drop the ball backwards and it lands in front of your feet, it very much is a knock-back.

on-side from a kick is defined by your feet position because your feet are the only physical part of you that is touching the ground. if the last place you touched the ground is behind the ball then you are on-side. if they are in front, you are off-side. im sure even coxy or jeb would disagree with you on these 2 statements of yours, as they are - to put it bluntly - complete BS.

the position of your feet has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on a knock-on/knock-back decision. never has, never will.

The rule doesn't need changing. Everyone except AP understands the definition of a knock on and the definition of a drop goal.

no, apparently everyone except for me chooses to ignore the actual rule for a 'fabric of the game' -albeit incorrect - interpretation.

say whatever you want, argue whatever you want, but the FACT is that the rule book 100% agrees with me. it specifically says that a knock-on is only a knock-on if it comes from your hands and goes towards the opposition goal line and has no further contact with any part of your body before it hits the ground or an opposition player. that is fact, right out of the official rule book and referee guidelines.

Yep. It's fabric of the game. In that situation the player failed to catch a pass. It's inconceivable that the player or his team could then gain an advantage after such a fundamental mistake.

Hence, anyone with even an ounce of common sense would rule knock on.

so why do we have a knock-back rule then? the player failed to catch a pass, so why can that player or his team then gain an advantage after such a fundamental mistake?

also, please post a link to these 'fabric of the game' rules that i keep hearing about. id like to see them so i can let the NRL know which other rules from their rule book should be taken out/altered as they are not to be taken seriously.

again, one more time, this is the official rule for knock-ons from the NRL international laws of the game: http://admin.nrl.sportal.net.au/site/_content/document/00000855-source.pdf

"KNOCK-ON means to knock the ball towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball."

not chest, not head, not hip, not junk, and CERTAINLY not 'backwards but still in front of your feet' lol. forwards from hand or arm. there are no if's, but's or maybe's - forward off arm/hand or its not a knock-on.

 

[Coxy]

AP, enough. I have asked a referee and they have explained that yes indeed it would be ruled knock on, that yes, indeed technically you could argue it's not and that yes, if you ruled play on, you'd be sacked.

If you are that passionate about the rule needing to be changed, write to the ****ing NRL and STFU about it here.

Everyone else is fine with it, you're just ****ing incapable of admitting that not everything in life is black and white.

 

[Anonymous person]

AP, enough. I have asked a referee and they have explained that yes indeed it would be ruled knock on, that yes, indeed technically you could argue it's not and that yes, if you ruled play on, you'd be sacked.

lolzipop im sure you would lol.

following the rulebook doesnt get you sacked. i dont care who your referee friend is, following the rules doesnt get you sacked.

its not a matter of "technically" its not a knock-on - it isnt a knock-on. by some imaginary 'fabric of the game' rulebook youre saying it is a knock-on, when it clearly isnt.

 

[Ari Gold]

Still posting in a Round 6 thread in Round 8 eh? Anyone want to make a bet when this argument stops?

Over 22.5 Rounds $51.00
Under 22.5 Rounds $100000001.00
Thread gets locked $1.01

P.S. Technicalities and following the rulebook aren't the most important things when refereeing. Only thing that is truly necessary is consistency. You clearly fail on that ground AP because nobody else would be consistent with your interpretation.

 

[Jeba]

Actually AP they changed the rules regarding offside to say that you're offside if your body is in front of the kicker, regardless of whether or not your back foot is on the ground. Not sure if they changed it at International level but it was a rule bought in by Bill Harrigan at the start of last season.

So AP consider the following scenario. Cameron Smith puts in a kick downfield and as he do often does, he places it beautifully that it turns the winger around to chase down the ball. It's bouncing around, as footballs can do, and Beau Ryan gets his hands to the ball, but fumbles it into his chest and it hits the ground, after being propelled towards his own try line. The ball hit the hands and went onto his chest when he was turned around, so therefore was propelled off the hands towards the oppositions try line. So therefore under your rule that should be a knock on yes?

 

[Anonymous person]

So therefore under your rule that should be a knock on yes?

No, because the ball came into contact with another part of your body before it hit the ground - by the rule book, that stops it from being a knock-on.

 

[Coxy]

Clearly you are devoid of any common sense. In fact, I reckon you're probably autistic. Only possible way you could be this dogmatic that you're right when you're not.

 

[Dexter]

Is it wrong to hope that Melb lose a GF because a ref interprets a knock on Aps way.

 

[Fozz]

P.S. Technicalities and following the rulebook aren't the most important things when refereeing. Only thing that is truly necessary is consistency. You clearly fail on that ground AP because nobody else would be consistent with your interpretation.

Well, they'd be consistently wrong at least.

 

[Jeba]

No, because the ball came into contact with another part of your body before it hit the ground - by the rule book, that stops it from being a knock-on.

Riiiiiight. So does that mean you can knock the ball forward like 10 metres, and if it bumps another part of your body before touching the ground, then that's not a knock on? If that's what you're saying, then that will do me. There isn't a big enough facepalm on the Internet for you at the moment.

 

[Coxy]

Seriously, this is what it feels like. AP is on the left.

 

[Anonymous person]

Riiiiiight. So does that mean you can knock the ball forward like 10 metres, and if it bumps another part of your body before touching the ground, then that's not a knock on? If that's what you're saying, then that will do me. There isn't a big enough facepalm on the Internet for you at the moment.

Learn the rules of rugby league. If its not hands->ground/opposition player/goal post after going forwards towards the oppositions goal line, it's not a knock on. If you knock it intentionally forward, yes it's a knock-on. If not, play on.

Again - its a straight forward rule. The fact that all you guys believe you're right despite the definition being clear, precise, and something a 3rd grader could comprehend yet you can't understand it speaks volumes for the collective intelligence of this forum. It's like a rule on BHQ being "you must not post 1 word posts" but you guys taking that as "you can post one word posts as long as that word is "Broncos" because it's in the "fabric of the forum"" lol

 

[Jeba]

Learn the rules of rugby league. If its not hands->ground/opposition player/goal post after going forwards towards the oppositions goal line, it's not a knock on. If you knock it intentionally forward, yes it's a knock-on. If not, play on.

Again - its a straight forward rule. The fact that all you guys believe you're right despite the definition being clear, precise, and something a 3rd grader could comprehend yet you can't understand it speaks volumes for the collective intelligence of this forum. It's like a rule on BHQ being "you must not post 1 word posts" but you guys taking that as "you can post one word posts as long as that word is "Broncos" because it's in the "fabric of the forum"" lol

No. The fact that everyone here, including one that has played the game at QCup level (as its now known), disagrees with you and believes that you are just blatantly wrong, speaks volumes of your stubbornness and inability to have a decent conversation with someone.

 

[rnabokov]

sorry, can't help myself ...

seems to me it was a field goal. And a knock on. My choice is field goal.

If you're facing the opponents goal line, and the ball is in front of you, then anything you do to the ball which propels it forward whatever it hits, is forward. If, as one plays at the ball, it touches the hand or arm, it's a knock on. If you're trying to catch the ball, it's an intentional play. But, isn't a knock on only after the ball hits something?

Surely it can't be a knock on if it touches your body after you drop it until it hits something that isn't part of your body. Otherwise, you would be unable to re-gather. Verboten. Not allowed.

Since however, Gillett kicked the ball the moment it touched the ground, and since Gillett certainly intended to kick the ball, so technically, it was a field goal. It doesn't matter when he dropped it, or how, just that he intentionally kicked it the moment the ball touched the ground. If he kicked it before it touched the ground, it would be a "kick".

If he re-gathers using arms or hands, it's play on, unless it hits something no longer part of his body, or he intentionally kicks it the moment it hits the ground after he drops it, even if his intention came later, it's still a field goal.

Intentions are decided upon actions. The question should be the intention to kick, and to satisfy the definition of a field goal: drop the ball and kick it as it hits the ground. Gillett did both. It was a field goal.

 

[Jeba]

No, because the ball came into contact with another part of your body before it hit the ground - by the rule book, that stops it from being a knock-on.

Please follow these simple instructions.

1. Go to www.nrl.com
2. Go to the videos menu and click on 2012 Smart Replay
3. Navigate the top menu to Round 3
4. Click on Newcastle v Brisbane
5. Down the bottom click on 'Errors"
6. Click on the 'ER' that corresponds to 28:07MINS Richard Fa'aoso, Score 6-4
7. Watch the footage

You will notice that on this occasion, Faa'oso dropped the ball onto his knee before it hit the ground, and the ball bounced forward off the knee about 7 metres, and Ben Hunt knocked on in trying to regather the ball. Under your rules, the knock on would've been ruled against the Broncos and a scrum feed to the Knights because your rules say that Faa'oso didn't knock the ball on. However, the referee ruled a double knock on, with the first knock on against Faa'oso, and therefore a scrum feed to the Broncos.

Now you will also notice, no complaints about the ref's ruling from Faa'oso, no complaints from his teammates, no complaints from his captain, no complaints from the commentators, and I am sure there would've been no complaints from the coach in the press conference. Why is that AP? Why is that?

And if there was cause to complain the coach and captain would've complained, because the Broncos scored from the scrum play through Hodges. It would've been quite a telling error on the ref's part, but it was not an error. It was correctly ruled a knock on.