[
PLEASE LOGIN TO POST TO THE FORUM
]
|
|
|
sw
|
Mon, 08 September 08 15:44 GMT
|
Thank you all.
|
|
|
ob
|
Mon, 08 September 08 15:24 GMT
|
Law 12.1 (c) is carefully phrased (don't faint!).
"A player must not intentionally knock the ball forward with hand or arm, nor throw forward."
This does not refer to a knock-on, so the bit about touching the ground or another player does not apply.
|
|
|
zackly
|
Mon, 08 September 08 13:31 GMT
|
Exactly so. One of the All Black centres did just that manoeuvre a year or three ago - and got away with it to score !
|
|
|
the whistleblower
|
Mon, 08 September 08 12:55 GMT
|
If this was really intentional, as opposed to a juggled catch that happened to take the attacker past the defender, I'd penalise it as a "throw forward" rather than a knock on. Law 12.1(e) applies. Unlike the knock-on, the definition of the throw forward does not require the ball to hit the deck or another player.
If any barrack-room lawyers try to get picky, I'd have a back-up argument of foul play under Law 10, which encompasses anything contrary to the spirit of the law. If this sort of thing were allowed, a Full Back could field a ball in-goal, and run up the pitch to score at the other end, throwing the ball over the heads of would-be tacklers - clearly not in the spirit of the game.
Most refs take the view that an attacker juggling a ball in an attempt to gain secure possession of it can be tackled - even if he's not physically in possession at the time of the tackle.
|
-------------------------
Whistleblower |
|
|
sw
|
Mon, 08 September 08 11:45 GMT
|
Sharks vs Bulls at the weekend.
Great individual try by Keegan Daniel (Sharks No 8) but can't help thinking that it should have been disallowed for a deliberate knock-on.
Daniel chips ahead, ball bounces chest high and Daniel taps the ball over the head of an advancing defender.
Daniel regathers ball (which has not touched ground or another player) and touches down - try awarded.
Technically, by not hitting an opponent or the ground, this is not classed as a knock-on; surely however this deliberate ploy must be against the LOTG?
Any advice please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
