Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > ARE YOU BLIND REF.... OR ARE WE WRONG ???
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Parkes' knock on...

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Online
Points: 3577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2017 at 2:13pm
Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by trident trident wrote:

Hadleigh knocked it forward with his hand or arm.
It touched another player before the original player (Hadleigh) caught it.
Technically was it therefore the correct decision?

Interesting point you raise. You are the first to point this out. Can you tell us which player the ball hit before Hadleigh 'caught' it ? 

I think the ref ruled that it was Elias who was not in front!!!!
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 12246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2017 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by trident trident wrote:

Hadleigh knocked it forward with his hand or arm.
It touched another player before the original player (Hadleigh) caught it.
Technically was it therefore the correct decision?

Absolutely NOT - I suggest you have a good look at the match on iPlayer, at


The time is 21.03 on the match clock, and it's at around 39 min into the transmission - the incident is shown from several angles.

Hadleigh juggles the ball, then taps it across to a supporting Scarlets player (backwards, also clear on the replay). The ball never touches anyone else.

So, judging by the law quoted by Scarletman, the ref was clearly wrong. 


Edited by aber-fan - 11 September 2017 at 4:23pm
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
ap sior View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 6554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ap sior Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2017 at 4:39pm
Originally posted by trident trident wrote:

That's my point really, Hadleigh didn't 'catch' it did he. Whether he 'controlled' it is another thing, I'd argue he did, in tapping it back to a team mate, but the law says 'catch'

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.

The above is from SM's post. I assume that it comes from the law/rule book. 

The ball clearly went forward from Hadleigh. I think that we can agree on that. It did touch another player before Hadleigh could catch it, although Hadleigh deliberately did not try to catch it. Nowhere in the above does it state clearly the position of the 'other' player, in this case Elias. Elias was behind Hadleigh, and Hadleigh clearly knocked it back to Elias. 

However if you read the rule as it it, the ball did touch another player before Hadligh managed to catch it, however that player happened to be behind Hadleigh.

Strange one, and I don't think that the rule makers intended the outcome that we saw on Saturday.
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 12246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2017 at 4:47pm
Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by trident trident wrote:

That's my point really, Hadleigh didn't 'catch' it did he. Whether he 'controlled' it is another thing, I'd argue he did, in tapping it back to a team mate, but the law says 'catch'

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.

The above is from SM's post. I assume that it comes from the law/rule book. 

The ball clearly went forward from Hadleigh. I think that we can agree on that. It did touch another player before Hadleigh could catch it, although Hadleigh deliberately did not try to catch it. Nowhere in the above does it state clearly the position of the 'other' player, in this case Elias. Elias was behind Hadleigh, and Hadleigh clearly knocked it back to Elias. 

However if you read the rule as it it, the ball did touch another player before Hadligh managed to catch it, however that player happened to be behind Hadleigh.

Strange one, and I don't think that the rule makers intended the outcome that we saw on Saturday.

I see what you mean, now.

Clearly, the lawmakers did not intend the type of 'Hadleigh incident' to be penalised. The law makers need to put out a clarification, pronto.
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
ap sior View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 6554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ap sior Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2017 at 4:54pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by trident trident wrote:

That's my point really, Hadleigh didn't 'catch' it did he. Whether he 'controlled' it is another thing, I'd argue he did, in tapping it back to a team mate, but the law says 'catch'

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.

The above is from SM's post. I assume that it comes from the law/rule book. 

The ball clearly went forward from Hadleigh. I think that we can agree on that. It did touch another player before Hadleigh could catch it, although Hadleigh deliberately did not try to catch it. Nowhere in the above does it state clearly the position of the 'other' player, in this case Elias. Elias was behind Hadleigh, and Hadleigh clearly knocked it back to Elias. 

However if you read the rule as it it, the ball did touch another player before Hadligh managed to catch it, however that player happened to be behind Hadleigh.

Strange one, and I don't think that the rule makers intended the outcome that we saw on Saturday.

I see what you mean, now.

Clearly, the lawmakers did not intend the type of 'Hadleigh incident' to be penalised. The law makers need to put out a clarification, pronto.

I was as mystified as anyone by the ref's decision. As the commentators pointed out, had SBW done that they would applaud his genius !

However having read the rule as quoted by SM, that's the only conclusion that I can come to. 

I wouldn't want to see a situation arising where a player can deliberately knock the ball forward over an opponent's head to gain an advantage. Perhaps the law was drafted with that in mind, unless that scenario is covered elsewhere in the laws.


Edited by ap sior - 11 September 2017 at 4:55pm
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Online
Points: 3577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2017 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by ap sior ap sior wrote:

Originally posted by trident trident wrote:

That's my point really, Hadleigh didn't 'catch' it did he. Whether he 'controlled' it is another thing, I'd argue he did, in tapping it back to a team mate, but the law says 'catch'

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.

The above is from SM's post. I assume that it comes from the law/rule book. 

The ball clearly went forward from Hadleigh. I think that we can agree on that. It did touch another player before Hadleigh could catch it, although Hadleigh deliberately did not try to catch it. Nowhere in the above does it state clearly the position of the 'other' player, in this case Elias. Elias was behind Hadleigh, and Hadleigh clearly knocked it back to Elias. 

However if you read the rule as it it, the ball did touch another player before Hadligh managed to catch it, however that player happened to be behind Hadleigh.

Strange one, and I don't think that the rule makers intended the outcome that we saw on Saturday.

I see what you mean, now.

Clearly, the lawmakers did not intend the type of 'Hadleigh incident' to be penalised. The law makers need to put out a clarification, pronto.

I was as mystified as anyone by the ref's decision. As the commentators pointed out, had SBW done that they would applaud his genius !

However having read the rule as quoted by SM, that's the only conclusion that I can come to. 

I wouldn't want to see a situation arising where a player can deliberately knock the ball forward over an opponent's head to gain an advantage. Perhaps the law was drafted with that in mind, unless that scenario is covered elsewhere in the laws.

I agree with your summation. If Parkes had got the ball under control before offloading then it would have been fine. At no stage did he have it under control, it went forward from his hands then he tap passed backwards to another players - hence the decision. Comparisons with a flick pass all in one movement are incorrect as the offence occurred when the ball went forward initially from Parkes. 
Back to Top
Eastern outpost View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 13 March 2012
Location: South Suffolk
Status: Offline
Points: 13896
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eastern outpost Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2017 at 7:14pm
I think we need to be clear on a few things here.

Scarletman is giving us his view on the incident in terms of the black and white how the ball moved. He's not in any way shape or form criticising the individual referee, his assistants or the TMO.

He may be highlighting an inconsistency in how interpretations of the laws written as they are, as described earlier in the thread by Haydn, and how they are communicated to all levels of the game.

We can only imagine how other referees may have interpreted things. Depending on the name you insert into the phrase, "REF X would have allowed it" will determine whether you need to allow a NOT to the sentence.

For example, Nigel Owens is likely to have mentally applauded it, whereas someone like Peyper may have had to check who was at home, or who was the more rated side before deciding. Less experienced refs may have just blown it because it was a bit too complicated for the speed with which they can read the game.

Overall, this thread is an excellent example of constructive discussion on a result that only affects our points difference and not league points.

What has not been particularly highlighted has been the player safety issues that caught the eye. The tackles on JMc and the lift over the horizontal plus Rhys Patchell's tackle around the neck plus a choke tackle not easily spotted from the stand are just three that Haydn and Scarletnut have been exercised by. I guess that would be going off topic, though.
Any offence taken on board is only a literate/cy consequence. Every attempt at humour is just that. No personal insult intended. Standards lowered for trolls.
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2017 at 8:50am
I've re-watched this several times now, and can't see any evidence of the ball touching another player or ground before being tapped backwards by HP (so an element of control imo) !
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Online
Points: 3577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2017 at 9:06am
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

I've re-watched this several times now, and can't see any evidence of the ball touching another player or ground before being tapped backwards by HP (so an element of control imo) !

I am no ref but I think the consensus here is that it was never controlled by Hadleigh so whoever it touched after leaving him, whether in front or not, the ground or another Scarlet player the ball was deemed to be knocked on as it went forward initially from Hadleigh when he made his first attempt at catching it. 

That appears to be the ref's interpretation which is confusing to say the least. 
Back to Top
supertaf View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 17 August 2004
Location: Down the Parc
Status: Offline
Points: 7243
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote supertaf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2017 at 10:38am
As has been mentioned, I wonder how they will now rule flicked on passes such as we did against Munster? Surely by the same law it's now a knock on despite there being nothing in the new laws concerning this issue! No good asking Greg Garner as his knowledge of the laws has always been debatable (Toulon away, no more said).
Scarlets - Pro 12 Champions 2017
Back to Top
trident View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 06 January 2009
Location: nearly there
Status: Offline
Points: 2617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote trident Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2017 at 1:23pm
Originally posted by supertaf supertaf wrote:


As has been mentioned, I wonder how they will now rule flicked on passes such as we did against Munster? Surely by the same law it's now a knock on despite there being nothing in the new laws concerning this issue! No good asking Greg Garner as his knowledge of the laws has always been debatable (Toulon away, no more said).

No issue if it's flicked backwards surely. Only going to be a problem if it's flicked forward, in which case it's either a forward pass or knock on, take your pick!
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Online
Points: 3577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2017 at 1:25pm
Originally posted by supertaf supertaf wrote:

As has been mentioned, I wonder how they will now rule flicked on passes such as we did against Munster? Surely by the same law it's now a knock on despite there being nothing in the new laws concerning this issue! No good asking Greg Garner as his knowledge of the laws has always been debatable (Toulon away, no more said).

I don't see the flick pass against Munster being caught as there was no forward fumble.
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 12246
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 September 2017 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

I've re-watched this several times now, and can't see any evidence of the ball touching another player or ground before being tapped backwards by HP (so an element of control imo) !

I am no ref but I think the consensus here is that it was never controlled by Hadleigh so whoever it touched after leaving him, whether in front or not, the ground or another Scarlet player the ball was deemed to be knocked on as it went forward initially from Hadleigh when he made his first attempt at catching it. 

That appears to be the ref's interpretation which is confusing to say the least. 

Yes - we can see, now (after some good work by SFers) why the ref took his decision - the ball went forward, then was flicked - Hadleigh never caught the ball before it reached Elias - so the ref reckoned it was a knock on under the laws. I very much doubt the law was intended to be interpreted in this way, but the ref can certainly argue his point under the letter as it stands.

Someone, somewhere, needs to take a decision on how, exactly, this sort of incident should be decided - knock on, or not - and send an instruction to the poor refs!
I share no-one's ideas. I have my own.
(Ivan Turgenev)
Back to Top
scarletman View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar
Married with Kids - Close to Bankruptcy

Joined: 18 August 2004
Location: Costa del Tondu
Status: Offline
Points: 12141
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scarletman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2017 at 11:54am
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

I've re-watched this several times now, and can't see any evidence of the ball touching another player or ground before being tapped backwards by HP (so an element of control imo) !

I am no ref but I think the consensus here is that it was never controlled by Hadleigh so whoever it touched after leaving him, whether in front or not, the ground or another Scarlet player the ball was deemed to be knocked on as it went forward initially from Hadleigh when he made his first attempt at catching it. 

That appears to be the ref's interpretation which is confusing to say the least. 

Yes - we can see, now (after some good work by SFers) why the ref took his decision - the ball went forward, then was flicked - Hadleigh never caught the ball before it reached Elias - so the ref reckoned it was a knock on under the laws. I very much doubt the law was intended to be interpreted in this way, but the ref can certainly argue his point under the letter as it stands.

Someone, somewhere, needs to take a decision on how, exactly, this sort of incident should be decided - knock on, or not - and send an instruction to the poor refs!

Right then, some questions to stir the "hornets nest"

Can you not catch a ball with one backward facing hand ? 
How long does it have to be in contact with the hand to be deemed a catch ?


Edited by scarletman - 13 September 2017 at 11:54am
Herman Tours ... Still the best way to travel !
Back to Top
ap sior View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 6554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ap sior Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2017 at 12:31pm
Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by scarletman scarletman wrote:

I've re-watched this several times now, and can't see any evidence of the ball touching another player or ground before being tapped backwards by HP (so an element of control imo) !

I am no ref but I think the consensus here is that it was never controlled by Hadleigh so whoever it touched after leaving him, whether in front or not, the ground or another Scarlet player the ball was deemed to be knocked on as it went forward initially from Hadleigh when he made his first attempt at catching it. 

That appears to be the ref's interpretation which is confusing to say the least. 

Yes - we can see, now (after some good work by SFers) why the ref took his decision - the ball went forward, then was flicked - Hadleigh never caught the ball before it reached Elias - so the ref reckoned it was a knock on under the laws. I very much doubt the law was intended to be interpreted in this way, but the ref can certainly argue his point under the letter as it stands.

Someone, somewhere, needs to take a decision on how, exactly, this sort of incident should be decided - knock on, or not - and send an instruction to the poor refs!

Right then, some questions to stir the "hornets nest"

Can you not catch a ball with one backward facing hand ? 
How long does it have to be in contact with the hand to be deemed a catch ?

When I watched the replay of the incident during the TMO referral, I was sure that Parkes steadied the ball with one hand before he tapped it on with the other. Don't think however that he had both hands on the ball simultaneously. However I've always assumed that it was possible to 'catch' a ball with one hand and use say the chest to steady it. 

Cast your mind back to last season/season before last and the 'tackle' on Sam Davies out in Connacht. The try was disallowed as it was deemed that he'd been tackled and held, however the tackler barely got hold of his shirt. 

Judging by that incident, and to be consistent, then the ball only needs to have minimal contact with the hand in terms of time for it to be deemed a catch
Back to Top
salmidach View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 15 August 2004
Location: I Love Llanelli
Status: Offline
Points: 12025
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote salmidach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 September 2017 at 1:42pm
so is this the end of the flick pass in rugby?
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance - Terry Pratchett
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.