Crusaders v Waratahs
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="581060" data-time="1463734141"><p>
Question, is a deliberate knock back any less cynical than some of these so called deliberate knock downs?</p></blockquote>
<br>
Weird question Gunner. Am I missing something? What's wrong with knocking the ball backward? -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581080" data-time="1463735479"><p>
yes but that also isnt being done to stop someone scoring a try...</p></blockquote>
<br>
I see there was further discussion...<br><br>
Simple answer is no it is not cynical offending as it is not offending therefore not cynical. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="581085" data-time="1463735976"><p>
I know that. No disputing of any laws here.<br><br>
Was just a random thought I had as the Waratah slapped the ball backwards in a potential Crusaders scoring opportunity. Thought to myself, hmmm that's bloody cynical, deliberately slapping the ball away to prevent a try - even though it was backwards.<strong> Is it any less cynical </strong>that some of the marginal deliberate knock down calls we see?<br><br>
So again, not disputing any laws, just pondering out loud. Its what The Fern is for isn't it?</p></blockquote>
<br>
Yes. See above. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="581093" data-time="1463738835"><p>
With hindsight, that has cost the Crusaders a bonus point. Some bad calls by Jaco in this game.</p></blockquote>
<br>
A couple of obvious errors costing the Cru points. That knock on and tackling FABJM without the ball the standouts. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="581138" data-time="1463777369">
<div>
<p>Weird question Gunner. Am I missing something? What's wrong with knocking the ball backward?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I suppose you can look at it in this context.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Suppose you intentionally knock the ball down with the sole intention of preventing the other team scoring.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it goes one degree forward it is a penalty and yellow card for cynical play.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it goes one degree backwards it is fine and play on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yet the intent is the same.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Up until a few years ago it was fine to knock the ball down to prevent a try scoring move. Now they've clamped down on it - but only as an intentional knock forward. Should there be a rule against intentional knock downs?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seems to me there is a reasonable case for it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="581152" data-time="1463782715">
<div>
<p>I suppose you can look at it in this context.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Suppose you intentionally knock the ball down with the sole intention of preventing the other team scoring.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it goes one degree forward it is a penalty and yellow card for cynical play.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it goes one degree backwards it is fine and play on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yet the intent is the same.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Up until a few years ago it was fine to knock the ball down to prevent a try scoring move. Now they've clamped down on it - but only as an intentional knock forward. Should there be a rule against intentional knock downs?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seems to me there is a reasonable case for it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You mean like winning a line out against the throw. Gee that is such negative play. Imagine competing for the ball and winning it back for your side. Terrible cynical stuff eh?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="581152" data-time="1463782715">
<div>
<p> </p>
<p>Up until a few years ago it was fine to knock the ball down to prevent a try scoring move. Now they've clamped down on it - but only as an intentional knock forward. Should there be a rule against intentional knock downs?</p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Define a "few years".</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=135229'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=135229</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p><p></p><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"><span style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:Calibri, Candara, Segoe, 'Segoe UI', Optima, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">His (Lomu's) second (yellow card) was for intentionally knocking down a pass close to the Hurricanes line.</span></blockquote> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="581152" data-time="1463782715">
<div>
<p>I suppose you can look at it in this context.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Suppose you intentionally knock the ball down with the sole intention of preventing the other team scoring.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it goes one degree forward it is a penalty and yellow card for cynical play.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If it goes one degree backwards it is fine and play on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Yet the intent is the same.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Up until a few years ago it was fine to knock the ball down to prevent a try scoring move. Now they've clamped down on it - but only as an intentional knock forward. Should there be a rule against intentional knock downs?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Seems to me there is a reasonable case for it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>When you knock it forward to prevent a try you're deliberately causing a foul (for want of a better word) by knocking the ball on. When you're knocking it back you're not deliberately causing a foul (again for want of a better word) because you're not deliberately knocking it on. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think that is the distinction.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="581161" data-time="1463788782">
<div>
<p>When you knock it forward to prevent a try you're deliberately causing a foul (for want of a better word) by knocking the ball on. When you're knocking it back you're not deliberately causing a foul (again for want of a better word) because you're not deliberately knocking it on. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think that is the distinction.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>That is absolutely the distinction.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Deliberate infringment vs accidental infringement is the essence of (in nearly all cases) of penalty vs free kick (or scrum).</p> -
<p>How about we leave the rules as they are and get the players to pass the ball in such a way that the their colleague catches the ball?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Possibly the biggest load of bullshit ever spouted on the fern musing if players should be penalised for knocking the ball backwards.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wait till Aaron Smith does the same in cover defence in a black jersey and see if this frothing is brought up again</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tordah" data-cid="581057" data-time="1463734059">
<div>
<p>how was that not a penalty try and YC? McNicholl tackled without the ball as he kicked it</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Well Peyper has obviously invoked the old "assumption that McNicholl was going to play the ball, so Phipps can't be expected to pull out of that tackle" law</p>
<p> </p>
<p>It's a real thing don't you know</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="581163" data-time="1463790545">
<div>
<p>How about we leave the rules as they are and get the players to pass the ball in such a way that the their colleague catches the ball?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Possibly the biggest load of bullshit ever spouted on the fern musing if players should be penalised for knocking the ball backwards.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wait till Aaron Smith does the same in cover defence in a black jersey and see if this frothing is brought up again</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>how dare people discuss and muse over the rules on here, anyone would think this is a rugby forum or something! </p> -
<p>On the McNichol tackle, even if Phipps leaves him alone, the Tahs had the kick covered anyway, I don't think it had much impact on that play.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And on the flip side, Crusaders were lucky not to concede a yellow card defending on their on line in the second half so it's a stretch to say Jaco cost the Crusaders the bonus point.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also I think allowing Guildford to score should automatically rule out any bonus point anyway...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="581163" data-time="1463790545">
<div>
<p>How about we leave the rules as they are and get the players to pass the ball in such a way that the their colleague catches the ball?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Possibly the biggest load of bullshit ever spouted on the fern musing if players should be penalised for knocking the ball backwards.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Wait till Aaron Smith does the same in cover defence in a black jersey and see if this frothing is brought up again</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581165" data-time="1463791052">
<div>
<p>how dare people discuss and muse over the rules on here, anyone would think this is a rugby forum or something! </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>You have strange little complex when you disagree with people's contributions on a public forum don't you?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What was the point of your comment? You have every right to say what you want, I'm just curious that you see the need to explain the forum to someone who's been on it for at least 12 years.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="broughie" data-cid="581169" data-time="1463792591">
<div>
<p>Considering the conditions the skill exhibited in that game was fantastic. Now if the Blues were playing it would have been a scrum fest due to all the knock ons.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>It was remarkable. Quite liked the way Read and Blackadder commented that it wasn't the game plan but what the hell. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Warratahs deserve credit for their approach too. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="581167" data-time="1463791844">
<div>
<p>You have strange little complex when you disagree with people's contributions on a public forum don't you?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>What was the point of your comment? You have every right to say what you want, I'm just curious that you see the need to explain the forum to someone who's been on it for at least 12 years.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Where did I disagree with anyones comments? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You jumped up on your high horse claiming peoples musings about a rule as the biggest load of bullshit ever spouted on the fern, and I'm the one with the strange complex?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>OK pal...you win again! </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581172" data-time="1463793294">
<div>
<p>Where did I disagree with anyones comments? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>You jumped up on your high horse claiming peoples musings about a rule as the biggest load of bullshit ever spouted on the fern, and I'm the one with the strange complex?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>OK pal...you win again! </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>But the notion of penalising a player for knocking the ball backwards <u><strong>IS</strong></u> the biggest load of shit isn't it?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I mean really. Penalty for knocking the ball backwards? It's not even a scrummable offence. Penalty?? Come on even freedom of speech has some limits</p>
<p> </p>
<p>:)</p> -
<p>in the context of the game last night and when the question was asked, I can see the validity in the question, but it would be a minefield to enforce given we see many dubious knocks ons not given and deliberate knock downs let go anyway.</p>
