Crusaders v Waratahs

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="581189" data-time="1463801160">
I played in a game where a teammate was penalised for knocking the ball backwards to stop a try. So seems a relevant discussion to me</blockquote>
 
The discussion should be the competence of that referee. 
Slapping a ball down is the worst element of the requirement to pass the ball backwards. That's why it's penalisable; not being in the spirit of the game and a clear vioation of propelling the ball forward with the hand.

barbarian

But if Horne knocked it back and it bounced right and rolled out... then we are talking yellow card.
 
Though actually that says more about the 'deliberately throwing into touch' rule than it does about the 'deliberate knock' rule. I think the throw into touch rule is ridiculous, and I can't see a reason it's there.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="581184" data-time="1463797694">
<div>
Not really surprised to see my harmless little question nearly spark world war three, coz shit spirals waaaay outa control real quick round here. 
No where did I say I wanted any laws changed, so calmly put down your weapons and slowly back away...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Crikey - Canebry hasn't even posted on the thread yet. :)

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="581191" data-time="1463801843">But if Horne knocked it back and it bounced right and rolled out... then we are talking yellow card. 
Though actually that says more about the 'deliberately throwing into touch' rule than it does about the 'deliberate knock' rule. I think the throw into touch rule is ridiculous, and I can't see a reason it's there.</blockquote>
Prevents a contest. That's what a ref told me once when I passed blindly to a winger who had stepped back inside.

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581193" data-time="1463802646">
<div>
Prevents a contest. That's what a ref told me once when I passed blindly to a winger who had stepped back inside.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yeah but so does kicking it into touch. If a grubber is put into the ingoal area, you're fine to slide in feet first and kick it dead, but if you reach out and bat it dead then it's likely a PT. I just don't understand such wildly different punishments for two very similar actions with the exact same effect on the game.

Gunner

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Siam" data-cid="581176" data-time="1463794521">
Don't fall for it mate. It's not a valid question. it's a whine because people didn't get the try they wanted. 
No validity - self entitled sookie la la whining</blockquote> I wasn't whining one little bit. 
I couldn't give a fuck if that particular try was scored or not, it was merely an observation about one tiny tiny part of the game of rugby, which rarely ever happens. 
No validity? Who makes you the fucking king and executioner of what a valid question or discussion is? 
Eat a fat one.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581188" data-time="1463799733">
<div>
The question deserved the derision and scorn heaped on it. 
Sent from my GT-P7500 using Tapatalk
</div>
</blockquote>
 
well this place is in trouble then!

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="581189" data-time="1463801160">
I played in a game where a teammate was penalised for knocking the ball backwards to stop a try. So seems a relevant discussion to me</blockquote>
 
What antipodean said. 
That's one thing that always got me about this situation: the terminology. 
A "deliberate knock DOWN" is NOT an offence. In knocking the ball DOWN you have done nothing wrong. The ball did not go forward. A "deliberate knock FORWARD" is. 
That instance Mariner quotes is a classic result of stupid commentators and stupid viewers. I've played in games where passes have been knocked down but backwards and players have whinged about deliberate knock down. Thankfully the refs were somewhat more competent. 
Antipodean: i hope you weren't penalised in the intance you quote as again there was no deliberate throwing the ball into touch it was merely unfortunate. 
As Crucial pounts out normal play within the laws of the game - which includes propelling the ball backwards - is all aimed at stopping the opposition scoring. It's not cynical as it's not offending. 
Re "deliberate knock on": the first time I ever saw that was on tele of an All Blacks mud week tour match in Britain in 78 or 79. Lineout right on the AB line (no moving it out 5m in those days). AB jumper just reaches out and smacks the thing forward. Bang penalised. I was confused (I was 10 or so) as i thought a knock on was a scrum.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="581194" data-time="1463802933">Yeah but so does kicking it into touch. If a grubber is put into the ingoal area, you're fine to slide in feet first and kick it dead, but if you reach out and bat it dead then it's likely a PT. I just don't understand such wildly different punishments for two very similar actions with the exact same effect on the game.</blockquote>
Because you can kick directly or indirectly into touch. It's a fundamental component of the game.

SammyC

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="581196" data-time="1463803971">
No validity? Who makes you the fucking king and executioner of what a valid question or discussion is? 
Eat a fat one.</blockquote>
 
He's been on the fern 12 years he's the oracle on everything

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581205" data-time="1463805470">
<div>
Because you can kick directly or indirectly into touch. It's a fundamental component of the game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
plenty of fundamental components that seem silly...
 
If you dont contest a lineout, why should it matter if it isnt straight? 
 
The one last night that called back the try when Todd didnt retreat outside the 10, he had zero impact on the game, but he was correctly called for the rule, similarly the not retreating rule, the kick can be down the right, a prop meandering forward 50m away on the left wing is breaking the rules.
 
If people stop asking questions (however dumb you might think they are) and discussing things then this place wil be pretty quiet.

Gunner

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581207" data-time="1463806437">
If you dont contest a lineout, why should it matter if it isnt straight? 
.</blockquote>
It's in the rules that the throw must be straight, that's why. 
Man you must be as stupid as stupid gets, you ignoramus. 
And how dare you question the laws of rugby, I hear by sentence you to death by stoning. 
Guards, take this man away.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581207" data-time="1463806437">plenty of fundamental components that seem silly... 
If you dont contest a lineout, why should it matter if it isnt straight? 
The one last night that called back the try when Todd didnt retreat outside the 10, he had zero impact on the game, but he was correctly called for the rule, similarly the not retreating rule, the kick can be down the right, a prop meandering forward 50m away on the left wing is breaking the rules. 
If people stop asking questions (however dumb you might think they are) and discussing things then this place wil be pretty quiet.</blockquote>
It removes ambiguity. You shouldn't be able to remain in a position to play tge ball if you're off-side

taniwharugby

similarly, the accidental off-side rule, most of the time it has zero impact on the opposition players getting to the ball carrier, still called.
 
again, I know these are the rules, doesnt mean I have to like them, I abided by them when I played and I teach my son the rules as they are written too.
 
discussion is a fundamental component to forums

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581213" data-time="1463807716">
<div>
similarly, the accidental off-side rule, most of the time it has zero impact on the opposition players getting to the ball carrier, still called.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Actually, the Laws of Rugby say that should be play on:
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the playerâ€™s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the playerâ€™s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.
 
</blockquote>

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="581207" data-time="1463806437">
If people stop asking questions (however dumb you might think they are) and discussing things then this place wil be pretty quiet.</blockquote>
 
True but if you make a stupid comment you can fairly expect to be shot down for it as well.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="581218" data-time="1463809446">
<div>
True but if you make a stupid comment you can fairly expect to be shot down for it as well.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
goes without saying, and this usually generates more discussion,and some hyperbole.

Siam

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gunner" data-cid="581196" data-time="1463803971">
<div>
I wasn't whining one little bit. 
I couldn't give a fuck if that particular try was scored or not, it was merely an observation about one tiny tiny part of the game of rugby, which rarely ever happens. 
No validity? Who makes you the fucking king and executioner of what a valid question or discussion is? 
Eat a fat one.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Sorry Gunner, I didn't intend for you to feel a victim of some rather infantile and pretty ineffectual words. (I mean fuck man, you're offended by a clown post with the words "sookie la la" in it - have some self respect and just ignore me! )
 
Seriously, I was just writing shit on a forum, same as everyone else. No need to go all wah wah wah though, I mean it is a dumb question to ask if a knock back should be penalisable as you now know ;)

barbarian

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581205" data-time="1463805470">
<div>
Because you can kick directly or indirectly into touch. It's a fundamental component of the game.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yes and so is passing the ball. But while you can kick the ball out, you cannot pass the ball out. I've never heard a logical explanation as to why that is.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="barbarian" data-cid="581432" data-time="1463830558">
<div>
Yes and so is passing the ball. But while you can kick the ball out, you cannot pass the ball out. I've never heard a logical explanation as to why that is.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
The kicking has been to gain territory which means although you'd normally kick forward, you're permitted to kick in any direction. Passing on the other hand has to be done backwards and hence because you can't pass gaining territory without actually running forward, passing into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line negates a contest.

The Silver Fern

Crusaders v Waratahs