Crusaders v Waratahs

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.

NTA

Watched the start of the game from the hotel and then was due out for a beer with a mate. Was around the time the cross-kick try was disallowed, and I thought it was about to be 21-nil with a whole lot more coming. Was surprised to later learn the Saders hadn't scored 50.
 
Just shit defence for 15-20 minutes from the Tahs. Really hesitant stuff. Damn shame or they could have actually gotten closer, particularly with some of the enterprise show late in the game.
 
Both teams should get points for throwing it around in those conditions, but really, there aren't many Aussie teams that are going to play well in the wet.
 
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="581486" data-time="1463838582">
<div>
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.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Never really thought about it, but that is easily the best explanation why.

MajorRage

I've always viewed the rule that with the exception of charge downs, hands may only be used to catch and hold the ball.
 
I.e - you cannot use your hands to bat, punch, push the ball, you can only use it to catch and pass. If you are not in a position to catch the ball, and can only punch it down or block a pass etc, then you shouldn't be able to go for it.
 
To give a bit more context if you are the defender in a 2 on 1 situation, and you manage to get between the ball, but the pass is too quick for you to catch it - so you reach out to essentially just block the pass, why is it a penalty if it goes forward (and if attacking the line, then probably a penalty try and YC), but absolutely no sanction if it goes backward?
 
If you are making NO attempt to catch the ball, then the sanction should be the same.

booboo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="582114" data-time="1464053059">
I've always viewed the rule that with the exception of charge downs, hands may only be used to catch and hold the ball. 
I.e - you cannot use your hands to bat, punch, push the ball, you can only use it to catch and pass. If you are not in a position to catch the ball, and can only punch it down or block a pass etc, then you shouldn't be able to go for it. 
To give a bit more context if you are the defender in a 2 on 1 situation, and you manage to get between the ball, but the pass is too quick for you to catch it - so you reach out to essentially just block the pass, why is it a penalty if it goes forward (and if attacking the line, then probably a penalty try and YC), but absolutely no sanction if it goes backward? 
If you are making NO attempt to catch the ball, then the sanction should be the same.</blockquote>
 
Don't agree. 
A flick on is not a catch and pass but extremely skillful. 
A tap back from a lineout: should Whitelock have been penalised in the Semi for his steal? 
Tamanivalu's flick up on the weekend was extremely skillful. 
The reason you are penalised for deliberately knocking the ball forward is the same reason a scrum is set if you accidently propell the ball forward. The laws of the game say you can't propell it forward. Thus if you do it deliberately you are to be penalised. The laws of the game say you may propell the ball backwards. 
the interpretation of "reaching out to block the pass and the ball goes forward" is that you are deliberately propelling it forward. Whether you are or not. Sometimes that's a harsh call and there is genuine intent to catch it (or at the very least not propell it forward). But that's the interpretation. 
Makes sense and I'm not sure why this us even a thing.

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="582124" data-time="1464054419">
<div>
Don't agree. 
A flick on is not a catch and pass but extremely skillful. 
A tap back from a lineout: should Whitelock have been penalised in the Semi for his steal? 
Tamanivalu's flick up on the weekend was extremely skillful. 
The reason you are penalised for deliberately knocking the ball forward is the same reason a scrum is set if you accidently propell the ball forward. The laws of the game say you can't propell it forward. Thus if you do it deliberately you are to be penalised. The laws of the game say you may propell the ball backwards. 
the interpretation of "reaching out to block the pass and the ball goes forward" is that you are deliberately propelling it forward. Whether you are or not. Sometimes that's a harsh call and there is genuine intent to catch it (or at the very least not propell it forward). But that's the interpretation. 
Makes sense and I'm not sure why this us even a thing.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Well yes, it's not cut and dry and you make good points as to why.
 
Regardless, a hand stuck out in the way of a pass to score a try seems to have completely different outcomes depending on the luck of the bounce. I'm just not sure that rule is right.

booboo

I still think it's interpretation assigning intent when there may not be. 
Stick out one hand = deliberate 
Stick out two = trying to catch it 
Not always the case but that's generally how it's ruled

Gary

Bloody hell you guys get caught up on the trival "can you flick/tap the ball backwards" happens every game of course you can. There is a big difference between forwards and backwards ~ you can pass the ball backwards but not forwards ~ you can tap the ball ball backwards but not forwards. I'm assuming that a player would be yellow carded for deliberating passing the ball forward to prevent a try (if you were dumb enough to do it ~ I'm picking one of the blues back three will do it in the next few weeks) same as knocking(tapping) the ball forward to prevent a try.
 
Hell should Franks be penalised for his amazing bit of skill to header a ball backwards straight into the arms of Dagg for the clearance. I bet Messi couldn't do that with an oval ball.

booboo

There's probably no reason you can't head the ball forward ... it's not a knock on ...

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Gary" data-cid="582267" data-time="1464100392">
<div>
Bloody hell you guys get caught up on the trival "can you flick/tap the ball backwards" happens every game of course you can. There is a big difference between forwards and backwards ~ you can pass the ball backwards but not forwards ~ you can tap the ball ball backwards but not forwards. I'm assuming that a player would be yellow carded for deliberating passing the ball forward to prevent a try (if you were dumb enough to do it ~ I'm picking one of the blues back three will do it in the next few weeks) same as knocking(tapping) the ball forward to prevent a try.
 
Hell should Franks be penalised for his amazing bit of skill to header a ball backwards straight into the arms of Dagg for the clearance. I bet Messi couldn't do that with an oval ball.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Ok, maybe I should rewrite what I've written to just say control the ball. Yes, I think whenever a player goes for the ball, he should be looking to control it. That's much better.
 
 
If you shove your hand out to intentionally block a try scoring pass, why should it be no sanction if you get a lucky bounce backwards from your arm, but penalty try and yellow card if you get an unlucky bounce forwards off your hand/arm.

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="582361" data-time="1464135281">
<div>
Ok, maybe I should rewrite what I've written to just say control the ball. Yes, I think whenever a player goes for the ball, he should be looking to control it. That's much better.
 
 
If you shove your hand out to intentionally block a try scoring pass, why should it be no sanction if you get a lucky bounce backwards from your arm, but penalty try and yellow card if you get an unlucky bounce forwards off your hand/arm.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'm playing devils advocate a bit here as I understand what you are saying, but I also liken it to a chip and chase that is slightly out of reach and you make a grab from it.There is probably not going to be much control at first.

MajorRage

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Hooroo" data-cid="582363" data-time="1464135580">
<div>
I'm playing devils advocate a bit here as I understand what you are saying, but I also liken it to a chip and chase that is slightly out of reach and you make a grab from it.There is probably not going to be much control at first.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It comes down to intention (which I'm the first to admit is going to be bloody hard to ref). If you chip and chase and you dive for it to score or regather, undoubtedly every part of you is trying to control the ball. When you just shove your mitt out to block a pass, you are making no effort at all, just trying to disrupt.

taniwharugby

but in that one you aren't contesting the ball with someone else, you just cant control it, or maybe I am not getting what you are saying?
 
As I said earlier, I can see the validity in the original question and am highly amused at some of the comments about 'how is this a thing' 'this is the biggest load of BS ever on TSF' etc.
 
Fark this is a forum where people ask all sorts of questions, yes some may seem silly to others (and yes you will get called on it) but even with all the arguments about this topic, I can still see the validity in the question...but given how grey the rule is on the deliberate knock down anyway it would just add another layer to a rule book that seems to be constantly expanding for very minimal impact overall.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="582272" data-time="1464116221">
<div>
There's probably no reason you can't head the ball forward ... it's not a knock on ...
</div>
</blockquote>
 
You could win a world up with that sort of planned move. First five fires the ball at the second five's head - who nods it forward and the centre scores as the defense is thrown into disarray. :)

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="taniwharugby" data-cid="582368" data-time="1464136249">
<div>
but in that one you aren't contesting the ball with someone else, you just cant control it, or maybe I am not getting what you are saying?
 
As I said earlier, I can see the validity in the original question and am highly amused at some of the comments about 'how is this a thing' 'this is the biggest load of BS ever on TSF' etc.
 
Fark this is a forum where people ask all sorts of questions, yes some may seem silly to others (and yes you will get called on it) but even with all the arguments about this topic, I can still see the validity in the question...but given how grey the rule is on the deliberate knock down anyway it would just add another layer to a rule book that seems to be constantly expanding for very minimal impact overall.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Yep - seems like a sensible point to me. So far I think Nepia's answer is the best - proving that people from Hawkes Bay aren't quite as stupid as we think. :)

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MajorRage" data-cid="582367" data-time="1464136227">
<div>
It comes down to intention (which I'm the first to admit is going to be bloody hard to ref). If you chip and chase and you dive for it to score or regather, undoubtedly every part of you is trying to control the ball. When you just shove your mitt out to block a pass, you are making no effort at all, just trying to disrupt.
</div>
</blockquote>
...although.... that's what intercepts always look like in close quarters. Most is in hope and luck.
 
I do hear you though and sometimes it looks obvious and should be penalised heavily

Crazy Horse

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="582369" data-time="1464136357">
You could win a world up with that sort of planned move. First five fires the ball at the second five's head - who nods it forward and the centre scores as the defense is thrown into disarray. :)</blockquote>
 
Wasn't there something around Spencer using his knee to do a chip in behind a few years ago? I remember he did it once at Eden Park and set up a try and then, this is the bit I can't quite remember, tried it again in SA and the ref called him up on it? Something about not being in the spirit of the game?

Hooroo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="582372" data-time="1464137050">
<div>
Wasn't there something around Spencer using his knee to do a chip in behind a few years ago? I remember he did it once at Eden Park and set up a try and then, this is the bit I can't quite remember, tried it again in SA and the ref called him up on it? Something about not being in the spirit of the game?
</div>
</blockquote>
What a cracking memory! 
 
Now that you tell it, I vaguely remember that too

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="582372" data-time="1464137050">
<div>
Wasn't there something around Spencer using his knee to do a chip in behind a few years ago? I remember he did it once at Eden Park and set up a try and then, this is the bit I can't quite remember, tried it again in SA and the ref called him up on it? Something about not being in the spirit of the game?
</div>
</blockquote>

<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21&language=EN'>http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=21&language=EN</a>
 
21.3 (b) says they banned it soon after. Too creative... what a player he was. To think how much I used to despise him as a younger lad ...

The Silver Fern

Crusaders v Waratahs