When is a knock on a knock on

nzzp

OK, specifically in regard to the TMO decision on Saturday night, and in general, anyone able to provide clarification on when a knock on occurs in a striking/ripping of possession from the ball carrier.
 
For those who didn't see it, it could briefly be summarised as Blues 10 was carrying the ball, Canes prop Chris Eves struck at the ball causing possession to be lost and the ball to go towards the Blues try line. Coles then did his midfielder impersonation, kicked ahead and dived on the loose ball to score.
 
The TMO looked at whether Eves knocked the ball on, and concluded it was fine.
 
 
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.texasrugbyunion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/111123-DC-IRB-Law-Clarification-4-2011.pdf'>http://www.texasrugbyunion.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/111123-DC-IRB-Law-Clarification-4-2011.pdf</a>
 
Link above dates back to 2011, but suggests that Eves should have been ruled a knock on in the Canes Blues game.
 
Also of interest was the question from the ref - did Eves touch the ball? I am pretty sure I heard the TMO say he didn't touch it, despite the video appearing to show Eves big fat prop hand punching the ball clear.
 
 
 
So, is there general direction? My memory is that there was a referee directive either this year or last year on how to rule in these situations, but darned if I can find it.
 
Comments/links/ideas welcomed.
 
 
 
My personal opinion: Seemed harsh not to rule a knock on, unless there has been a directive from the refs on this, in which case (like jumping for the ball), it is what it is, despite my opinion.

Nepia

Going by that directive, assuming it is still current, if you consider the hitting of the ball out a 'rip' then I guess it is scenario two and it should have been a knock on against Eves.
 
I actually don't mind which way they rule it, as long as they are consistent.

mimic

The decision last night was made because the TMO believed that the hurricanes player did NOT touch the ball.. if the TMO saw him touch the ball then it would've been called a knock on

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mimic" data-cid="593708" data-time="1467508820">
<div>
The decision last night was made because the TMO believed that the hurricanes player did NOT touch the ball.. if the TMO saw him touch the ball then it would've been called a knock on
</div>
</blockquote>
Wow, they have blind TMOs now.

mimic

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="593711" data-time="1467509618">Wow, they have blind TMOs now.</blockquote>
Apparently their HD TV is better than ours ..

Crazy Horse

I don't think the TMO said Eves didn't touch it. That was the referee's interpretation of what the TMO said. I am pretty sure the TMO said something along the lines of 'I see no problem with it'.

booboo

It looked like Eves hand touched the ball but I suspect he ruled that it wasn't absolutely 100% clear that he did. Although you'd think 99% certainty would be enough ...

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mimic" data-cid="593708" data-time="1467508820">
<div>
The decision last night was made because the TMO believed that the hurricanes player did NOT touch the ball.. if the TMO saw him touch the ball then it would've been called a knock on
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Weird, eh. So if the TMO thought Eves had touched it, then KO. Otherwise play on. I understand if he didn't touch it but it looked crystal clear on my HD tv that it was a touch.
 
As Nepia says, as long as they are consistent...

pakman

in UK on Sky was replayed showing clear contact from Eves -- even Jeremy Thrush had to say he thought it was knock on.

Higgins

There was no clear separation of the ball from Wests' arm whilst Eves allegedly made contact with it. The ball only left the hands after Eves' hand had departed thus West was still in possession of the ball. The fact that West subsequently lost the ball backward towards his own goaline is not the doing of Chris Eves, West lost it at his own volition.
 
It is a bit like the ruling in some of those highly contentious tries scored with barely a finger tip momentarily in contact with the ball. If that is ok in terms of a contact situation for a try situation then it certainly must apply in this one too.

ACT Crusader

Looked like a "loose carry" (League term) to me. 
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

pukunui

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Higgins" data-cid="593788" data-time="1467543991">
There was no clear separation of the ball from Wests' arm whilst Eves allegedly made contact with it. The ball only left the hands after Eves' hand had departed thus West was still in possession of the ball. The fact that West subsequently lost the ball backward towards his own goaline is not the doing of Chris Eves, West lost it at his own volition. 
It is a bit like the ruling in some of those highly contentious tries scored with barely a finger tip momentarily in contact with the ball. If that is ok in terms of a contact situation for a try situation then it certainly must apply in this one too.</blockquote>
 
Thats the way i saw it. ie West lost the ball after the contact from eves not during it.

Bovidae

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="ACT Crusader" data-cid="593796" data-time="1467549304">
<div>
Looked like a "loose carry" (League term) to me.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Agreed. West has a bad habit of losing the ball in contact.

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="594175" data-time="1467704450">Thats the way i saw it. ie West lost the ball after the contact from eves not during it.</blockquote>
The relevant point (according to the refs directives) is who lost possession not how they lost it. 
West had possession, Eves never did. 
If West had let go of the ball in a pass before Eves made contact then Eve's knocked the ball forward. If West was still in contact (not control Mr Marshall), then just like scoring a try, he remains in possession. If he then loses the ball backward (even if it is touched by Eve's), it is play on.

Immenso Rapido

My advice to the IRB on knock ons and forward passes.

Being stripped, punched out. 
Current interpretations are Micky mouse IMO. No idea why they've let this get complicated. Obviously 2 people are touching it at the same time, so regardless of whether the holders action or tackler/defenders action caused it to come loose. The attacker had control then lost it, so if it goes forward then it is a knock on. This should be no different to a jarring tackle.
Lost forward rulings. 
If it hits the ground then it should need to land behind your feet. Straight down is a cop out IMO. So in diving for the line like on the weekend and the ball was knocked out by the defender but in a slightly backward direction hitting the ground at about parelel with his waist . In the world of Immenso this is a knock on. Ball was lost and fell in front of the carriers feet. Simple. Knock on, 1 replay to figure this out.
Forward passes. 
We all know the optical illusion / physics of passing backwards while running at pace. Etc. 
IRB solution was to rule as direction out of the hand. 
Immenso rule is part of ball must pass behind the plane of the passer's shoulders, can then float forward all it wants. Seems easier to me than trying to line up directions on TV cameras that may be at 40 degree angle and try to judge direction out of the hand. 
So in this world the forward pass that Barnes ruled in the Wales series would be correct. 
However .... 
I realise this may make offloads harder where player frees arms in tackle and gets ball behind the tacklers back. Would have to get a lot more power on the offload. But as these usually aren't done at pace anyway shouldn't drift forward anyway. (I'm definitely not trying to clamp down on offloads) 
Don't think it would impact offloads the other way much - eg out the back of the hand.

The Silver Fern

When is a knock on a knock on