Deliberate knock downs

First topic message reminder :



Last night in the Exeter - Glasgow match, Glasgow were on the attack and an Exeter player deliberately knocked the ball down (went backwards) when if the pass had gone to hand, Glasgow would have scored. Had the ball travelled forward last night, could the Exeter player have been penalised, shown a card and possibly have a penalty try awarded for this act?

Is there such a difference in which way the ball goes? It seems that a deliberate knockdown with the ball going backwards is acceptable but a deliberate knockdown with the ball going forward is a penalty and a card.

To me, I see no difference in these as either way the ball bounces could result in potentially stopping try scoring opportunities.

Would really appreciate if someone (with a lot more knowledge of rugby laws than myself) could explain the difference.

RugbyFan100 wrote:It's this:

I can see Eirebilly's point. It is cynical but within the laws unfortunately.

Nothing wrong with that in my eyes.

Now if it was in the opposite direction, then there would be controversy.

RugbyFan100 wrote:It's this:

I can see Eirebilly's point. It is cynical but within the laws unfortunately.

Thanks bud.

Watching it again, it actually isn't as bad as I thought it was when I first saw it. Not a slap down but a genuine attempt to intercept the pass in my mind.

I hate getting proven wrong

Accept it. It happens to the best of us occasionally

I was going to say given he regained possession legally I was struggling to see what was wrong

I think that's good defending, especially given the ground he makes up to get back into position to disrupt.

There was a reasonable discussion point though - let's take the Zebo example and hypothetically say instead of the ball bouncing down and slightly forward, it had come off the underside of his hand/arm and gone down and slightly backwards (rare, but can happen for a player facing forwards). Now, his intention was not to win back the ball (i.e. he isn't legitimately looking for an interception or to play the ball back towards a team mate) but purely to disrupt the attacking play, and it would just have been a bit of luck that the ball did not go forwards. The intent would have been the same but a bit of luck in how the ball struck his outstretched arm would have made the play legal, at least as the Laws currently stand.

I'm not sure that it is something that the refs can or should be asked to rule on, as it is somewhat subjective as to whether the act is deliberate (indeed, I think there are times players are legitimately looking for an intercept when they get penalised for a deliberate knock on - I understand the 'rule of thumb' is that if you go with only one hand it's going to be judged as illegal, but you do sometimes see players pull off a one handed interception or juggle the ball up and catch the rebound). At least limiting the case to the objective 'forward' or 'backward' makes the decision more consistent.

Don't have a problem with it