both you and fa seem to be working on the assumption that an action not defined as a pass is defined as knock on! That isn't the case there is a definition of a knock on itself and there are actions and situations which fall fall under neither definition, there is no point denying that.

It is unarguable in my opinion that the jjb incident was one of those situations and the incident fell into a grey area within our rules, similar to the Webb incident the game loses nothing by tightening up these rules and making them clearer, the only way the game will lose is if people pretend that there is no problem

It doesn't really matter whether the incident last week was a forward pass or a knock on because they are both illegal moves in league. That the video ref isn't allowed to rule on forward passes is a red herring because the play was rightly called back therefore the correct decision was reached in the context of playing a game of rugby league.

are you saying the vr can't make a decision on a forward pass because the camara can play tricks and it makes it too difficult to make the correct decision yet if you decide the action was a knock rather than a pass he can make the decision because those camara angles suddenly change and all of a sudden it is infallible!

And don't fall back on fas red herring of judgment changing because the same as the rule states a forward pass needs to be passed forward it also states a knock on needs to be knocked forward! It is one hundred percent clear jjb knocked the ball backwards yet it went forward exactly the same as if he'd passed the ball backwards it would have likely gone forward

And if cummins wants the game to be reffed as fa states then why not put it in the rules

But surely if we can trust video refs to judge whether a 'slap' has gone forward, we can also trust them to judge whether a pass has gone forward.

In the build up to a try that is.

It seems weird to suggest that a video ref is capable and allowed to say whether a slap went forward but is incapable of doing the same for a pass.

I certainly think you`re right to suggest that the VR could have some involvement in forwarded passes ( he could probably see which way a player`s hands are facing) but at the same time I feel you`re still trying to say that there is no difference in the knock on and forward pass decision.

To repeat what has already been said; a knock on is relative to the ground (except after a completed tackle) whilst a forward pass is relative to the passer and the ball subsequently going forward relative to the ground doesn`t make a properly made pass forward.

There is no link between two at all. An action can be one, both or neither. Hence why any discussion of a forward pass is totally irrelevant to a knock on decision.



No grey area at all. He played at the ball. In playing at the ball he knocked it forward. It was a knock on. The VR was right not to award the try because of it.

A knock on is judged forward relative to the ground. A forward pass isn't. Hence the restriction on the VR.

It's really all quite straightforward.

Well knocking the ball backwards is neither a pass nor a knock-on, so obviously we are not. Maybe you would you like to offer some examples of what you are on about.

Michael.

Surely we have the technology now to be able to determine the momentum of the ball before and after it is passed, and the technology to be able to determine the players' and the ball's position in relation to the pitch? I've seen some pretty decent stuff in my time in lectures at Carnegie being used for match analysis. Surely this can be implimented into officiating?

Forward passes are a blight on our game and it's a disgrace that so many get missed, especially in the build up to tries, and especially if they get called to the VR and are so incredibly obvious yet cannot be chalked off.

im sorry . but the rules outlawed this 90 years ago . its what dally messenger use to do all the time . throw the ball forward over the defence .catch on the full . play on . just like a chip kick . thats why they outlawed it

if I were to attempt to punch the ball backwards to a team mate, or to in fact make any action which is neither a throw nor a knock under these rules cannot be judged as to whether it is either a forward pass because it hadn't been passed nor a knock on because it hadn't been knocked!

The rules assume every action is one or the other when that isn't the case

If you were to attempt to punch the ball, you would be 'playing at the ball'. The rules clearly state that if the ball goes forward after being played at, it's a knock on. This is also easily distinguished from a pass, which involves throwing the ball rather than striking at it.

The rules are just fine as they are, as long as one takes the trouble to read them properly.

Why don't you understand that the definition of "forward" is not the same for a pass as it is for a knock-on? What's hard about that? I mean, it [imay[/i be you really don't get it, but I'm struggling to believe that you can't understand the simple difference.


3.3173828125:5