Two questions...

[ism22]

1. Why is a knock-on being interpreted liberally enough to include circumstances where somebody intentionally swings at the ball when it has supposedly gone loose? It advantaged us this week and killed our last possible try last week. I find it weird how they are calling it when people havent even lost the ball and somebody has intentionally swung at the ball. To me this isnt the ball bouncing into an opposition player and it was pretty ridiculous with Woods facing backwards and somebody in front of him intentionally touching it. Is that not a penalty for a strip if 2 people are in the tackle and you try to dislodge it?
2. Why are refs using the bunker when they KNOW it is not a try but wanna check something else out? Can they do this? For example when Fergo dropped the ball with 8 seconds to go in the first half they spent like 60 seconds working out if he went out first or not. IMO it wasnt actually the bunkers job to decide this. Just saying...

[Bowzy]

I’d also like to know why the bunker took it upon itself to intervene in the game with the Mitchell sin binning. Can’t they only comment if it’s a reportable offense?

[Johnny Tobin]

Two answers:

1. They make it up as they go along.

2. They do whatever they like.

[ism22]

Two answers:

1. They make it up as they go along.

2. They do whatever they like.

Thanks for the clarification

[Hawkeye]

Don't forget, the Fergo disallowed try ...the refs asked to check for a knock on. No knock on, but they dissallowed it for a tackle being complete. I suppose in relation to a try, they can check for everything even if the ref doesn't specificly ask for it.

As for knock ons, seems these days you drop it, then its a knock on, even if it goes backwards. Now they're nitpicking on whether it touches an opposition player ...seems their latest craze to the point where they seemingly are going a little overboard with it !

[easts4eva]

The rules now are so convaluted and ambiguous, there's a different rule to cater for every individual on field scenario. Its designed to confuse.

[The Brain]

well everyone complained when the rules were policed by the refs proper ..now its back to doubt again.

[ism22]

The rules now are so convaluted and ambiguous, there's a different rule to cater for every individual on field scenario. Its designed to confuse.

IMO the knock-on is concerning because the current interpretation has crept up on us. As a kid, my understanding was that if you dropped the ball forwards, you were penalised... mostly on the grounds you are not allowed to pass foward, so this prevents you from accidentally throwing the ball forward to a team mate.

Now we see ourselves in this ludicrous situation where players are (presumably) being coached to try to swing and get a hand to the ball either during a tackle or while the player is catching the ball because if there is a moment of separation during which time the ball touches an opposition player, a knock-on will be called (even if the ball is going backwards and the ball only makes contact due to a deliberate swing at it in order to milk a knock-on).

IMO we need to simplify the fark outta the rule book and have objectives rather than so many express rules (that then turn into ludicrous situations being policed, well beyond the intention of the rule).

It makes me think of Cronks good old vintage, intentional cross-field pass to a defending player who is in no way obstructing any intended plays but is technically offside having gotten up after the tackle and done his best to run back onside. IMO these calls are nonsensical and dont go to the heart of the rules, which is to stop foul play... not to stop free-flowing play by grtting all niggly about situation where a narrow, black-letter interpretation might lead to a ridiculous outcome where a seemingly unrelated penalty can be called.

[The Brain]

IMO the knock-on is concerning because the current interpretation has crept up on us. As a kid, my understanding was that if you dropped the ball forwards, you were penalised... mostly on the grounds you are not allowed to pass foward, so this prevents you from accidentally throwing the ball forward to a team mate.

Now we see ourselves in this ludicrous situation where players are (presumably) being coached to try to swing and get a hand to the ball either during a tackle or while the player is catching the ball because if there is a moment of separation during which time the ball touches an opposition player, a knock-on will be called (even if the ball is going backwards and the ball only makes contact due to a deliberate swing at it in order to milk a knock-on).

IMO we need to simplify the fark outta the rule book and have objectives rather than so many express rules (that then turn into ludicrous situations being policed, well beyond the intention of the rule).

It makes me think of Cronks good old vintage, intentional cross-field pass to a defending player who is in no way obstructing any intended plays but is technically offside having gotten up after the tackle and done his best to run back onside. IMO these calls are nonsensical and dont go to the heart of the rules, which is to stop foul play... not to stop free-flowing play by grtting all niggly about situation where a narrow, black-letter interpretation might lead to a ridiculous outcome where a seemingly unrelated penalty can be called.

The Knock on rules changed a bit when Lord Ted Goodwin when receiving a pass used to knock the ball over the defensive players head in stead of catching it ,regather and score ..Gotta say was brilliant stuff to watch

[milanja]

Don't forget, the Fergo disallowed try ...the refs asked to check for a knock on. No knock on, but they dissallowed it for a tackle being complete. I suppose in relation to a try, they can check for everything even if the ref doesn't specificly ask for it.

As for knock ons, seems these days you drop it, then its a knock on, even if it goes backwards. Now they're nitpicking on whether it touches an opposition player ...seems their latest craze to the point where they seemingly are going a little overboard with it !

Was Aubo allowed a chance to take the ball before he was being tackled?

i don’t understand how it is deemed unsafe to tackle a defending play mid air, yet tackling an attacking player mid air is as safe?

[stsae]

Was Aubo allowed a chance to take the ball before he was being tackled?

i don’t understand how it is deemed unsafe to tackle a defending play mid air, yet tackling an attacking player mid air is as safe?

Because you must be given every opportunity to stop a try. Same as a strip more than one defender isn’t a penalty over the line. That has always been a given.

The rule was for the stationary FB unprotected with 3 players full pelt trying to take his legs out from under him as he jumps. That was always a dangerous thing. Similar to taking the kicker out attacking the legs.

Aubo was unlucky the arm carrying the ball scraped the ground just before he passed.

[eddie]

Bloody game management.
Sin binning Mitchell was a joke. If the bunker decided that.............. it makes the decision even worse.

[King Salvo]

I’d also like to know why the bunker took it upon itself to intervene in the game with the Mitchell sin binning. Can’t they only comment if it’s a reportable offense?

That was the real question in that game - no way the Dogs player was going to score and the intervention of the bunker needs to be questioned including how they came up with such a decision to sin bin Latrell. They are making rods for their own backs such as awarding Slater a try when he dropped the ball and kicked it as an after thought - he even admitted he dropped the ball - So any player now when they drop the ball need to kick it to the Seagulls as Big Jack Gibson would often say.