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.




WTF? Are you saying there was a miracle, or the laws of physics ceased to apply? How did this phenomenon happen? I'm truly baffled by that.

Let me see if I can make any sense at all of that. I doubt it, but I'll try.

Well, what is 100% clear is that he knocked it forwards. How do we know? Well, the camera is positioned at the halfway line. It was pointed to the right to film this play. The ball when it is struck by the player does not have any apparent 'right to left' motion on leaving his arm. Whilst it would be difficult to judge HOW MUCH apparent right to left motion it would need, in order to be truly going backwards realtive to the pitch, what we can see with certainty is that because it had no such apparent motion, it must have been going substantially forward.

Indeed, as it didn't seem to have any apparent left to right motion either, the conclusion is that it's true line, relative to the pitch, was the straight line in which the camera was pointing. Which would be somewhere between 20-30 degrees forward.


I don't understand what you're trying to say, but at least
(a) you accept he did NOT "pass" it and
(b) you understand that you can pass a ball backwards, within the rules, yet it can still travel forward, relative to the pitch.

Now all you need to get is that (b) ONLY applies to passes. And not to knock-ons.


These ARE the rules. The officials correctly applied these rules in the way I have stated.

Wasnt there a similar type of situation with Semi Tadulala last year? I seem to remember many Bradford fans insisting it wasnt a knock on even though the ball after being touched by Semi ended up nearer to the oppositions line than when he hit the ball, a clear knock on!

It would be interesting to see how many bulls fans thought hat one wasn't and knock on and JJB's was a knock on.

Punching the ball is not a throw, so if the ball went forward relative to the ground it would be a knock on.

What other action, that might actually happen on a rugby field, is "neither a throw or a knock"? If you can tell us what you're talking about, maybe we can explain it to you.

However it might be easier if you just accept that any unlisted method of punching, poking, tickling, elbowing, slapping, karate-chopping, batting, or other propelling of the ball with hand or arm which is not a PASS, will be a knock-on if the ball goes forward relative to the ground.

If instead of catching the ball I punch it forwards to the ground, this is not a "punch on" or anything else, but a simple knock-on.

If instead of catching the ball I poke it forwards to the ground, this is not a "poke on" or anything else, but a simple knock-on.

If instead of catching the ball I elbow it forwards to the ground, this is not an "elbow on" or anything else, but a simple knock-on.

If instead of catching the ball I karate-chop it forwards to the ground, this is not a "karate-chop on" or anything else, but a simple knock-on.

If instead of catching the ball I propel it forwards to the ground by means of any one of no doubt hundreds of proprietary martial arts blows from any one of the many martial arts disciplines, then while doubtless the blow I used may be an enpi uchi, or a chudan-choku-zuki, or a haito uchi, the fact that the strike does have some technical or proprietary name outside of rugby does not matter, it remains a simple knock-on.

Am I making the point any clearer?

It is a good example, as in that case Tadulala batted the ball behind him and it passed backwards over his head, but still was not deemed to be a "pass". I think the argument there, though was whether he passed the ball or not. I.e. was his action a "throw" or wasn't it? You CAN throw a ball by cupping it in the palm of your hand and propelling it - that's how cricket fielders operate all day long, for example. The VR obviously decided there was no "throw" to make it a pass within the rules. So therefore as it did still move forward relative to the pitch, it had to be a knock on. Which sort of reinforces what a just said, that if it ain't a pass, then it don't matter what else it is, if it goes forward it's a knock on.

No, I wasn't happy with it at all, but if you ask the simple question, "Was what he did a 'throw' of the ball?" - then in the cold light of day, it probably wasn't.

It was completely different to JJB though. JJB just made a slight play at the ball, which struck his arm, whereas Tadulala deliberately and successfully went to bat the ball back infield.

Indeed he did, he batted it, IMO (and the refs) he didnt 'throw' it and either way it went forward, a clear knock on, as was JJB's.

Why is a forward pass not offside - surely the player receiving the ball is in front of the player playing the ball when he receives it?

But not always when the ball is released.

a player can be offside & penalty awarded if he is intentionlly stood in front of the player when it's passed to him. You see these sometimes from acting half back plays. Otherwise it's accidental offside most of the time if he's a little infront of the player passing the ball.

Technically it is offside but because it is deemed to be unintentional then there is just a scrum but no penalty. It does state in the rules that at the referees discretion he can award a penalty. Can`t say I`ve ever seen it happen though.

...no it isn't...not in most cases anyway, as offside is judged at time of pass not the catch.

I like TA`s answer but to me it`s much more simple. whether it was passed, batted, slapped or tipped the initial movement from Tadulala was backwards, yes the ball did what rugby balls have always done and, on hitting the ground, changed direction and bounced forward but the impetus from Tadulala was definitely backwards.

I also believe you can be penalised for a deliberate forward pass??

I`m not so sure about that Bob. You`re right about when the offside is judged but If a passer throws the ball to a player who isn`t in front of him it isn`t a forward pass. I`d say the vast majority of forward passes are thrown because the receiver has overrun the passer ie. is offside.

That's not correct, the player receiving the ball may be behind that passer but have to run forward to catch the ball.

your point is clear and has already been addressed, for no reason at all you ate defining a 'knock' as any action which isn't a 'throw' you are also deciding there is a ruling where a pass is judged relative to the player and a knock is judged relative to the ground, yet there is nothing in the rules to describe that as being the case, a forward pass is where the ball has been passed forward and a knock is where the ball has been knocked forward, the momentum ruling is simply added clarification, it doest change anything and if I were to be removed the rules would be exactly the same as they are now. Both describe a action (the knock or the pass) causing an effect (the ball going forward) for an offence to be committed the action has to cause the effect, if it doesn't it isn't an offence as described in the rules. In both the tadulala and jjb incidents the action(the knock) wasn't the cause of the effect (the ball going forward) and as per the rules should have been given!

That's one problem with the rule, not even addressing the fact jjb no more ' knocked it than he did pass it, nor does it address whether pass and throw are interchangeable

If we are going to referee it your way, fine, let's put it in the rules, there is no reason not to, just as there is no reason for us to collectively pretend it's in there

If the ball is knocked backwards, hits the ground and then bounces forward, is that a knock on? Or is the movement after it comes into contact with the ground deemed irrelevant?