What does everyone else think about this rule change :
"The rules governing knock-ons will also be changed with players penalised only if they are judged to have intentionally played at the ball".
I for one have taken the p*ss out of RU for a while about not penalising the knock-on.
I am pretty annoyed bu this, as it's bad enough when a knock-on goes unpenalised just because the ref didn't see it, but at least that's straight-forward - It's a knock-on.
Now, we're going to have all SORTS of debates about whether he MEANT to knock on or not. What a CROCK !!!!!
Referees are simply being given an excuse to get stuff wrong, and then just say "I don't think he MEANT to do that". Well excuse me, but just because he didn't MEAN to, that does NOT mean that it should go unpunished.
What next. If you ACCIDENTALLY break someones neck with a high shot, but you didn't MEAN it, then you should not receive a ban ???
This rule change has got me WAAAAAY up on my soap-box, and maybe you lot think I'm wrong, but I just needed to air my views to calm down a bit (hasn't worked yet, though).
"Accidental" Knock-On Rule
that's not a good move
After all the controversy caused by the ball stealing rule and the momentum forward passing rules, this is the last thing we need. It seems ill conceived to me. Is this going to be played next year? Or are they going to pilot it in the amatuer game first?
I imagine that the next stage will be that forward passes are only penalised if they are adjudged to be deliberate now - and when's the last time you saw a penalty given for a deliberate forward pass (or a volentary tackle for that matter). It sbest to keep the referees judging matters of fact, not interpretting players motivations.
I imagine that the next stage will be that forward passes are only penalised if they are adjudged to be deliberate now - and when's the last time you saw a penalty given for a deliberate forward pass (or a volentary tackle for that matter). It sbest to keep the referees judging matters of fact, not interpretting players motivations.
-
welsh_warrior
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:45 am
knock on
the thing that pi"%es me off about knock ons is sometimes the ref blows for a knock on when it is so obvious it went back its ridiculous. the refs do not seem to understand that its not a knock on every time a player drops the ball . sometimes the ball does go backwards, i've seen it so many times , if the ref is presuming it's a knock on well he can't give what he didn't see , isn't that the rule ?
Rules
The momentum rule thing never was an official rule, just a figment of Stevo's warped imagination.
I remember Phil Clarke on one of the Wednesday night shows was asked to try and explain this "rule", and it was something like the difference in direction between throwing Stevo off a moving train at 10 miles per hour compared to the direction Stevo would go if thrown out of the train at 90mph...!
As for the knock-on thing, what a load of nonsense. The game is a simple enough one to understand (and that's no bad thing, it means it's easily accessible to new fans), but things like this are just going to confuse everyone. It's a bit like that "dominant tackle" rule they've been using in the test series where lying on might be allowed in certain circumstances or something? What's that all about? Are we just changing rules for the sake of it?
I remember Phil Clarke on one of the Wednesday night shows was asked to try and explain this "rule", and it was something like the difference in direction between throwing Stevo off a moving train at 10 miles per hour compared to the direction Stevo would go if thrown out of the train at 90mph...!
As for the knock-on thing, what a load of nonsense. The game is a simple enough one to understand (and that's no bad thing, it means it's easily accessible to new fans), but things like this are just going to confuse everyone. It's a bit like that "dominant tackle" rule they've been using in the test series where lying on might be allowed in certain circumstances or something? What's that all about? Are we just changing rules for the sake of it?
http://fraggle.fotopic.net
"You rescue me, you are my faith, my hope, my liberty.
And when there's darkness all around, you shine bright for me, you are a guiding light to me....
You are a Tower of Strength to me" - Wayne Hussey, The Mission.
Shepherd's Bush Empire - 27/Feb/08 - 1/Mar/08
[hr]
"You rescue me, you are my faith, my hope, my liberty.
And when there's darkness all around, you shine bright for me, you are a guiding light to me....
You are a Tower of Strength to me" - Wayne Hussey, The Mission.
Shepherd's Bush Empire - 27/Feb/08 - 1/Mar/08
[hr]
Cummings
Blame him.
It's a stupid idea. The ref now has to interpret what went on and decide accidental or not.
Any time you rely on someones interpretation yiu get inconsistancy from one person to the next.
Its obvious that is so and why this is a stupid idea.
Someone on the usenet newgroup has said this rule only applies to the player making a tackle such that if he goes into the tackle and wraps his arms round the attcker, but ends up connecting with the ball and knocking it forward he can still play for it, if it was deemed accidental.
I have not read that anywhere else so don't know if its true but even if it is, its stupid to change it because the current rule is simple and unambiguous.
If not, I have visions of scrum halfs passing the ball to the stand off who pretents not to see it, it bounces off him forwards and behind the oncoming defence, he then "wakes up" nips past the defence who have to turn around, picks up and scores. All OK because the ref thought it was accidental - or uses the rule as an excuse because he missed what really went on.
Dave
It's a stupid idea. The ref now has to interpret what went on and decide accidental or not.
Any time you rely on someones interpretation yiu get inconsistancy from one person to the next.
Its obvious that is so and why this is a stupid idea.
Someone on the usenet newgroup has said this rule only applies to the player making a tackle such that if he goes into the tackle and wraps his arms round the attcker, but ends up connecting with the ball and knocking it forward he can still play for it, if it was deemed accidental.
I have not read that anywhere else so don't know if its true but even if it is, its stupid to change it because the current rule is simple and unambiguous.
If not, I have visions of scrum halfs passing the ball to the stand off who pretents not to see it, it bounces off him forwards and behind the oncoming defence, he then "wakes up" nips past the defence who have to turn around, picks up and scores. All OK because the ref thought it was accidental - or uses the rule as an excuse because he missed what really went on.
Dave
-
wigan pier
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:08 pm
knock on rule
I bet millward has saints looking at how they can use this rule to thier advantage (only to complain if other teams do the same)