Knock, knock, knock

Incidents from Tests, Week 2

The whole world, it seems, knows what a knock-on is. It's been part of the laws for years and years, but suddenly there were three decisions, made by top referees in top matches, which have caused top people to be critical.

We shall look at incidents involving Chris Jack of New Zealand and, twice, Simon Webster of Scotland. And for good measure we shall look at some more words of unwisdom from Joel.

Later we shall give some statistics and give readers their say.

Before we go to the three incidents, let's look at the law.

Law 12 DEFINITION – KNOCK-ON

A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team's dead-ball line.

1. Knock I – Auckland

New Zealand have a line-out about five metres from the Irish line. Keven Mealamu throws in and Rodney So'oialo rises high to catch the ball. The All Blacks maul and drive. The maul falls and Chris Jack picks up and drives low at the line. Just before the line he drops the ball and then moves it back. Clarke Dermody picks the ball up and plunges over for the try.

The referee is right there and awards the try.

Peter Stringer, Paul O'Connell and Brian O'Driscoll's seem to suggest to the referee that the ball had been knocked on.

Commentators (watching slow-motion replays from two angles): "Ireland are disputing whether it was a knock-on.

"Yes it was. He dropped it. He lost it, and so they've got a right to dispute.

"I think he loses control there and then he pushes it back. Kaplan was right there but he didn't see it my way."

First point, losing the ball is not an offence whether with control or not. for a knock-on the ball needs to go forward off the hands.

That's what the law says – loses possession of the ball and it goes forward.

In this case Jack's hands are actually above the ball which is pointing downwards. His hands grip the top of the ball on the goal-lone side of the ball, his palms back towards himself – both of which would make it less likely that the ball would go forward off his hands. The distance that the ball drops is small, somewhere about five centimetres.

What the commentators have to say is not necessarily correct, except that Jack did drop the ball and he then pushed it back. But the crucial things is whether the ball went forward or not.

Watch it over and over and the conclusion is that the ball went straight down. After that it went decidedly backwards.

That suggests that there was no forward movement. That suggests that it was not a knock-on.

The commentators were right when they said that the referee was in a good position. He was in a good position.

If the referee's decision was a brave and accurate as it seemed, he probably deserved a lot of credit – which is seldom a referee's lot. Certainly he did not deserve opprobrium.

2. Knock II – Port Elizabeth, 1st half

From a tackle/ruck, Mike Blair of Scotland stepped inside Schalk Burger of South Africa and gave to Simon Webster of Scotland about 50 metres from the South African line. Webster chips over Percy Montgomery of South Africa and races after the ball which is bouncing towards the South African line. He stretches  his hands forward to gather the ball. His hands are behind the ball.

His outstretched hands grasp the ball. The ball then leaves the hands and goes to ground. The ball strikes the ground. As he rolls over the ball goes up and forward. He grabs the ball and grounds it over the goal-line.

The referee consults the television match official.

The television match official examines the evidence, asking for a repeat of the most favourable angle.

His advice to the referee is: In the act of scoring the try, the ball is knocked on by Blue."

The referee awards a five-metre scrum, which is the appropriate decision.

3. Knock III – Port Elizabeth, 2nd half

On South Africa's right, flyhalf Jaco van der Westhuyzen kicks down towards the Scottish line. Simon Webster goes back to get the ball. He does so in relaxed fashion but the ball keeps bouncing away from him. Eventually he attempts to straddle the ball, his backside to the touch-line.

He reaches down with both hands to pick up the ball. His right hand touches the ball near his right foot and knocks it back along the ground to his left foot from where it ricochets back towards his right foot. At the time he was behind the ball, his right foot nearer his goal-line, his left foot further from his goal-line. In knocking it back to his left foot he was knocking it towards the South African line and therefore forward, if that is not too complicated. Back here = forward!

About three metres from his goal-line, he picks up the ball and kicks it down field. Breyton Paulse catches the ball about five metres inside the South African half. He passes to Fourie du Preez who passes to Montgomery. Still in his own half Montgomery passes to Schalk Burger who crosses the half-way line and just over the half-way line he passes to his left. Chris Paterson's of Scotland intercepts the pass and sets off, with nobody in front of him, for the South African goal-line.

The referee blows his whistle and play returns to the place where Webster knocked on.

Of the three incidents we have here, this one was most clearly a knock-on.

What about advantage?

It may well have been that the referee was playing advantage, though a long-distance one. You have to go a long 50 metres to get a worthwhile advantage even allowing for tactical advantage when a five-metre scrum was in the offing.

It may well have been that the referee was reacting to a call from his touch judge who may have had a clearer view of what happened than the referee had had.

Webster knocked on inside five metres from his goal-line for which a five-metre scrum was an appropriate outcome.

4. Intentional wheel – again

This one is like the confounded double movement – the deliberate wheel. Who on earth invented this thing?

South Africa put the ball into a scrum. They heel and trap the ball at the back.
The front rows go up.
The scrum wheels round, at least to 90 degrees.
The referee stops the scrum and awards another scrum to South Africa.

a. Commentator 1: "We see the reluctance of the referees to automatically give the scrum to the opposing team when it's gone through 90 degrees. I'm not sure why."

b. Commentator 2: "There are lots of teams nowadays who wheel the scrum intentionally. It is against the laws. Very hard to judge for a referee if it is intentional or not. It is a tactic of the defending team."

a. The scrum went up before the wheel. When the scrum goes up and is reset, the same team puts the ball in.

b. This is the one that gripes.

Let us say it again. It is perfectly legal to wheel the scrum intentionally, deliberately, voluntarily.
It is NOT against the laws to wheel the scrum intentionally.
It is a legitimate tactic of a defending team and it is a legitimate tactic of the attacking team.

The wheeling must just be done in a legal way.

It is not a matter of "nowadays". It has always been legal.

Please, Joel.

In summary, in all four cases the referees would seem to have got the right decision.