Digby wrote:I think if you were marginal for making the catch the idea you'd concede a penalty for a variant on an intentional knock-on would be a disincentive to risking a catch you weren't sure of. Yes it's not going to replicate over and over, 50/22 attempts aren't happening every couple of minutes, then you'd need someone covering in the right (or wrong) place such a catch was iffy, and then you'd need them to go for it and mess it up
This seems somewhat similar to what's judged an intentional knock on when a defender gets a hand to ball that's being passed by the attacking side and fumbles it forwards, that sometimes doesn't happen for matches at a time, but the defenders know if they go for it and don't take it clean there's a sanction.
And again I'm not sold there's a need for a 50/22, but if I was and I brought in the law for it I'd have given some thought to not allowing it to be subverted
I think we're going round in circles, but I think most of us just don't see someone diving to try and make a catch as subverting the rule. Sure if someone diving and punches it forward (quite why is hard to know), give a penalty. Where someone has dived to make a catch then let's just applaud them for the effort.
If you take your logic further, surely you give a penalty anytime someone goes for a difficult catch? Crossfield kick going just too high for you to be sure, leave it for the opposition player behind you. Bad pass from your team mate that you don't want to let bounce, leave it in case you knock on. Kickoff you can't get to comfortably, leave it as you wouldn't want to be seen to be deliberately knocking on to avoid the risk of a bad bounce and the opposition benefiting.
The harsh treatment of 'deliberate' knock ons in tackles stops people from doing something pretty cynical that they could do all the time (some people can't resist doing it every few minutes playing touch for example). None of these other scenarios are problems, or likely to become problems.
Oh, and I'm all for the volleying idea. Some additional bonus for headers?
Then someone going for an interception should be forgiven any resulting knock on.
Also it's not really going for a catch that's the issue, it's going to make sure you don't let the 50/22 out and if you happen to make the catch fine, and that it's going to prove dash difficult to determine if it's a real attempt at a catch or a pretence at a catch with the idea you can't get pinged for it because it might have been a catch attempt.
Digby wrote:I think if you were marginal for making the catch the idea you'd concede a penalty for a variant on an intentional knock-on would be a disincentive to risking a catch you weren't sure of. Yes it's not going to replicate over and over, 50/22 attempts aren't happening every couple of minutes, then you'd need someone covering in the right (or wrong) place such a catch was iffy, and then you'd need them to go for it and mess it up
This seems somewhat similar to what's judged an intentional knock on when a defender gets a hand to ball that's being passed by the attacking side and fumbles it forwards, that sometimes doesn't happen for matches at a time, but the defenders know if they go for it and don't take it clean there's a sanction.
And again I'm not sold there's a need for a 50/22, but if I was and I brought in the law for it I'd have given some thought to not allowing it to be subverted
I think we're going round in circles, but I think most of us just don't see someone diving to try and make a catch as subverting the rule. Sure if someone diving and punches it forward (quite why is hard to know), give a penalty. Where someone has dived to make a catch then let's just applaud them for the effort.
If you take your logic further, surely you give a penalty anytime someone goes for a difficult catch? Crossfield kick going just too high for you to be sure, leave it for the opposition player behind you. Bad pass from your team mate that you don't want to let bounce, leave it in case you knock on. Kickoff you can't get to comfortably, leave it as you wouldn't want to be seen to be deliberately knocking on to avoid the risk of a bad bounce and the opposition benefiting.
The harsh treatment of 'deliberate' knock ons in tackles stops people from doing something pretty cynical that they could do all the time (some people can't resist doing it every few minutes playing touch for example). None of these other scenarios are problems, or likely to become problems.
Oh, and I'm all for the volleying idea. Some additional bonus for headers?
Then someone going for an interception should be forgiven any resulting knock on.
Also it's not really going for a catch that's the issue, it's going to make sure you don't let the 50/22 out and if you happen to make the catch fine, and that it's going to prove dash difficult to determine if it's a real attempt at a catch or a pretence at a catch with the idea you can't get pinged for it because it might have been a catch attempt.
Deliberately knocking the ball into touch is still foul play, any attempt to not catch the ball but bat it away from touch and forward would be a deliberate knock on and a penalty. I'm not sure many fullbacks will be going for the one handed option.
The point in question Steward didn't, was definitely two hands with the body sliding in behind.
Digby wrote:I think if you were marginal for making the catch the idea you'd concede a penalty for a variant on an intentional knock-on would be a disincentive to risking a catch you weren't sure of. Yes it's not going to replicate over and over, 50/22 attempts aren't happening every couple of minutes, then you'd need someone covering in the right (or wrong) place such a catch was iffy, and then you'd need them to go for it and mess it up
This seems somewhat similar to what's judged an intentional knock on when a defender gets a hand to ball that's being passed by the attacking side and fumbles it forwards, that sometimes doesn't happen for matches at a time, but the defenders know if they go for it and don't take it clean there's a sanction.
And again I'm not sold there's a need for a 50/22, but if I was and I brought in the law for it I'd have given some thought to not allowing it to be subverted
I think we're going round in circles, but I think most of us just don't see someone diving to try and make a catch as subverting the rule. Sure if someone diving and punches it forward (quite why is hard to know), give a penalty. Where someone has dived to make a catch then let's just applaud them for the effort.
If you take your logic further, surely you give a penalty anytime someone goes for a difficult catch? Crossfield kick going just too high for you to be sure, leave it for the opposition player behind you. Bad pass from your team mate that you don't want to let bounce, leave it in case you knock on. Kickoff you can't get to comfortably, leave it as you wouldn't want to be seen to be deliberately knocking on to avoid the risk of a bad bounce and the opposition benefiting.
The harsh treatment of 'deliberate' knock ons in tackles stops people from doing something pretty cynical that they could do all the time (some people can't resist doing it every few minutes playing touch for example). None of these other scenarios are problems, or likely to become problems.
Oh, and I'm all for the volleying idea. Some additional bonus for headers?
Then someone going for an interception should be forgiven any resulting knock on.
Also it's not really going for a catch that's the issue, it's going to make sure you don't let the 50/22 out and if you happen to make the catch fine, and that it's going to prove dash difficult to determine if it's a real attempt at a catch or a pretence at a catch with the idea you can't get pinged for it because it might have been a catch attempt.
I still think you're picking out an incredibly niche scenario. There's practically no scenario in which a) a ball is going for a 50:22, b) a player is able to reach it, but not realistically catch it, c) giving away an attacking scrum is not a similar or worse result than giving away a lineout.
Why are we debating the need for punishment to deter an action that has an almost zero chance of happening?
Digby wrote:I think if you were marginal for making the catch the idea you'd concede a penalty for a variant on an intentional knock-on would be a disincentive to risking a catch you weren't sure of. Yes it's not going to replicate over and over, 50/22 attempts aren't happening every couple of minutes, then you'd need someone covering in the right (or wrong) place such a catch was iffy, and then you'd need them to go for it and mess it up
This seems somewhat similar to what's judged an intentional knock on when a defender gets a hand to ball that's being passed by the attacking side and fumbles it forwards, that sometimes doesn't happen for matches at a time, but the defenders know if they go for it and don't take it clean there's a sanction.
And again I'm not sold there's a need for a 50/22, but if I was and I brought in the law for it I'd have given some thought to not allowing it to be subverted
I think we're going round in circles, but I think most of us just don't see someone diving to try and make a catch as subverting the rule. Sure if someone diving and punches it forward (quite why is hard to know), give a penalty. Where someone has dived to make a catch then let's just applaud them for the effort.
If you take your logic further, surely you give a penalty anytime someone goes for a difficult catch? Crossfield kick going just too high for you to be sure, leave it for the opposition player behind you. Bad pass from your team mate that you don't want to let bounce, leave it in case you knock on. Kickoff you can't get to comfortably, leave it as you wouldn't want to be seen to be deliberately knocking on to avoid the risk of a bad bounce and the opposition benefiting.
The harsh treatment of 'deliberate' knock ons in tackles stops people from doing something pretty cynical that they could do all the time (some people can't resist doing it every few minutes playing touch for example). None of these other scenarios are problems, or likely to become problems.
Oh, and I'm all for the volleying idea. Some additional bonus for headers?
Then someone going for an interception should be forgiven any resulting knock on.
Also it's not really going for a catch that's the issue, it's going to make sure you don't let the 50/22 out and if you happen to make the catch fine, and that it's going to prove dash difficult to determine if it's a real attempt at a catch or a pretence at a catch with the idea you can't get pinged for it because it might have been a catch attempt.
I meant to address that point with this:
"The harsh treatment of 'deliberate' knock ons in tackles stops people from doing something pretty cynical that they could do all the time (some people can't resist doing it every few minutes playing touch for example). None of these other scenarios are problems, or likely to become problems."
I said "in tackles" as often the "interception attempt" is when a player half commits to a tackle but also puts a hand out to block the pass. It is just a much more common and problematic scenario.
take my imaginary upvote