: Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:59 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Yes I understand that, but Webb was 10m infront of the play the ball. At the next play the ball, he was illegally 10m further forward. Therefore closer to the next play the ball than he should have been. So by logic he should have been penalised in the first instance of being offside, which could result in a raft of penalties.

No. You are clearly just being awkward is this is pretty simple stuff.

If he doesn't get involved, once the next tackle is made and he behind the ptb, he is onside, it doesn't matter where he was for the previous tackle, or two tackles before that, or 10 minutes before. It is where he is for that ptb.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:00 pm  

Dave T wrote:

No, if the ball went backwards it is a legal passing technique (or in fact is just playon as no offence has occured).

This had ALL the characteristics of a knock on, and no characteristics of a pass. It wasn't a pass.

You said that the technique is allowed. And Alibert had to decide if that technique resulted in the ball going forwards or backwards. He decided it went backwards so decided it was a forwards pass. I can't say any more on it.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:03 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

You said that the technique is allowed. And Alibert had to decide if that technique resulted in the ball going forwards or backwards. He decided it went backwards so decided it was a forwards pass. I can't say any more on it.

Yet you ignore my statement that said it had all the characteristics of a knock on.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:05 pm  

Dave T wrote:

No. You are clearly just being awkward is this is pretty simple stuff.

If he doesn't get involved, once the next tackle is made and he behind the ptb, he is onside, it doesn't matter where he was for the previous tackle, or two tackles before that, or 10 minutes before. It is where he is for that ptb.

Again, you say I am being awkward but if the referees applied this logic consistently then the game would turn into farce. He gained an advantage, that is a fact, by being 10m further forward. This could happen all the time.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:06 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

If it is a legal method of passing then Alibert cannot decide if it went forward or not.

He cannot say whether it was a forward pass. He can say whether or not the ball was knocked towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball. There's no reason why a legitimate method of passing the ball cannot also be a method of knocking-on.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:06 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Yet you ignore my statement that said it had all the characteristics of a knock on.

It did not hit the floor or another player. The ball went from one player to another. This is a pass, IMO.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:07 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Yet you ignore my statement that said it had all the characteristics of a knock on.

The point is how can the VR decide that when he is not allowed to judge if it went forwards or not ? In this instance he could no more decide if it was a knock on than he could if it were a forward pass.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:07 pm  

SBR wrote:

He cannot say whether it was a forward pass. He can say whether or not the ball was knocked towards the opponents’ dead ball line with hand or arm, while playing at the ball. There's no reason why a legitimate method of passing the ball cannot also be a method of knocking-on.

So how can Alibert make such a judgement? Its ridiculously subjective. And IMO it was a pass. I know plenty agree and plenty disagree but i'll stick by it unless some laws of the game suggest otherwise.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:08 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

It did not hit the floor or another player. The ball went from one player to another. This is a pass, IMO.

If I knock the ball forward, and you are a teammate of mine and catch the ball, it is still a knock on. Because I didn't pass the ball, I knocked it forwards and didn;t regain it myself.

JJB knocked the ball forwards, and he didn;t regain it himself.

: Fri Apr 10, 2009 10:10 pm  

Dave Lister wrote:

Again, you say I am being awkward but if the referees applied this logic consistently then the game would turn into farce. He gained an advantage, that is a fact, by being 10m further forward. This could happen all the time.

The rules do not penalise him for having the 10m advantage, but for interfering with play when he has that advantage.

This really is very simple, and it's clearly not worth discussing any more. It was a correct decision, but I'll allow you to carry on with your ref bashing without my involvement.