I have been thinking about this for a while and while I don't think there is any real chance of the RFL implementing rule it is no good just remaining in my head! So, thought I would share the idea with you and at least have a good ole' message board discussion about it!

The idea is relatively simple, we split the current knock-on rule and have both knock-on's and a new fumble rule?

Ok, stick with me here and let me explain!

In the event of a ball being dropped, spilled etc the ref would have to call either a knock-on or new offence of fumble! Unlike a knock-on, when a player 'fumble's' the ball, the ball would not have to travel in a forward direction (unlike, in theory, it has to do at the moment) but be 'knocked-on' in any direction. But, I hear you cry... keep reading...

A fumble only applies and can be called by the ref in certain circumstances!
If the ball has become loose in play by legitimate means only, so in the main from a pass that has gone to ground, being dropped in the tackle/play the ball or from a kick! The duty rests on the player to gather the ball cleanly, if he doesn't and knock's on in any direction a fumble is called. Result is same, scrum to non-offending side. So if a player loses the ball in the tackle legitimately, either by force of tackle or force of hitting ground, if the ball is lost in any direction, it is a fumble (arguably, this is already done by most ref's anyway). If a pass goes to ground (and is not a knock-on or forward already) and a player does not gather the loose ball cleanly and knocks-on in any direction, it is a fumble. Of course, if a player has clearly decided to 'bat' the ball back to their own line this would not be a fumble, but would a be knock on if it goes wrong and goes forward as it would be now.

The really big change would be from a kick. A player would effectively have to make a decision on whether to try and catch the ball cleanly, on full or after a bounce, or deliberate 'bat' the ball backwards if required. So if the full-back, for example, drops the ball in the act of catching it, it would be a fumble.

When it comes to attacking kicks that are being contested in the air I think it would make the whole thing cleaner and remove some the lottery try's we get now. When the players 'rise' to challenge for the ball, they would either have to bat the ball backwards or attempt to catch it cleanly. If they don't catch it and it hits the floor (it has got to hit the floor for a fumble BTW, unlike a knock-on) it is a fumble if it has been touched by either player. You would not have the silly situation we sometimes have now, when a player misses catching the ball cleanly but it goes backwards (in the ref’s opinion) and the attacking side gather to score. It would still be a knock-on if one player misses the catch and it hits the other player before hitting the ground of course.

I hope I have explained things clearly and it makes some sense... still not sure reading it back!

Your comments & thoughts... after all, it is unlikely to happen, but thought it might stimulate discussion?

There are enough rules that rely on a ref's opinion, rather than absolute fact.

Let's not give fans another reason to moan at them, eh?

I totally agree, but don't you think this would make the ref's life a little easier? Non of this "ref, that went backwards" when he does or does not call a knock-on from either set of fans. If any player does not gather cleanly, there is nothing to call... it is always a fumble?

No, it would just give the fans something else to moan about when the ref's trying to do his job.

What would they moan about specifically? Ok, did he really touch it, but we have that already! He did or didn't not deliberately bat the ball backwards... I still think it is easier for a ref to judge that rather than whether a ball went forward or back from a knock-on. Players or fans would not have an excuse... it will be a fumble... simple as!

Also, what about the old chestnut of the ball was knock-on towards a players own line but then bounces foward... knock on or not???

I'll read the rest of it later but my gut feeling is I won't like it for the reason others have given in reply.

On this bit though. If the ball goes towards the opponents try line, even by a millimetre or two, it is by my understanding of the laws a knock on. It doesn't matter which way it bounces thereafter.

And by the same token, if it goes towards his own line it's not a knock-on, irrespective of the way it bounces.

That is my understanding as well, but how often do we see this not called correctly or fans moan anyway. I think it gives the ref less to worry about and brings them in for less stick... for once

I do see one downside though and that is that we are likley to see a small rise in stoppages to the game, which could be an issue.

I am trying to think of more, but I am struggling and wondering whether more stoppages is a price worth paying for a rule that is easier to police.

Yep, agreed also.

I don't think there is a particular problem with the law as it stands only with some fans and some commentators understanding of the same.

For me it's fairly simple, if the ball is played at and touched by any part of a player's arm and it then hits an opposing player or the ground forward of that exact point (in relation to the ground - not in relation to the player) then it is a knock on.

Will Sharpe must have come close to knocking on the Orr kick last week that resulted in a try to Howell.

I'm confused.

It isn't broken. Don't need fixing.

I don't think that there is anything with the law as written and agree that many fans don't really fully understand the law (I have lost count of the number of people who don't understand that the ball does not have to hit the floor to be knocked-on) as well the bald-headed bloke who does talk out of his bottom.

I know all laws rely on a certain amount on the ref's 'opinion and how he see's it at the time, but along with fowarded passes (which is most passes made by the visiting side to Stains

) I think these are the most disputted of laws.

If you remove the most subjective elment of this law, does this make the game better or worse?

That is the best reason for not changing anything, and agree with you and TVOC that it is not broken but I could argue that I am not fixing it but improving an existing law. Also, it could be making things worse... still not sure!

Maybe my ramblings and argument about making a law easier for ref's to use/implement is the wrong one and what we need are more consistant refs... but how long have we talke about that!

Don't referees call everything a knock on anyway? Unless the ball is propelled 5 yards backwards (and even then I've seen knock-ons given). They also give knock ons when a player "drops" the ball on the ground as he plays it. This is clearly allowed in the rules and is not a knock on (the rules make no mention of which direction you are entitled to drop the ball - so one assumes it doesn't matter). There was one such decision in last nights game which was ruled a knock on. It isn't.

We neeed to educate fans more about the game and take their focus away from referees.

That would be like leading a horse to water and trying to make it drink.

We should start with the resident Sky team who have a compulsion to highlight and exaggerate marginal calls by the referee in the build up to virtually every score, rather than good attacking play or poor defence. Unless one of the guest experts is on hand to do this Eddie and Stevo are incapable.

They are responsible for a lot of the confusion on the terraces and message boards.

A ball that is touched in flight will invariably tend to travel in the same direction as the player that touched it is moving, As most players are moving towards their opponents try line most of these touches result in knock ons when the ball touches an opponent or goes to ground. However listening to Eddie and Stevo if the ball ends up behind the player (because that player is moving forward) it usually results in the 'but the ball's gone backwards' exclamation even though it hasn't in relation to the ground which is what counts.

In that sense the knock on interpretation is quite different to the one for forward passes and that appears too complicated for some to get their bald head around.

I was thinking of that example the other day (these things go through your head on a 12 hour flight) - like the try from the Leeds -Quins game. There was also one in the playoff game a year or two ago Bulls/Wigan which McBanana went balistic about when it was (correctly) ruled out. It is complicated to actually explain in detail (talking about momentum of a player carrying the football and passing compared to where effectively the ball bounces off a moving player and travels forward) but fairly simple to rule on and as you have described it, easy to understand.

Easy for some, seemingly almost impossible for others.

Forward passes - just look at the position of the passer's hands. Usually the best indicator - thanks to Greg McCallum for that one. Not always good enough but in most cases it gets the job done.

A high kick being flicked "back" by Tadulala IIRC which was clearly propelled towards the opponents line but behind the player.

Flicked to Nero who had the score ruled out by the video referee. Was the flick deliberate or had he tried to catch the ball and the flick was unintentional. If the former it was a tight call if the latter it didn't need more than a couple of replays.

For me it was a clear knock on but to the Sky commentary team (including the usually reliable John Kear that night - or was he summariser on the SLS version?) it should have been a try.

This is what got me thinking about it, often some ref's in some games do seem to call everything a knock-on anyway. I often thinks this happens when early on a ref call a dubious, was it or wasn't it a knock-on call, as a knock-on. He has then pretty much set out his stall, so any ball, unless very clearly batted backwards gets pulled up as knock-on. If this does not happen early, this is when fans do get upset when a dubious one is eventually called by the ref either way, upsetting home/away fans (and coaches) respectively.

On the subject of dropping the ball at the play-the-ball I agree that, according to the laws, it is not clear if this is a knock-on, but at least 99% do get called that way, and in my opinion correctly so. The other one is when a player loses the ball backwards, after the tackle has been called completed but prior to him starting to get to his feet for the play-the-ball. They get called as knock-on's but the rules are silent on this, but feel that the ref does not have much option and is correct to call a knock-on even though the ball travelled back.

Ok, so rather than amend or create any new rules, if Stuart C was to VERY clearly issue an edict (starting from the beginning of 'a' season say), if a loose ball is not gathered cleanly, is dropped from an intended pass or not taken cleanly from a kick, unless a player clearly intended and then does actively propel the ball backwards the ball would be deemed to be a knocked-on no matter which way the ball travelled! Do you not then think we will have a much clearer interpretation of the law for even the most bl**dy minded of fans and bald members of the Sky commentary team?

I actually think that this is what we are starting to see in the majority of games anyway, so should we stop the pretence and make it clear do you think?

I don't like the 'fumble' rule, I like it the way it is. When a fullback deliberately turns towards his own goal posts in case he drops it, that is smart play and shouldn't be penalised. However IMO, any touch to the ball that propells the ball in a forward direction, even if it goes behind the player touching it, should be called a knock on.

I zoned out about halfway down... is it worth a try?