Tameifuna's huge hit on Michael Hooper


England beat Baby Boks in JWC2014 final


Bloody Florian Fritz returns to play


Barbarians too good for England XV


Ma'afu banned for punch on Tom Youngs


Catch up with Sam Warburton


Carlos Spencer & Stephen Larkham fight


Courtney Lawes crunches Charlie Hodgson


Eddie Butler on Jonny Wilkinson career

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

Dimitri Yachvili forgets he's playing rugby, backheels pass for Erik Lund try

Scrumhalf Dimitri Yachvilli kicked 17 points as Biarritz beat Grenoble 33-16 at the Parc des Sports d'Aguilera on Friday night. He also set up a try with a neat bit of ball control that looked more suited to a football field than a muddy rugby pitch.

Second half tries by Zee Ngwenya and Erik Lund contributed to the win in wet conditions, but it was Yachvilli's kicking prowess that kept the scoreboard ticking as he slotted every attempt on goal.

Lund's try came from a great bit of play by the multi-talented Yachvilli, as he dribbled the ball ahead then went for the inside-backheel-flick, knowing there was support looming. It worked - only just - and Lund gathered, dived over, and sealed the win.

Biarritz are currently in eigth place on the Top 14 table. You can view full match highlights here.

Time: 1:03
Credit: BoucherieOvalie

Posted at 11:23 am | 74 comments

Dimitri Yachvili stamp on Henry Chavancy

Biarritz blitz Ulster with three great second half tries

French Barbarians vs Europe XV

Yachvili leads Biarritz to strong win over the Dragons

Posted in See it to Believe it

Viewing 74 comments

Dave April 02, 2013 6:19 pm

Surely yachvili is offside from the charge down as hes in front of lund?

· · Reply · Report

Guest April 02, 2013 6:46 pm

Correct me if I am wrong but the ball traveled forward along the ground off his heel which I believe could be called a knock on in this case. I realize there isn't much in it though.

· Reply · Report

Guest April 02, 2013 6:51 pm

After another look I think there is a lot more in it than I initially thought... this should be a knock on...

· Reply · Report

Facepalm April 02, 2013 7:28 pm

Interesting point, you're right it's a knock on if you kick it with your heel, but is the rule the same for a fly hack?

· Reply · Report

DrG April 02, 2013 7:57 pm

REALLY? Knock on if it is kicked with your heel?

· · Reply · Report

Facepalm April 02, 2013 8:49 pm

Almost certain I read that somewhere. Although there is a chance I'm talking out my arse.

· Reply · Report

browner April 03, 2013 2:18 pm

Almost certain that you didn't !!

· Reply · Report

Gordon April 02, 2013 6:46 pm

Isn't Yachvili technically offside when the kick is charged down by Lund?

· · Reply · Report

Guest April 02, 2013 6:46 pm

Shame he was offside!!

· · Reply · Report

tafkins April 02, 2013 6:50 pm

This should have been given as offside

· · Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 6:57 pm

Definitely offside, and then the heel tap is still a knock on

· Reply · Report

Joe April 02, 2013 6:59 pm

How is it a knock on if it travelled of his heel which is a part of his foot?

There is no such thing as offside from a charge down. All players are regarded as onside

· · Reply · Report

Ottawa Rugger April 03, 2013 12:39 am

Agreed. Charging down a kick does not constitute a knock-on, so playing the ball after being in front of it is essentially a moot point.

· · Reply · Report

Colombes April 02, 2013 7:00 pm

offside position
outclass rugby dribble

· · Reply · Report

Guest April 02, 2013 7:01 pm

no, when you charge down a kick all players are set onside, if it had been a knock on then it would have been offside and since when is playing it off the foot a knock on?

· · Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 7:10 pm

My mistake re offside, the player was by rule onside.
The ball can be played on the leg below the knee and on the foot with the exception of the heel. Thus the heel tap is a knock on as the ball was directed towards the dead ball line.

· Reply · Report

belovedfrosties April 02, 2013 7:02 pm

Am i missing something here? From my understanding after a charge down everyone is played onside, so no problem there. And since when is kicking the ball forward (regardless of whether it came off his foot or heel) considered a knock on?

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 7:10 pm

bf ..everybody on the kicking team is put on side by a charge down ..not the 'charging' team

· · Reply · Report

Ottawa Rugger April 03, 2013 12:40 am

hmmm good point. This thread leave me in so much doubt as to what I do and do not know about this scenario!

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 7:08 pm

You're correct about the offside (9 is in front of 4 who charges down and nobody puts 9 onside when he plays the ball) .. but you can't 'knock-on' off a foot ..has to be a hand/arm for it to be a knock-on

· · Reply · Report

cheyanqui April 02, 2013 7:13 pm

It's not about how you played the ball (pass, kick, knock-on, charge-down, off your head, etc.). It's about where your teammates are (and assuming the opposition has not done anything to put them onside).

LAW 11 - DEFINITIONS "... In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball."


· · Reply · Report

DrG April 02, 2013 7:57 pm

Interesting that I can be playing the game for near 10 years and I never realised you could knock it on with your heel... I'm still a little perplexed by that one...

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 8:02 pm

Dont worry DrG ..you shouldnt be perplexed as it is wrong ..you cant 'knock-on' with your heel

· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 8:10 pm

Below is a link to the definitions page of the IRB law book.

"Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground."

While this does not specifically say that a "kick" using the heel is a knock on I have always interpreted this to imply that such use of the heel constitutes a knock on.

Clearly you cannot advance the ball towards the dead ball line using the heel, does anybody happen to know what the technical term for the infraction is if it is not a knock on?

· · Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 8:22 pm

you say 'clearly you cannot advance the ball with your heel' ..why not? Its not a 'kick' as defined (so you cannot take a free kick/penalty with your heel) but there is nothing saying you cannot use any part of your body in the laws except in the knock on law (law 12) ..therefore if it doesnt say it in the laws it doesnt apply ..thus it could hit the thigh, chest, even head and go forward it would be play on
.. it was still offside though

· · Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 8:37 pm

After some more reading I have concluded that as he never had possession of the ball, the heel tap has not violated any laws.

HOWEVER, if a ball carrier were to "chip" the ball forward with their heel and not regain possession before the ball hit the ground, it would satisfy the definition of a knock on in that possession was lost and the ball traveled towards the opponent's dead ball line.

Similarly were such a chip to be successful it could be deemed to be against the spirit of the laws in the same way that you are not allowed to throw the ball forward and regather it yourself before it touches the ground.

But in the case of this video, there I cannot make a case that what occurred is illegal.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 8:47 pm

You're still reading more into the laws than is there .. there isnt a hidden agenda.. the knock on law and the definition of a kick are not connected and have no relevance to each other .. so chipping forward with heel and not regaining would not satisfy the knock-on definition....definition of 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." If a player does what you describe with their heel it is play on ...I wouldnt worry about the spirit of the laws in this example .. if the IRB didnt want it to happen they would specifically write it into the laws. The example you give of throwing forward and regathering is specifically mentioned ie "player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward"

· · Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 8:58 pm

In what I described possession was lost and the ball went forward and thus a knock-on has occurred. I am not saying there is a hidden agenda, in fact the fact that the contact with the heel does not constitute a kick supports my line of reasoning.

Even if you ignore the definition of a kick, a heel chip in which the ball touches the ground before it is recovered involves possession being lost and the ball traveling towards the opponent's dead ball line and is therefore a knock-on.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 9:04 pm

according to the LOTG you can only have possession of a ball in your hands..therefore losing possession can only be by having held it in your hands and it going forward from your hands ... therefore anything involving feet is not relevant to the knock on law or sanctions

· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 9:13 pm

That still leaves the question of why the head and chest are mentioned specifically as being a means of advancing the ball forward and the heel is excluded from the definition of a kick.

Would you accept that if a player were to turn such that they were facing their own dead ball line and drop the ball backwards onto their knee such that the ball traveled towards their opponent's dead ball line that a knock-on would called if the ball was not regathered before touching the ground?
The heel chip is the same premise.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 9:26 pm

not sure I can see how a player can face their own line, drop the ball behind them and it hit their own knee (without them very quickly turning a round ..my knee always faces the same way I am). But in that example ..they had possession of the ball (in their hands and threw it forward (towards opposition line) ..so as long as it was not a kick (as defined) it would be a throw forward. So yes if it hit knee or heel in this example it would be an offence ..but not because it hit heel or knee; the offence is for the loss of possession. However if you mean they throw the ball towards their own line and then 'knee' it back over their own head towards opposition line ..then again it is play on as they have not lost possession forward

· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 9:29 pm

backwards in my scenario meant towards their own dead ball line which they are facing... it would be the same as just dropping the ball on your knee except I specified which direction relative to the field of play they player was facing (which was same direction the ball was dropped).

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 9:33 pm

so did the ball go towards the opposition line from the hands ..that is all that matters.
ps I just checked (moment of doubt) there is no mention of chest or head (or heel) in the laws of the game

· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 9:59 pm

You are right, they are not specifically mentioned, good catch.

BUT the the definition of a knock-on does not specifically say that possession is lost forward from hands, it says possession is lost and the ball travels forward.

I'm really not trying to be nit-picky prick, I genuinely believe that such a scenario constitutes a knock-on.

A drop-kick can be taken to score a drop goal and in this context such a kick would have to conform to the definition of a kick (though I am not suggesting that kicking drop goals with your heel regularly is realistic). This, in my opinion, means that the definition of a kick does not apply only to restarts and penalties and free kicks, but also in the course of general play.

What is difficult from this point, for me, is that by allowing such a chip to occur without it being a kick is the application of rules such as "out on the full" and an opposing player calling for a mark. Furthermore, as it is not technically a kick, could a player be penalized for knocking the ball out of the field of play with such a chip?

From my perspective it makes more sense that the definition of a kick implies that the ball is to allowed to be advanced with the heel as opposed to meaning that the use of the heel (at the very least intentionally) such that the ball travels forward has implications on how rules are applied to the result of the play.

· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 10:22 pm

Above all though, I feel like such a play violates the spirit of the game as traditionally and conventionally, the ball is meant to be passed laterally and/or backwards and can be kicked forward. I feel like both of us have made strong arguments for our positions and I have actually rather enjoyed this.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 10:26 pm

I think it is easy to use this as an example of a possible occurrence that simply isnt covered in law ..and as such it is ignored (rather than trying to bend it into a different law). I like the scenario of somebody 'heeling' the ball into touch .. is it a kick out on the full? ..well we have just defined that a heel is not a kick ..but it is also not a throw (as if a player threw the ball (on purpose) into touch that would be a penalty. In practice I think this would be regarded as a kick and if somehow they had managed to heel the ball into touch on the full and gained ground ..I personally would take the line out back to where the ball was kicked (heeled)!

But to your other point, possession is defined (regarded) as physically having hold (control) of the ball which I believe can only be with the hands (unless you have a very big mouth!!) ..therefore losing possession can also only be from the hands. Touching the ball with any other part of the body (foot, heel, chest, nose) is not having possession. If you've not had it, you can't lose it.

· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 10:46 pm

I see what you are saying but I question whether possession is said to be lost when the ball leaves the hands as in the case of a drop goal attempt the ball is dropped forwards but is part of a controlled play. If the ball is heeled forward as a chip, I question whether or not it is the initial release of the ball from hands that qualifies as the direction in which the ball travels in the loss of possession, or the direction of the heel chip upon the ball touching the ground. This is probably my biggest hang up - the fact that in the scenario we have been discussing, the heel chip is planned and controlled in the same manner as a drop goal attempt.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 03, 2013 12:19 am

Drop kick scenario ..player lets go of ball forward and kicks it ..no problem ..play on (whether he gets kick over post or not)
..but if player lets go of ball intending to drop goal and misses it with foot = knock forward

heel scenario ..player lets go of ball forward and heels it = knock on

however if ball already on ground in open play ..or ball has been dropped on to ground backwards (or a charge down) ..and ball is heeled = play on

ie the heeling is not the offence ..the loss of possession from hands forward is the offence

· · Reply · Report

cheyanqui April 02, 2013 8:53 pm

A "heel" of the ball is by definition NOT a "kick".
However a "heel" does count as the ball being "played".

So, it seems a fair interpretation that heeling is only prohibited when a "kick" is required.

Kicks at goal (Pens, Cons, DGs): require a "kick" and thus a heel should not count as a proper "kick"
Kickoffs and Restart Kicks (incl. 22M dropout) -- also require a "kick"
PKs and FKs: heeling is specifically prohibited under Law 21.3(a)

See the definitions at the front of the law book:
-------------------------
DEFINITIONS:
Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel, from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

Played: The ball is played when it is touched by a player.

KNOCK-ON: 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.

· · Reply · Report

Ottawa Rugger April 03, 2013 12:43 am

Very good work to bring up the rule book. Granted that it says (for reasons which I fail to see) that kicking with the heel is allowed, wouldn't it only matter it he were to kick it forward? It appears he kicks it backwards, which. as with a pass that doesn't go to hand, would be play on?

· Reply · Report

browner April 03, 2013 2:29 pm

There is nothing more dangerous, than a ill-informed expert ..... Quoting how Law on Penalty Kick must be executed & applying it to open play is ludicrous & unhelpful

Are you sure you're not confusing this with 'Curling' ?? LOL


· Reply · Report

DrG April 03, 2013 3:47 pm

@browner.

Last time I checked RD welcome comments and discussions. This whole "heel" thing had me confused but finally someone cleared it up by posting the actual information. From what I can see, all you appear to have done is float around criticising others comments without actually providing any useful information.

There is nothing more irritating than an arm chair expert than sits around saying "no" to everything without actually offering up any alternatives.

· · Reply · Report

Guy April 02, 2013 8:54 pm

Although kicking the ball with your heel is officially illegal (according to the IRB laws) its also NOT a 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.'

Lets call it 'undefined'. Same goes for kicking with the knee. Some people start play after a free kick with the knee.

In this case I have absolutely no idea what the ref should do about it since there is no defined punishment either.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 9:00 pm

21.3 c Bouncing the ball on the knee is not taking a kick.
Sanction: Any infringement by the kicker’s team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

· Reply · Report

Guy April 02, 2013 9:08 pm

So by that definition it should have been a scrum to the opposing team in this case too. Since a kick with the heel is technically not a kick...

· · Reply · Report

Ric April 02, 2013 9:18 pm

as cheyanqui is pointing out above the relevance of when a kick is official or not is only relevant for the various points in the game when a 'kick' is required ..ie starts, restarts, FKs, PKs and drop outs. At no other point is a kick required so at no other point is it important. Kicking, heeling, kneeing, chesting, heading in open play is allowed (by definition it is NOT not allowed) ..so there was no offence (after the offside!) so no scrum to opposition

· · Reply · Report

cheyanqui April 03, 2013 3:03 am

The only pinhole I could see here is a "charge down" of a heel.

As chargedowns only occur against "kicks".

But imagine getting called by a ref for a knock-on if you charged down a back heel kick

I would imagine any ref with a sense of fair play would just call "play on".

· Reply · Report

Gonzoman April 02, 2013 9:18 pm

Don't get carried away folks. The fact that he struck the ball with his heel here is meaningless. Because the ball was on the ground from the charge-down, the heel is not a kick but not a knock-on but in fact just the same as if he'd slid to gather it and had it bounce off his chest: play on with no offsides.

Of course, it's all elementary because as was pointed out, Yachvili was offside following the charge-down.

That being said, I'm not sure how the ref would proceed in a case where a player deliberately struck the ball with his heel out-of-hand, and it went forward. If it goes backwards it's play on (as if the ball was merely dropped backwards) but I don't think having it go forward off the heel has ever happened anywhere but a backyard.

Anyone feel like getting their national Union to submit a rule clarification to the IRB? Hehe!

· · Reply · Report

suntzu April 02, 2013 10:01 pm

The only rule that prevents a player from using his heel to strike the ball is "21.3 How penalty and free kicks are taken" - therefore I would think that is a player happened to drop the ball onto his heel and the ball would travel forwards, backwards, sideways, up down wherever, the ref would allow play to go on. It would not satisfy the definition of a knock-on and a knock-on involves hands (as stated above) and as long as it is not a technique use to restart play or score points then there is no reason for the referee not to allow play to continue...

Yatchvilli was offside - his heel to the ball was clumsy at best ... I don't see what makes this video so interesting, the discussion was far more fun to read :-)

· Reply · Report

Gonzoman April 02, 2013 10:18 pm

Makes sense...so if in our hypothetical situation the ball is kicked out of hand by striking it with the heel and it goes forward, it's exactly the same as if it was dropped backwards and bounced forwards. Fascinating stuff, and you're right...the discussion is the best part.

· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 02, 2013 10:21 pm

Agreed- this is not really any sort of special display of skill.

The discussion has been rather enjoyable for me, especially as it is a real discussion devoid of mud-slinging.

· · Reply · Report

Gonzoman April 02, 2013 10:19 pm

Anyone else happy to see Yachvili using his feet for something productive?

X-)

· · Reply · Report

Guest April 02, 2013 11:09 pm

Am i reading here that you can chest the ball forward?? but not "heel it" (since kicking it with the heel does not comply with the rulebook)

· Reply · Report

TotesMcGoates April 03, 2013 12:49 am

Some very interesting reading here. On a sidenote, I was wondering if anyone has seen an example in a game where a player is running forward but intentionally drops the ball behind his back, kicks it with his heel over the opposition and regathers? It’s basically a variation of a chip kick and I’ve seen it done a million times at training but never in a game. Say for arguments sake that the ball bounces before the player retrieves it so it can’t be considered regathering before it’s ‘knocked on’.
For me, that should be counted the same as a chip kick and I’d be disappointed to see a play like that blown up because it may be considered foul play on a very technical level.

· Reply · Report

Gonzoman April 03, 2013 3:20 pm

I've tried it a few times in touch...it's only ever worked once! If it bounced before being regathered, it would simply be play on. Using the heel is only "illegal" when taking penalties and restarts. It's not a knock-on, any more than it would be if it bounced off someone's forehead (à la Kurtley Beale falcon).

· · Reply · Report

Ottawa Rugger April 03, 2013 12:49 am

This reminds me of Aurelien Rougerie's kneeing of the ball that lead to a Vincent Clerc try in the 2012 6N. I'm inclined to believe that stood likely for the same reasons this did. I imagine apart from the offside/onside issue around the charge down the kick/playing the ball issue is also applicable then.

· Reply · Report

Canadian content April 03, 2013 2:01 am

I believe thé IRB tried to discourage the use of the heel after a fairly dangerous incident in 1982 when an Irish international known as tommy turn around sprinted clear thru the centers and upon being faced with only the English 15 to beat, he resorted to his infamous 180 move and attempted to "heal chip" the ball over his opponent. He was successful but recklessly followed thru with his heal chip strike and ripped open his opponents scrotum with the bottom of his cleats. The spectacle was appalling to all involved and thus the IRB moved in and effectively eliminated the use of the heal chip by specifically not mentioning its use it the next addition of the laws when describing a kick, thus clearly defining too all the illegality of the aforementioned, often used heal chip. Unfortunately this effectively marked the end of Timmy turnaround's test career as it was the one skill he had in his arsenal that separated him from his selection rivals.



Great skill, fantastic footballer, should be encouraged, too bad he was offside.

· Reply · Report

cheyanqui April 03, 2013 2:56 am

CanCon -- wasn't that the story they all tell us the first day of lacrosse / ice hockey / hurling practice -- "wear your cup boys, or you'll end up like Timmy so-and-so"

· Reply · Report

cheyanqui April 03, 2013 2:58 am

There was a pretty famous play at the New York Sevens back in the mid-1990s.

There was one of those "hired guns teams" (NY Aliens I think) of all international players, including Canadian Al Charron.

The report in rugby magazine spoke of a player (Charron I think) who in full stride did a heel chip kick over a defender, gathered and scored.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 03, 2013 9:26 am

I think you should have started this post with 'Once upon a time' and finished with 'and they all lived happily ever after' ... Rugby stories by the Grimms ..equally made up

Ps England v Ireland in 1982 .. I was there!

· Reply · Report

Chiropractor April 03, 2013 2:10 am

Does that mean zebo's much celebrated bit of skill against wales in the 6n this year was in fact a knock on?

· Reply · Report

TotesMcGoates April 03, 2013 2:49 am

Nope, he regathered before the ball hit the ground or another player so technically not a knock on assuming that you can in fact knock on from contact with the heel. It like fumbling the ball forward but catching it before it hits the ground.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 03, 2013 8:36 am

If Zebo had touched the ball win his hand (forward) and then done his trick then it would have been a knock on whether he subsequently caught it or not. But in fact he never touched it with his hand before he touched it with his foot (it went backwards from another players hand to his foot)
.. He never lost the ball forward from his hand therefore no knock on

· Reply · Report

TotesMcGoates April 04, 2013 12:02 am

Yeah, I agree. I was speculating if contact from the heel towards the opponents dead ball line was considered a knock on (which I don't believe it is).

· Reply · Report

TisE April 03, 2013 3:36 am

I agree that this is an interesting discussion, however an important point has been missed. A close look at the video at around 00.49 reveals that the player did not in fact heel the ball back at all, he clearly played it with the inside edge of his foot. So if there is an issue about a "heel-kick" being a knock-on (and I'm not convinced there really is an issue), it certainly isn't relevant to this case.

· Reply · Report

flanker2712 April 03, 2013 6:07 pm

Agree. But an interesting discussion nonetheless!

· Reply · Report

8 April 03, 2013 7:33 am

CANADIAN 15 i cant believe you assume that anythisng not considered a "kick" is a knok on. This definition of "kick" that you are talking about is just defined for putting the ball in play after a penalty, which you cannot do with your knee or heel.
First: Yahvili is not offside, there is no offside after a charge down, everyone can play the ball.
Second: saying knock on with a heel is the sillyest things i ve heard. knock on is only done with arms and hands. You can even stop an air ball with your chest (and let it drop in front of you) as long as it doesnt touch arms or hands.
Cheers
a ref.

· Reply · Report

Ric April 03, 2013 7:59 am

As a ref you should know that a charge down (intentionally touching, but not catching the ball) puts the team mates of the kicker in front of the kick on side (law 11.3 c).

If the ball goes forward from a charge down it is not a knock on (law 12 exception) but that does not mean that law 11 (offside law) does not apply .. There are no charge down exceptions given to this law.

Thus Yachvili was offside and should not have played that ball. Penalty.

· · Reply · Report

browner April 03, 2013 2:38 pm

Ric ..... is da man - spot on Ricardo . End of discussion.

There should have been a 2nd Penalty & a YC against Lund

for wilful possession of too much chin hair


· Reply · Report

Canadian15 April 03, 2013 4:30 pm

I openly agreed that what was seen here was not a knock on after consulting the rules. The discussion that followed was about a hypothetical scenario in which the ball started in hand...
It was not an assumption but rather an interpretation of what appeared to me to be an odd ambiguity in the rules.

And yeah... Yachvili was offside...

I had a discussion about an interpretation of the rules and you disagree with the position I took up, so what? I am sure you have heard far sillier things in your life.

· Reply · Report

Tyke April 09, 2013 11:22 pm

Forget the offside, surely he should not even of been on the field of play following his reckless (deliberate) stamp a few weeks back. Makes a mockery of the whole discipline procedure.

· Reply · Report

Boytjie October 17, 2013 8:10 pm

Simple....using the heel is not considered a 'kick'. Would be a knock-on if played from the hand. In this case it doesnt matter because he played it from the ground-offside was the issue here. Slightly off subject-However I remember thierry lacroix kicking a drop-kick with his heel! Classic stuff

· Reply · Report

Commenting as Guest | Register or Login

All comments are moderated and will be removed immediately if offensive.
 
Site Meter