Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Tuesday Apr 2, 2013

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

Dimitri Yachvili forgets he's playing rugby, backheels pass for Erik Lund try
54
Comments

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

54 Comments

  • totesmcgoates
    1:02 AM 04/04/2013

    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
  • 12:54 AM 04/04/2013

    Tommy turn around has

    Reply
  • flanker2712
    7:07 PM 03/04/2013

    Agree. But an interesting discussion nonetheless!

    Reply
  • canadian15
    5:30 PM 03/04/2013

    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
  • drg
    4:47 PM 03/04/2013

    @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
  • browner
    3:38 PM 03/04/2013

    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
  • browner
    3:29 PM 03/04/2013

    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
  • browner
    3:18 PM 03/04/2013

    Almost certain that you didn't !!

    Reply
  • ric
    10:26 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    9:36 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    8:59 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • cheyanqui
    4:03 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • cheyanqui
    3:58 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • cheyanqui
    3:56 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • totesmcgoates
    3:49 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • 1:49 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • 1:43 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • 1:40 AM 03/04/2013

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

    Reply
  • 1:39 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    1:19 AM 03/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    11:46 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    11:26 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    11:22 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    11:21 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • gonzoman
    11:19 PM 02/04/2013

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

    Reply
  • gonzoman
    11:18 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • suntzu
    11:01 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    10:59 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    10:33 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    10:29 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    10:26 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    10:18 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • gonzoman
    10:18 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    10:13 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • guy
    10:08 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    10:04 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    9:58 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • guy
    9:54 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • facepalm
    9:49 PM 02/04/2013

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

    Reply
  • ric
    9:47 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    9:37 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    9:23 PM 02/04/2013

    http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=2

    Reply
  • ric
    9:22 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    9:10 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • ric
    9:02 PM 02/04/2013

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

    Reply
  • drg
    8:57 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • drg
    8:57 PM 02/04/2013

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

    Reply
  • facepalm
    8:28 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • cheyanqui
    8:13 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • canadian15
    8:10 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • belovedfrosties
    8:02 PM 02/04/2013

    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
  • colombes
    8:00 PM 02/04/2013

    offside position outclass rugby dribble

    Reply
  • canadian15
    7:57 PM 02/04/2013

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

    Reply
  • tafkins
    7:50 PM 02/04/2013

    This should have been given as offside

    Reply


Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Amateur

View All

Player Features

View All
Dimitri Yachvili forgets he's playing rugby, backheels pass for Erik Lund try | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos