Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Wednesday Nov 16, 2016

Perfectly executed back heel kick 100m try goes viral

Perfectly executed back heel kick 100m try goes viral
56
Comments

In case you missed it, this video has gone viral in the last few days after it was shared on instagram. It features a bit of skill that we have probably all dreamed about doing at some point in our lives, but rarely has it even been executed so well. On the last play of the game.

Alan Knuckey of Charlton Park RFC decided to give it a go. As he described it, he looked to the sideline and asked a mate if he should try the back heel. His mate dared him to do it. He’s tried it for 15 years but never got it right.

“This may be my finest ever rugby moment,” he said, after perfectly executing the kick ahead, getting the bounce of the ball, beating the last man and racing away for an incredible try, while everyone in the stands could only laugh at the audacity of it all.

While questions have been asked about the standard of play and competitiveness of this particular match, we can all agree that it was very well done and funny to see. To date the video has over 2 million views on facebook alone, so there’s that.

56 Comments

  • larry
    9:35 PM 08/12/2016

    You've got it right. Reminds me of a time when I was refereeing a match, and though I warned both sides after it occurred once not to do so, someone jumped early in a lineout, and I awarded the free kick. It was near half time, and at that whistle the coach from the penalized team told me that the team throwing in could have a jumper jump early. I went to my bag on the sidelines, got out the law book, and showed him the law and that it applied to both teams. Refereeing I've seen lots of weird things, and one of them is when a pass thrown goes off the face of the player the ball was passed to. It's not a knock on, but like a kick, and therefore that player has to put onside those on his team if any are ahead. I've also seen teams putting in the ball during an uncontested scrum lose it when the ball went off the hookers foot into the second row of the opposition. It's supposed to be replayed, but I've let play go on, if the game was well out of hand as to who was to win, and there was no pushing between the forwards.

    Reply
  • larry
    9:25 PM 08/12/2016

    Law 21.3 refers to taking a penalty kick or free kick, in that the knee or heel is excluded, though the leg below the knee to the foot can be used. So this wasn't a free kick or penalty kick, so I guess it was okay. Here's another situation that has happened to me twice, in games where the outcome was in no doubt (one team ahead by a huge score, and more than halfway through the second half), in which uncontested scrums were decided upon after a few collapses earlier in the match (these were women's matches by the way). Uncontested should mean the team putting the ball in must win. It's what that law states. Well, when the ball has ricocheted from the hookers foot straight into the opposing forward's back row, I've let the "losing scrum team/losing the match team" heel the ball back to their scrum half and win the scrum. Why not if there was absolutely no pushing by either side? If a team can't control their own put in during an uncontested scrum, they deserve to lose the ball! If a try was scored from that lost tight head, even better!

    Reply
  • rugbydump
    9:22 PM 18/11/2016

    You never let me down, DanKnapp.

    Reply
  • guy
    11:44 AM 18/11/2016

    That was just too funny. Laughing out loud at the office.

    Reply
  • drg
    11:29 AM 18/11/2016

    Oh no! Hahaha! I swear this feels like the old RD right now!

    Reply
  • drg
    11:28 AM 18/11/2016

    Crying with laughter Dan! Hahahaha, ahhhh I can only hope my day continues at this level!

    Reply
  • danknapp
    9:48 AM 18/11/2016

    Oh Jesus, and in attempting to like your post, I've gone and clicked like on my own and can't get rid of it. Now I feel like an arrogrant dick and not just a dick.

    Reply
  • danknapp
    9:47 AM 18/11/2016

    *This is how I feel. Sorry I missed what was, let's be fair, an amazing pun.

    Reply
  • danknapp
    9:46 AM 18/11/2016

    Ah, now how do I feel? Let me tell you a story. There was once an inflatable boy. He went to an inflatable school with inflatable teachers and inflatable equipment. One day, whilst bored and wanting to show off to his classmates, he pulled a compass out of his inflatable pencil case. Now a compass is obviously a banned item in an inflatable school, but this lad just wanted to be liked. He starts pricking holes in stuff: inflatable pencils, inflatable rubbers, inflatable pieces of paper and the like. Nothing major, just small stuff. Well, the teacher sees him, and goes absolutely mental. He shouts out, "What the hell are you doing?!" and the boy jumps out of his inflatable skin. As he does so his compass pierces the boy next to him, who slowly deflates (with a pweeeeeeeeffffffffff sound like a wet fart). The teacher, thinking the boy has done this on purpose, advances on the horror-struck child. In his attempt to flee the classroom, the boy bursts from the classroom and accidentally catches the doorframe with the point. As the school starts to deflate around him (with a pwuuuuuuuuuffffffffff like an octogenarian queef) he runs blindly down the corridor, blind in his panic. The headmaster steps out of a doorway in front of him but the boy, who doesn't see him, pops him with the compass. The headmaster quickly deflates (like an erection after your mother catches you abusing your dignity) and the boy, who is absolutely shitting himself (like an ill Alsatian) runs down the road. His foot catches on an even segment of pavement, and over he goes, landing right on the point of the compass. The world goes black. He wakes up some time later in an inflatable hospital. He looks down at his chest, where a puncture repair kit has been applied. In the bed next to him is his headmaster, equally repaired, who looks at him with a sad, distant look in his eye. "Well lad, you've let me down. You've let the school down. Worst of all, you've let yourself down." This is how I fee

    Reply
  • drg
    9:40 AM 18/11/2016

    Probably the busiest threads we've had on here for a long time... Even more points for the fact the incident doesn't involve a French fight/foul play, or an NZ controversy!

    Reply
  • jimmy23
    9:38 AM 18/11/2016

    An 'aass'ive laugh Tee hee hee

    Reply
  • danknapp
    9:37 AM 18/11/2016

    Frenchman getting involved, 12 week ban.

    Reply
  • colombes
    9:02 AM 18/11/2016

    Well, it escalated quickly.

    Reply
  • drg
    9:24 PM 17/11/2016

    Well said Dan. Welcome N&I..... :/ Maybe he is a new and improved version of NZphill... You do make a valid point NI, but I think each reply has sort of quashed your further points. Gonzoman finished off my point nicely. Hope you stick around and get stuck in....tbh, you've turned this entire comment section into aassive laugh, whereas it may normally just be a bunch of "nicely done" sort of comments! So good on ya!

    Reply
  • drg
    9:16 PM 17/11/2016

    Sole of a shoe....

    Reply
  • gonzoman
    8:08 PM 17/11/2016

    You are correct. The face is not a knock-on, neither is the upper leg, the chest, the back, the forehead, etc.

    Reply
  • gonzoman
    8:07 PM 17/11/2016

    Actually, if a player loses the ball backwards or straight down, then it hits his knee and goes forward then it is not a knock-on.

    Reply
  • gonzoman
    8:06 PM 17/11/2016

    Actually, when you kick a ball you're still technically in possession while the ball is in the air (ever wonder why if you form a maul immediately after catching the ball on the full, you get the ball back when the maul fails?). So a kick is not a loss of possession, merely a loss of control. Of course, this is a situation where it's not a kick...so the loss of possession is actually when he releases the ball behind him. The law about kicks doesn't prevent a player from propelling the ball forward by other means (e.g.: off the body, the upper leg, the face); it just defines what may be considered a kick for the purposes of scoring points or restarting the game.

    Reply
  • 7:37 PM 17/11/2016

    With regards to 'a body part'. When a player runs with the ball and inexplicably loses control of the ball, it hits his knee and touches another player or the ground before he can regather it it will be blown up as a knock on. Which would then be the same as a non-kick with the heel. On the other hand, as you say, if a teammate passes the ball to you and it comes off your knee, chest or head it would be play on.

    Reply
  • tooldtoplay
    6:19 PM 17/11/2016

    I read that my last comment did not make sense. Sorry for that. The point is fairly straightforward. I read N&I as saying that a "kick" with the heel is prohibited under the laws and therefore should be disallowed. But the laws do not prohibit a kick with the heel in general play. They merely prohibit a player taking a penalty kick or free kick with the heel (law 21.3). The laws make no comment about whether a punt or grubber kick can be struck with the heel. They say nothing about kicking out of hand in open play at all. They neither permit it, define it, regulate it, nor prohibit it. Nor do they expressly create an exception to the knock on rule. It appears to be merely a generally accepted principle that if a player intentionally drops the ball in a controlled manner for the purpose of kicking it, this will not be a knock on, even if it goes forward out of the player's hands. There is no law which says that if he uses his heel instead of other parts of his lower leg or foot it will make any difference to this general principle.

    Reply
  • flanker2712
    5:53 PM 17/11/2016

    I'd dare to say he exercised more control of the ball in that moment than anyone else on the pitch did the entire game.

    Reply
  • jimmy23
    4:42 PM 17/11/2016

    #legend

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:48 PM 17/11/2016

    ispotts, why the hell would it be 'sole'? I'm trying to work out if this is a hilarious commentary on modern grammar fascism... or if you genuinely believe someone can be 'the life and sole of the party'. Either way... *applauds*

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:46 PM 17/11/2016

    No attempt to tackle, no blocking the runner, no mud on the players... sounds about right to me.

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:45 PM 17/11/2016

    I feel like an interesting point which New and Improved has brought to our attention (and no, this is not sarcasm (and no, THAT was not sarcasm)) is being overshadowed by us having some fun as his expense. Welcome to RD mate, sorry if any of the above came across as hostile, it's a pretty friendly place here unless the mythical NZPhill makes an appearance.

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:43 PM 17/11/2016

    I think we can all agree this looks like a really tight game between two evenly matched teams, from the speed at which the defending players chased this young wippersnapper down, and therefore the validity of this try matters hugely. It would be a shame if this climactic encounter was cheapened. Now if, as is clearly not the case, this was simply a game between 30 men nursing hangovers of varying strengths, then in that instance I would suggest that whether or not he kicked the ball, or knocked it on, matters precisely fuck all.

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:39 PM 17/11/2016

    I'm delighted at how silly this is getting. Keep it up people.

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:38 PM 17/11/2016

    Yes. I am a dick on multiple platforms.

    Reply
  • jimmy23
    12:55 PM 17/11/2016

    Dan, is that your Facebook comment that's been highlighted?

    Reply
  • drg
    12:07 PM 17/11/2016

    You've raised some questions, but with regards to the latest post: "Do you not lose possession when kick" Technically speaking I suppose you are correct. Lost possession went forward... Not really, you can only 'knock on' if the ball leaves your hands or touches your hands and moves forwards? Yes? So the ball left his hands going backwards and a body part "knocked it forward" (if you don't recognise it as a kick)...therefore technically speaking, there is nothing to answer for.... If I pass the ball to a team mate (backwards) and it bounces off their face and goes 20 metres towards the oppo try line, I don't believe that is classed as a knock on, so really there isn't much difference? (Of course I may be wrong. I don't pass the ball so I wouldn't really know)

    Reply
  • drg
    12:01 PM 17/11/2016

    Feet*

    Reply
  • peetwindhoek
    7:24 AM 17/11/2016

    Which is an even bigger feat!

    Reply
  • peetwindhoek
    7:23 AM 17/11/2016

    Hmmm, to me it seems like he is kicking the ball with his studs?

    Reply
  • drg
    3:12 AM 17/11/2016

    I can tell we're going to enjoy having you around....

    Reply
  • 11:40 PM 16/11/2016

    Do you not lose possession of the ball when you kick it? Voluntarily so but you do physically lose possession of the ball through a kick which is legal. In this case he also lost possession voluntarily but the ball traveled forward by a means which doesn't constitute a kick (by law) therefor it must be a knock on. No?

    Reply
  • dancarter
    10:50 PM 16/11/2016

    Speaking of big forwards taking a conversion... I played in the front row, and during my last game for my sixth form, we scored a try in the 80th minute and the game was won, so I took a drop goal conversion. I was quietly confident, after previously being the goal kicker in a sevens tournament and having slotted drop goals from 30-40m out in training. Naturally, I shanked it and it never got more than 5 metres off the ground.

    Reply
  • guy
    10:11 PM 16/11/2016

    Simon Zebo did a heel flick against Wales a few years back. But the ball neither touched the ground nor touched another player before he caught it. Then there was the O'Mahony/Coughlin heel flick which seemed to travel backwards. So neither of them really compares to this ons. The actual IRB definition of a knock on is: A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession (which he doesn't since he seems to do it intentional) of the ball and it goes forward (which it basicly doesn't when it leaves his hands), or when a playe;r hits the ball forward with the hand or arm (which he doesn't because he uses his heel), or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward (which also does not aply here) , and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it. So I gues it isn't a kick and it isn't a knock on either. Basicly, up until now there seems to be nothing wrong with it. By the way: no need to apologize for not being a regular. Come back more often and you will find that there are quite a few 'regulars' with a....erm...special kind of humour and some......erm...strong opinions down here;-) But everything in good spirit of course.

    Reply
  • 9:08 PM 16/11/2016

    Apologies for not being a regular. Just thought that it's an interesting law which needed to be discussed. I remember seeing the same happen in a professional match recently, can't for the life of me remember which competition it was or which teams were involved, and it it also lead to a try. And the first thing I thought to myself was that it should have been disallowed. PS. tooldtooplay doesn't make any sense....

    Reply
  • 9:00 PM 16/11/2016

    So we can agree that it isn't a kick by definition. And one of the definitions of a knock on is if a player loses control of the ball and the ball travels towards the opposition tryline. Did he keep control of the ball by dropping it back onto his heel? No. Did the ball travel forward towards the opposition tryline? Yes. So if it isn't a kick it must be a knock on?

    Reply
  • 8:27 PM 16/11/2016

    Is it just me that thinks that looks set up? No attempt to tackle, no blocking the runner by the tall guy, and mostly...no mud on any players at the end of a match? If real, then well done to the little guy.

    Reply
  • drg
    7:59 PM 16/11/2016

    Who the fook doesn't put kidney beans in their chili?!?! For the record New, they're laws, not rules!

    Reply
  • stroudos
    6:39 PM 16/11/2016

    I've never seen this bloke on here before, I'm even wondering if he's the other team's flyhalf, judging by his bitterness about it! (Apologies to the real black 10). Judging from his contributions so far, no doubt he'll be along shortly to point out that your username appears to missing an O.

    Reply
  • stroudos
    6:33 PM 16/11/2016

    Maybe pop this on your Christmas wish-list this year: https://slightlydisturbed.co.uk/products/im-silently-correcting-your-grammar-unisex-adult-t-shirt

    Reply
  • tooldtoplay
    5:26 PM 16/11/2016

    I'm intrigued by New and Improved's comment. The laws do not say that striking the ball with your heel is not a kick. Law 21 merely says that you cannot kick a penalty or free kick using your heel. This was neither a penalty nor free kick so it is a kick in normal parlance and the laws of rugby are silent on the point. Now i must get back to that party.

    Reply
  • guy
    5:19 PM 16/11/2016

    The mere fact that it is technically/by definition not a kick, does not make it illegal in itself. It might not be a kick, but it is definitely not a knock on or forward pass if you look at the definition of both. I guess in this case the referee judged it to the spirit of the law, not to the letter since the law doesn't really cover this. The referee did well in this case and Knuckey deserves all the glory that's coming his way after 15 years of trying.

    Reply
  • jonnyenglish
    4:52 PM 16/11/2016

    Are you the kind of person to point out that Chili technically should have kidney beans in it?

    Reply
  • benny
    4:32 PM 16/11/2016

    First thing that went through my mind too :)

    Reply
  • hoot
    4:27 PM 16/11/2016

    So when you watched this amateur video of an amateur match by fat blokes (no offence) where someone pulled off a piece of silky skill and scored, rather than grinning quietly or laughing like the guys on the touchline, you just tutted, shook your head, and exclaimed, 'Don't these people even know the LAWS of the game? What is the world coming to?'

    Reply
  • 4:09 PM 16/11/2016

    There's no law dictating who may or may not attempt a kick at goal. Unfortunately there is a law regarding what constitutes as a kick. Now, if he regathered the kick before the ball hit the ground, that would have been class....

    Reply
  • hoot
    3:53 PM 16/11/2016

    You miserable lot, I thought it was class! Maybe in the same category of harmless fun as the Barbarians letting the big forwards take the odd conversion.

    Reply
  • 3:31 PM 16/11/2016

    If knowing the basic rules of rugby make me the life of the party then so be it....

    Reply
  • drg
    3:10 PM 16/11/2016

    I'm guessing that the team in black had either won by a margin or had lost by one as they appeared to firstly be sort of stunned but secondly not appear to give two hoots about chasing this. I shan't be showing this to anyone due to the fact that it may cause other to try and emulate it... Which is fine in itself as long as they agree to lie in the 'tunnel' at the end of the game and have both teams walk over them should it fail....

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:49 PM 16/11/2016

    Your absotely write, fank u.

    Reply
  • ispotts27
    2:13 PM 16/11/2016

    sole*

    Reply
  • danknapp
    2:09 PM 16/11/2016

    I bet you're the life and soul of the party.

    Reply
  • 12:43 PM 16/11/2016

    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; EXCEPT THE HEEL

    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
Perfectly executed back heel kick 100m try goes viral | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos