Scotland were leading by a try to nil when one of their players, CW Berry, “knocked back” the ball near their line when it was “thrown out from touch” – in modern parlance, in a lineout. It soon came to RS Kindersley of England, who promptly ran in for a try. There followed a disputatious 10 minutes (or more) as the Scots argued the try should be disallowed. Eventually the game was resumed, and, under protest, WN Bolton kicked what was to be the game (and championship) winning goal.
Since part of this dispute turned on a question of law, here is the relevant passage:-
LAW 26 Knocking On ie hitting the ball with the hand, and Throwing Forward ie throwing the ball in the direction of the opponents’ goal line are not lawful. If the ball be either knocked on or thrown forward, the opposite side may (unless a fair catch has been made as provided by the next rule) require to have it brought back to the spot where it was so knocked on or thrown forward, and there put down.
The law was well established by 1884, having been essentially in effect for International Matches since 1871.
After the match the Scots continued to vigorously dispute the decision to allow the English try, and hence their winning goal. So aggrieved were they that they attempted to have the decision overturned by appeal after the match was over.
Strange though it may seem to us, in those days a result or incident could be overturned by appeal to the RFU (a right finally abolished in 1969). The Scots problem here was that the match was played in England, and the RFU was not prepared to agree that anyone other than themselves should rule on the laws they themselves had made, and under which the game had been played for some years.
There was a stiff, formal, somewhat waspish exchange of letters between the two Secretaries, extracts from which perhaps best convey the flavour of the problem and the arguments raised.
From: Hon Sec SRFU James Alex. Gardner 19 March 1884
They [the Scottish Committee] at once accept the ruling of the Referee that the ball was ‘fisted’ by a Scotchman, but they entirely dissent from your reading of Rule 26. They consider that ‘knocking on’, the technical expression for what is commonly called a ‘fist’, includes knocking forward, knocking to the side, and knocking backwards. Striking the ball with the hand in any direction they believe to constitute a knock-on, and thus to be illegal.
From: Hon Sec RFU G Rowland Hill 21 March 1884
Did your Committee in deciding to appeal on the grounds that a knock back is illegal consider the words in law 26, – “the opposite side may?”
The interpretation of these words is, that it is only the opposite side that has the right of appeal. I was told by the referee that no Englishman appealed. I am not admitting that knocking back is illegal, but simply pointing out that if it is, the act was done by a Scotchman who has to suffer for his mistake.
From: SRFU 25 March 1884
In the Laws of Rugby Football, ‘back’ is contrasted with ‘forward’, not with ‘on’. We maintain that a ‘knock on’ means a knock onward in any direction.
From: RFU 1 May 1884
You ask that the fact should be considered that you believe an Englishman appealed. Assuming the necessity for discussing such a point the Scotch Umpire is of the opinion that an appeal was made by an Englishman. The English Umpire holds a contrary opinion. The Referee has to decide. He gave his verdict that no Englishman appealed. On a question of fact against the decision of the Referee no appeal can be made.
At the suggestion of the RFU, both sides made statements to the newspapers.
RFU 28 May 1884
[after quoting Law 26] The Scotch Committee maintain that ‘knocking on’ mentioned in the Law means knocking the ball with the hand in any direction.
The Rugby Union Committee have ruled in the past and still hold that the words in this Law, – ‘in the direction of the opponents’ goal line’, apply to ‘knocking on’ as well as to ‘throwing forward’.
It is equally lawful to knock back as it is to throw back.
This is the reading of the Law which was intended by the framers of the code. Therefore, as there was no breach of Law, the try was fairly obtained.
It should be further noted that if the act was illegal it was done by a Scotchman.
SRFU 22 July 1884
There was at the time an appeal from several players, and it was not then, and probably could not be decided who made individual appeals to the Umpire, but that the appeal was acquiesced in by both sides was evident from the fact, that the majority of the players on both sides stopped playing as soon as the piece of play under dispute occurred.
0 Comments