The demise of the Springboks lie squarely on the shoulders of World Rugby and all unions who are part of the organisation. In the 70's and 80's every man and his dog protested Springbok matches as players were selected based on the color of their skins because of political interference. The same has been happening for the last 20 odd years, starting off slowly but gradually building up to where we are now. And this isn't even the end. 50% of the RWC squad in 2019 has to be non-white. »
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.
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. »
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?