Lions v Blues. No knock on - Try

[Ian_Cook]

This happened on the weekend. Opinions please...

IMO, the referees got this completely wrong.

[LAWS]LAW 12 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.[/LAWS]

The Law is completely silent about HOW the player loses possession, only that he has lost possession. It make no allowance for the ball being knocked out. The Red player lost possession, so its a knock-on, and there is nothing else to consider. The fact that the white player knocked it back is irrelevant because it didn't go forward from him, therefore Law 12 does not apply to him.

I have always thought that situation where one player has possession of the ball and it is dislodged in a tackle should be judged as follows;

In all cases, the Gold player is carrying the ball and is tackled by a Blue player....

1. Blue player strikes the ball, knocking it out of the Gold player's grasp and it goes forward towards Blue player's dead-ball line = knock on Gold

2. Blue player strikes the ball, knocking it out of the Gold player's grasp and it goes forward towards Gold player's dead-ball line = knock on Blue

3. The ball is dislodged without Blue player touching it and it goes towards Blue player's dead-ball line = knock on Gold

4. The ball is dislodged without Blue player touching it and it goes towards Gold player's dead-ball line = play on

I cannot recall ever seeing it judged this way. I was taught that the ball carrier is responsible for ball security. In this case I believe the referee and TMO talked themselves into making a decision that was not only wrong in Law, but which was critical as it led directly to the scoring of a try that should not have been awarded, and even worse, it ended up being the difference between the two teams.

I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Fair try.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Fair try.

I should have said "and justify your opinion in the Laws of the Game"

 

[DrSTU]

Stu will be referring to this:

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&clarlaw=12&clarification=82

 

[leaguerefaus]

To use rugby league terminology, it's a "strip".

 

[FlipFlop]

The Law is completely silent about HOW the player loses possession, only that he has lost possession. It make no allowance for the ball being knocked out. The Red player lost possession, so its a knock-on, and there is nothing else to consider. The fact that the white player knocked it back is irrelevant because it didn't go forward from him, therefore Law 12 does not apply to him.

Sadly this is also untrue, due to IRB Law clariciation 4, 2011. How the player loses possession counts. So valid try.

 

[Dickie E]

Ian, this is where you say "well, how about that? Learn something every day".

 

[Ian_Cook]

Brilliant!!

This is three years old. Why the feck has this NOT been incorporated into the 2012 and 2013 Law books?

Excuse me for. I have a retraction to make elsewhere.

I guess you learn something new every day, aye Dickie

 

[4eyesbetter]

Watching the clip, surely you must have had second thoughts about your position when you realised that the commentators agreed with you?

I also see the phrase "secret memos" marching inevitably in the direction of this thread...

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hang on.

Technically the scenarios in the Clarification don't match the scenario in question.

1. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from in front and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the blue team’s goal line. (We often see this ruled a knock-on by A).

2. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the red team’s goal line. (We often see this either ruled play or a knock-on by B ).”

While what actually happened was

3. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the blue team’s goal line.

I know it only a technicality, but does it really matter where the tackler comes from? Why even mention that?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Watching the clip, surely you must have had second thoughts about your position when you realised that the commentators agreed with you?

Yes. Especially as they were Saffa ex-players!!

Winston Churchill said it best....

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

 

[Browner]

Brilliant!!

This is three years old. Why the feck has this NOT been incorporated into the 2012 and 2013 Law books?

Excuse me for. I have a retraction to make elsewhere.

I guess you learn something new every day, aye Dickie

Today is indeed a remarkable day .... Xx

 

[Browner]

Hang on.

Technically the scenarios in the Clarification don't match the scenario in question.

1. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from in front and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the blue team’s goal line. (We often see this ruled a knock-on by A).

2. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the red team’s goal line. (We often see this either ruled play or a knock-on by B ).”

While what actually happened was

3. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player has possession of the ball and the ball travels towards the blue team’s goal line.

I know it only a technicality, but does it really matter where the tackler comes from? Why even mention that?

I think clarification key words are " BC is not responsible for losing possession" and its that principle that is established.

In the clip, the defender directly made the dislodge.

 

[crossref]

the clarification was also reinforced in June 2012 by the IRB in that years 'guidelines'

[LAWS]Ball ripped from a ball carry not to be considered a knock-on[/LAWS]

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=9&guideline=5

which we definitely did discuss here on this site.

 

[Browner]

the clarification was also reinforced in June 2012 by the IRB in that years 'guidelines'

[LAWS]Ball ripped from a ball carry not to be considered a knock-on[/LAWS]

http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=9&guideline=5

which we definitely did discuss here on this site.

For ripped, read.... knocked,punched,slapped or prodded etc

 

[Ian_Cook]

I had an interesting chat on the phone tonight with a former top level NZ referee. He didn't have a real opinion on this (said he thought it could have gone either way) but he did say that Lyndon Bray was going to approach the iRB for clarification.

It seems that Clarification 2011-4 is about intent, i.e. that a rip, by definition, is an intentional act by the tackler, and that the 2011-4 was never meant to apply when the ball was merely dislodged in a tackle, whether the tackler made contact with the ball or not.

Stay tuned!

 

[RobLev]

I had an interesting chat on the phone tonight with a former top level NZ referee. He didn't have a real opinion on this (said he thought it could have gone either way) but he did say that Lyndon Bray was going to approach the iRB for clarification.

It seems that Clarification 2011-4 is about intent, i.e. that a rip, by definition, is an intentional act by the tackler, and that the 2011-4 was never meant to apply when the ball was merely dislodged in a tackle, whether the tackler made contact with the ball or not.

Stay tuned!

For me, the tackler attempted to, and did, strike the ball; so even if intentionality was required it is satisfied.

I'm not so sure that intentionality is required, though. The request for clarification is introduced as follows:

The Law does not explicitly cover scenarios where the ball is ripped out of the possession of a ball-carrier by an opponent. In these situations it is almost impossible for the referee to determine exactly who last touched or had physical contact with the ball.

The emboldened words show that the concern is inability to identify the last touch-er of the ball; which must surely apply whether the ball is struck by the tackler deliberately or accidentally. Replacing that source of confusion with a judgment as to the intent of the tackler is a case of "out of the frying pan, into the fire," surely?

The more usual case where the BC drops the ball in the tackle, rather than it being (deliberately or
otherwise) knocked from his grasp, doesn't have the problem identified in the request.

There's another point in the reply which militates against an intentionality requirement. The ruling finishes with:

...

In scenario 2 the player ripping the ball out of the ball carrier’s hands is effectively throwing the ball towards the opposition team’s goal line and this is an infringement which requires the referee to award a scrum with the non-offending team throwing in subject to advantage.

Note the emphasised words. A deliberate knock-on is penalised with a PK, and in appropriate instance, a PT - 12.1(e).

 

[leaguerefaus]

I believe the ball strip was intentional. I think everyone here would be happy to say knock on if he wasn't attempting to dislodge the ball.

 

[The Fat]

I had an interesting chat on the phone tonight with a former top level NZ referee. He didn't have a real opinion on this (said he thought it could have gone either way) but he did say that Lyndon Bray was going to approach the iRB for clarification.

It seems that Clarification 2011-4 is about intent, i.e. that a rip, by definition, is an intentional act by the tackler, and that the 2011-4 was never meant to apply when the ball was merely dislodged in a tackle, whether the tackler made contact with the ball or not.

Stay tuned!

That is how I would have viewed your original post so no try for me. I didn't see it as a strip, although I can see that others would, and so I wouldn't have thought that 2011-4 would have applied. I got the feeling from the video that the TMO was reluctant to confirm it as a try even though he said white knocked it back and red then grounded it (remember he was answering two specific questions from Stuart Berry?).
It is a fine line. In another thread I posed the question of the defender who deliberately punches the ball from the arm of the ball carrier which I see as similar to a strip. I can see that people would argue either way on the one in the OP.

 

[The Fat]

For me, the tackler attempted to, and did, strike the ball; so even if intentionality was required it is satisfied.

Staying with that line of thinking, if the defender was approaching the attacker front on and "attempted to, and did, strike the ball" and it went towards the red DBL, would then say that the action by the white player constitutes an intentional knock on?