2017 v 2018 Definition of Charge Down

[crossref]

Here's my summary of the change from 2017 to 2018 , and whether it matters

Definition

Oddly, neither book includes charge down in the list of definition. Instead both books define a charge down only in the context of it not being a knock on ..

2017 Laws

[LAWS]Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.[/LAWS]

2018 Laws

[LAWS]The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it
(charge down).[/LAWS]


What's the difference ?
- In the 2017 definition a charge down might go in any direction.
- In the 2018 definition it's only a charge down if it goes forwards

In the context of the knock on, that makes no difference. I

But charge downs are also important when we turn to the 10m Law .

Here the 2018 Version of the 10m Law

[LAWS] 4. An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
a. Interferes with play; or
b. Moves forwards towards the ball; or
c. Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately to
an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the
ball is caught or lands, [...] This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball
touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.[/LAWS]

So here's the scenario
- Red kick
- Blue attempts a charge down, gets a hand to the ball, but the ball is merely deflected and continues on its way
- are Red players in front of the kicker and near where the ball lands caught by the 10m Law ?


In 2017 Blue's touch clearly counts as a charge down, so the 10m Law does not apply
In 2018 Blue's touch is not a charge down - it seems to be just that, a touch , so the 10m Law does apply


Comments ?

I'll add this to my table of differences

 

[ChuckieB]

An atempted charge down is just that, an attempt to block the ball as per the 2011 clarification, and wherever the ball then goes, the 10m law does not apply.

perhaps the more pertinent question is what a touch or playing of the ball from a kick that isn't an attempt to charge down looks like? At best I can think it is a ball bouncing off the off the head of a player. James Haskell in reverse as an opposition player in the wrong place perhaps?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Here's my summary of the change from 2017 to 2018 , and whether it matters

Definition

Oddly, neither book includes charge down in the list of definition. Instead both books define a charge down only in the context of it not being a knock on ..

2017 Laws

[LAWS]Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.[/LAWS]

2018 Laws

[LAWS]The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it
(charge down).[/LAWS]


What's the difference ?
- In the 2017 definition a charge down might go in any direction.
- In the 2018 definition it's only a charge down if it goes forwards

In the context of the knock on, that makes no difference. I



Comments ?

I'll add this to my table of differences

You are, for me, reading to much into the words. Sadly true there is no definition of a charge down in the law book. that should be remedied.

However, we are looking at context. In terms of the question: Is it a knock-on or is it a charge down?" The question of direction is not relevant. After all, if the ball does not go forward it is not a knock-on anyway. BUT if the ball travels toward the kickers goal line then we have a different questrion to consider: "Was it a knock-on and therefore a Scrum / advantage, or was it a chargedown and therefore play on?"

One that question is answered we also have our answer to the 10M law issue. We know that it does not apply to the kickers team.

 

[crossref]

I should have said
I dont think this was a deliberate change, it's just sloppiness.

But when asking if the 10m law applies the key question is whether the ball was charged down or merely touched .. the difference is subtle so the definitions of the two are important

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Nope, I still think you are reading too much into it.

 

[crossref]

I think the difference between us is

We agree that the 2018 Law Book has made a mistake with the definition of a charge down.

(they simplified the Law on knock on, without thinking about the implications of the new wording on the 10m Law .. so now the Law doesn't say what it isaid last year, which is what it issupposed to say)

I think that matters, you don't think it does

 

[DocY]

I should have said
I dont think this was a deliberate change, it's just sloppiness.

But when asking if the 10m law applies the key question is whether the ball was charged down or merely touched .. the difference is subtle so the definitions of the two are important

Isn't this a change to the 10m law itself? I always thought that once a player from the team who didn't kick the ball we were back to offside in open play and the 10m law ceased to apply.

 

[crossref]

Isn't this a change to the 10m law itself? I always thought that once a player from the team who didn't kick the ball we were back to offside in open play and the 10m law ceased to apply.

No .. the 10m Law still applies if the ball is touched , it doesn't apply if the ball is charged down
(This is the case in 2017 and 2018 )

So the difference between touching and charging down is important

 

[Phil E]

What's the difference ?
- In the 2018 definition it's only a charge down if it goes forwards

That is totally incorrect.
It is simply saying if it goes forward in that context it's NOT a knock on.

Remember - There are no law changes between the 2017 book and the 2018 book. Your Society will have told you that I am sure?

 

[crossref]

Are you being ironic, Phil ?

There are a number of differences , some clearly deliberate, others (presumably) accidental, all laid out in my table

The accidental ones hopefully will be corrected in the 2019 book , otherwise I reckon we will be stuck with them

 

[Marc Wakeham]

That is totally incorrect.
It is simply saying if it goes forward in that context it's NOT a knock on.

Exactly. Contest is king to understanding what people write. There are changes. Compulsory card for all PTs (rather than just for "intentional offending for example) but this is not one of them.

 

[crossref]

No doubt that's what they meant , but it's not what they wrote.
You could think of it as an error in the 2018 Law Book , if you like .

But unless corrected what's written in the Law Book becomes the Law ..

 

[Pinky]

I am with CR on this one. There seems to be some additional ambiguity as to what constitutes a charge down in the context of the 10m law compared to "just" touching or playing the ball in the 2018 book.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What constitutes a charge down has nothing to do with the 10 metre law. What constitutes a charge down is what constitutes EVERY charge down.

Neither the old nor the new book clearly spells that out. So nothing has changed.

 

[crossref]

What constitutes a charge down has nothing to do with the 10 metre law. What constitutes a charge down is what constitutes EVERY charge down.

Neither the old nor the new book clearly spells that out. So nothing has changed.

.. except for the definition of a charge down in the Law Book !
2017 Laws

Charge down. If a player charges down the ball as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick, it is not a knock-on even though the ball may travel forward.


2018 Laws

The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:
a. A player knocks the ball forward immediately after an opponent has kicked it
(charge down).

 

[ChuckieB]

2018 laws no longer contain the definition of a chargedown.

As such it cannot be implied that the the definition has changed nor should people be looking to make such an inference.

 

[crossref]

2018 laws no longer contain the definition of a chargedown.
.

I quoted it above ...

Nb I don't think they meant to change it , in any meaningful way .... they did it by accident.

I am interested in the implications of that .
I am particularly intrigued by the idea shared by many posters that what's written in the Law Book is not necessarily the actual Law .. that the real Law is contained elsewhere .. like the old Law Book or even an email somewhere, or in what our society told us

 

[thepercy]

I am particularly intrigued by the idea shared by many posters that what's written in the Law Book is not necessarily the actual Law .. that the real Law is contained elsewhere .. like the old Law Book or even an email somewhere, or in what our society told us

Its not that "what's written in the Law Book is not necessarily the actual Law", just that the implementation of the laws does not always match what's written.

 

[ChuckieB]

A cursory reference in relation to a KO is hardly a definition.

if you combine elements of the Highlanders vs crusaders incident, the 2011 law clarification (almost identical) and the 2017 laws, I think it should be pretty clear that, while the 2018 law book is rubbish, it doesn't contradict what has gone before which is evidence to me the the law hasn't changed.

Sorry, I haven't sought to look at your table. As. a newer referee I am one who was only really just getting grips to with a 216+ page document and WR have effectively sent me back to the drawing board as I am now having to quote from a wholly different document. My first port of call has to be that nothing has changed unless I am guided otherwise. WR have done nothing to make my life easier!

 

[crossref]

That's exactly what intrigues me .. you won't believe what's in the Law Book unless you get an email to confirm it..