Article: Law clarification requests

[OB..]

If a player tries to intercept a pass, but knocks it backwards. there is no offence. If he knocks it forwards, the referee has to decide if he did so deliberately.

If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled.

 

[L'irlandais]

Fair point OB..
Judging intention is simply not possible. However the player knew if he only got a finger to the ball he could prevent a probably try. I don't think his thought process went much beyond "Disrupt the pass, worry about regathering the ball after."

I recall Brian O' Driscoll calling Romain Poite's yellow carding of Rob Kearney ridiculous. (NZ 60 - 0 Ireland) back in June 2012. I think it was the right call from the French man. Pretty much agree with Scrum to Red in this instance.

Unfortunately the extent to which Laws are open to interpretation by individual referees is what is becoming ridiculous in the game. That anybody could see that as an off the ball tackle is bewildering.

 

[OB..]

Judging intention is simply not possible.

Often difficult, but essential in many cases.

That anybody could see that as an off the ball tackle is bewildering.

Hear, hear.

 

[L'irlandais]

A little bit tongue in cheek, but Kurtley Beale, insists he didn't intend to knock the ball on is this instance.

"I just saw it was two-on-one and tried to go for the intercept and hit the ball up. If I hadn't hit the ball up, it was going to be a try and it would have been a totally different story," he said.

I think Mr. Beale needs to revise his definitions more often. For him "slap down" was the only cardable offense in this situation.

 

[L'irlandais]

Palm up/palm down debate? Never heard of it. Which Law is that based on?

For the guilty party, the determining factor was "they wouldn't have scored from there"

 

[ChuckieB]

If a player tries to intercept a pass, but knocks it backwards. there is no offence. If he knocks it forwards, the referee has to decide if he did so deliberately.

If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled.

Must he be considered in possession?

There are two references of possession that I see currently within the laws:

• Possession: This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.(definitions)
• A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball (2017 law amendment trial: law 19: which should perhaps be reasonably considered restricted to trying catch a ball around the touch line given its placing in the laws)

I see neither offers absolute help in this instance.

So for me, I potentially see BF's initial action as a legitimate attempt, one that he didn't immediately gather possession on and so not deliberate. If he had eyes for the ball only, he was not going to be prepared for someone taking him out (dangerously or otherwise). If it wasn't absolutely immediately considered a knock on the TMO still suggested to look at it perhaps as otherwise, i.e. potentially as foul play, something that could have overturned any KO call anyway.

Under the circumstances, yes, I am one who might see this as not being a fair contest for a ball knocked into the air, even though he was on the ground, and consistent with the principle of contesting the ball not the man. As such I could perhaps justify and all within the laws a penalty.

I have a TMO who alluded to it yet others who immediately thought otherwise. Without the years of experience, who am I potentially doing a disservice to by suggesting one argument over another

 

[L'irlandais]

The IRFU raised another point in the past.

Clarification 9 2004

..., it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

For the moment I seem to be the only one who considers Fodden hadn't a snowflake's chance in hell of cleanly intercepting that ball. He barely got a finger tip to it in the first instance, sending the ball skyward.

@ChuckieB, I think to ignore the knock on (first infringement) and not award the scrum to Red, the "tackle" would have to be considered foul play. On review it was deemed not to be.

 

[SimonSmith]

The IRFU were off beam on that.

There are offences that take on a heavier burden closer to the goal line, precisely because they are close to the goal line. Slowing the ball down being an immediate example

 

[OB..]

For the moment I seem to be the only one who considers Fodden hadn't a snowflake's chance in hell of cleanly intercepting that ball.

Why does he have to catch it cleanly?

He barely got a finger tip to it in the first instance, sending the ball skyward.

IMHO it was NOT a deliberate knock-on. If it was a knock-on, then a scrum is correct. If it wasn't, then having knocked the ball up in the air, he was in a good position to catch it.

 

[OB..]

Must he be considered in possession?

Yes.

If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled.

At one time the knock-on laws allowed no more than adjusting the ball in your grasp.. The current version would seem to allow a player to knock the ball over an opponent (accidentally, of course), run round him, catch it, and thus avoid the possible tackle. I don't see it as being in the interests of the game if a player is allowed to benefit from his own error. CF estoppel, as mentioned in another thread.

 

[ChrisR]

Hear, hear.

Shouldn't that be "Here, here" as in "Me too".

 

[chbg]

Shouldn't that be "Here, here" as in "Me too".

No - probable contraction of 'hear him, hear him'; often used in UK Parliament to voice approval with points made in debate.

Or is this another example of "two countries separated by a common language"?

 

[L'irlandais]

A similar idea was expressed by Oscar Wilde in The Canterville Ghost, 1887

"We really have everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language".

OB.. I accept your point it was not a deliberate Knock-on, but still think scrum red was the correct call.

SimonSmith, agreed some infringements carry a different penalty near the goal line. Interestingly WR did not really try to address this part of the clarification with their answer to the IRFU.

 

[didds]

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/here-here-vs-hear-hear/

 

[ChuckieB]

Just noting it was Matt Carley, no stranger to being at the centre of some debate on some big decisions in recent weeks.

 

[crossref]

Just noting it was Matt Carley, no stranger to being at the centre of some debate on some big decisions in recent weeks.

it was the TMO who is at the centre of this one.
MC gave what most posters here believe was the correct decision.
The TMO didn't agree - he evidently thought it was a tackle off the ball.
MC kept with his decision (albeit possibly for the wrong reason)

 

[VM75]

For me, Foden genuinely tried to intercept & was in a good position to catch the ball when it came down. MC says he wasn't 100% certain that BF was going to catch the ball, but I think it was very very likely that he would. Accordingly the main reason he didn't was that he was tackled & prevented from catching it.

Timing is everything, & IMO the red player who pulled Foden away from the ball knew Foden wasn't currently in possession & knew exactly what he was doing.

So I award PK to Northampton.

"OB - If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled." IMO It's insufficient to have a blanket view on this, context & timing have an important role.

 

[Pinky]

This has been considered before. Craig Joubert allowed the player not in contact with a knocked ball to be tackled as a ball carrier adding that you couldn't juggle all the way to the goal line.

 

[ChuckieB]

I am one for context in this situation. As I suggested in a prior post, in this situation I saw it was one player contesting the ball directly, his eyes on it all the way, and another player taking a punt on the player being in possession of the ball as he instinctively made his attempt or interfered.

For me that leaves it in the territory of, not even a mistimed tackle but, in the 10.4 (e):

Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

Still a penalty but not necessarily reckless.

It is no less acceptable to me to have a player who is legitimately receiving a ball who has yet to gather it, to be wrapped by an opponent who has his head down and making an assumption the pass will be completed. What if it had been a missed pass over the top. and the player wasn't even involved?


I should like some more examples. It is clearly a fine line and something I need to be more certain on my understanding for application on the pitch.