[Tackle] Knock-on in a tackle

[ChrisR]

From the 2017 Law 12 Knock-on definitions:

[LAWS]If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.[/LAWS]


From 2018 Law 11 Knock-on

[LAWS]2. It is a knock-on when a player, in tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent, makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward. Sanction: Scrum.[/LAWS]

The part in red was removed for the 2018 Laws. If you were reading just the 2018 version who would you say did the knocking-on?

 

[crossref]

These Laws are so confusingly written (both 2017 and 2018'versions)

There is also this .. doesnt this directly contradict the 2017 Law you quote ?

[LAWS]The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:

A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.[/LAWS]

 

[ChrisR]

No, I don't think so. The tackler ripping the ball is covered as follows:

2017 Law 12 definitions:

[LAWS]If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent’s hands and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is not a knock-on.[/LAWS]

2018 Law 11:

[LAWS]5. The ball is not knocked-on, and play continues, if:


b. A player rips or knocks the ball from an opponent and the ball goes forward from the opponent’s hand or arm.[/LAWS]

Those say pretty much the same thing.

For now, can we just consider the question posed in the OP?

 

[crossref]

Agree.
But don't they both say the opposite to

[LAWS]If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on[/LAWS].

Is this a contradiction in the 2017 Laws, resolved in 2018 ?

Or does post #1 misquote the 2017 Law ?

 

[leaguerefaus]

The 2018 law book reads as if the player making the tackle has knocked on.

In fact, it sounds clear that that is exactly what they mean.

Whether they did mean that though... that's another story completely.

 

[ChuckieB]

Removal of the wording relating to the KO being in respect of the BC has muddied the waters somewhat! It was previously on the face of the law but now, reference to the player in possession has been relegated to the definitions.

Read it is isolation you might understand circumstances where those newer refs will rely on the literal wording and apply an incorrect decision.

 

[crossref]

These Laws are written in such a way that you have to focus on the precise literal meaning to make sense of them - neither 2017 not 2018 are written in plain simple language :-(

 

[crossref]

I guess there are four permutations

1 Tackler goes for man, dislodges ball, ball goes toward tacklers DBL

2 Tackler goes for man, dislodges ball, ball goes toward ball carriers DBL

3 Tackler goes for BALL dislodges ball, ball goes toward tacklers DBL

4 Tackler goes for BALL dislodges ball, ball goes toward ball carriers DBL

The exercise is, for each one
- give the 2017 Law Ref and decision
- give the 2018 Law Ref and decision

 

[ChrisR]

crossref, you have shone some light on the issue but, meanwhile, have digressed from the question in the OP.

I think the 2017 laws answered all four scenarios. The 2018 laws answered 3 & 4.

The problem with the 2018 'knock-in-a-tackle' (and the laws are correctly stated in the OP) is the loss of reference to the ball carrier. This makes "forward" seem relative to the tackler, as leaguerefaus points out.

 

[crossref]

I agree.
In my first response I confused myself

So the 2017 Laws were fairly clear (could have been better, but fairly clear)

The 2018 Laws are at best ambiguous, but realistically are misleading as the natural meaning of the wording would lead you to the wrong decision

 

[Dickie E]

I'll leave the word-smithing to others but pragmatically it seems crystal to me.

Blue is ball carrier and Red is attempting to tackle.

If Red knocks Blue's arm such that ball travels towards Red goal line, knock on by Blue.
If Red knocks Blue's arm such that ball travels towards Blue goal line, play on.

If Red rips the ball and ball travels towards Blue goal line, knock on by Red.
If Red rips the ball and ball travels towards Red goal line, play on.

Rule of thumb: look for whoever last made contact with the ball. The scrum is against him/her if ball travels towards opponent's goal line.

 

[crossref]

Dickie ,
Because you specify that red knocks blue's arm, you haven't covered the scenario where Red tackles blue and happens to knock ball from his hands ... And it goes in either direction

(which is, actaully, the scenario that 2017 Laws deal with fine, but is not covered well in the 2018 Laws)

 

[Dickie E]

Dickie ,
Because you specify that red knocks blue's arm, you haven't covered the scenario where Red tackles blue and happens to knock ball from his hands ... And it goes in either direction

(which is, actaully, the scenario that 2017 Laws deal with fine, but is not covered well in the 2018 Laws)

if it was clear & obvious that Red was the last player to touch the ball then I would be looking at a Red knock on or a Red knock backwards. If it wasn't C&O then I'd be thinking "loose carry" and Blue knock on or backwards.

 

[crossref]

if it was clear & obvious that Red was the last player to touch the ball then I would be looking at a Red knock on or a Red knock backwards. If it wasn't C&O then I'd be thinking "loose carry" and Blue knock on or backwards.

So now see post #1
I understand the 2017 Laws to say it's a "loose carry"
The 2018 Laws are not so clear

To be fair, it is quite difficult to draft a Law that covers these permutations clearly, concisely and without confusion (I have tried!) . Neither the 2017 nor the 2018 books do the job very well , but I am not sure that the 2018 book is an improvement

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I'll leave the word-smithing to others but pragmatically it seems crystal to me.

Blue is ball carrier and Red is attempting to tackle.

If Red knocks Blue's arm such that ball travels towards Red goal line, knock on by Blue.
If Red knocks Blue's arm such that ball travels towards Blue goal line, play on.

If Red rips the ball and ball travels towards Blue goal line, knock on by Red.
If Red rips the ball and ball travels towards Red goal line, play on.

Rule of thumb: look for whoever last made contact with the ball. The scrum is against him/her if ball travels towards opponent's goal line.

Which is exactly what WR stated in their "clarification". We all know it (or we all had the chance to read and therfore know it.) but let's forensicly examine the book even though we've already had it clarified.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think we have, pretty much, all agreed that the 2018 book is no improvement. FAR FROM IT. However, it is time we started to make it work as best we can under the guidlines given (ie there are no law changes in the new book) whilst at the same time going through the appropriate channels to lobby WR to revise the book again to get the book we need.

A forensic crusade is only going to harden attitudes against a revision, no one like being told that their work is a piece of crap. But go through your societies and unions to highlight the confusions created by thw 2018 re-write.

If any referee's relationship wit hhis or her society is so damaged that he does not feel able to express his concerns to them, perhaps he is in need of a change either of society of interest.

 

[didds]

I don't disagree fundamentally, but it still doesn't solve the problem of what happens on the weekend coming when

* you the ref are faced with a situation that you know has conflicting sanctions/interpretations/advice between the two concurrent law books?
* you the spectator/player/coach see decsions made in two different matches with differing calls which are both "right" ?

Pressure via societies is of course the right way, but it just isnt as simple as "make it work as best we can under the guidelines given (ie there are no law changes in the new book) " ... because there ARE glaring anomalies. In effect the ONLY way to make it work thus is to just reject the 2018 book totally and "use" 2017 going forward.

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well from a practical point of view. It is now 3½ months into the "Brave New World" of the 2018 book and not once have I had an issues raised at any game. So it seems that the clubs are bwtter able to understand the prrocess than some referees.


If referees go to society meetings and raise the concerns there an agreed society way forward can be agreed and all referees will be singing from the same hymn sheet. Of course If mavericks wish to ignore their societies and plough their own furrow they will encounter issues.

 

[thepercy]

In effect the ONLY way to make it work thus is to just reject the 2018 book totally and "use" 2017 going forward.

If the intent was to not alter the laws and their meaning or how the game is played, that is a sensible approach.

 

[crossref]

If the intent was to not alter the laws and their meaning or how the game is played, that is a sensible approach.

It does seem sensible at first , but on the other hand that would mean ignoring Laws such as 6.9f , 9.24 , 13.3 , 18.7, 18.26 and 19.5 which are all completely clear and completely sensible ... but weren't in the 2017 Book . Would anyone want to do that ? That doesn't seem right

Although we note that the ARU are telling their refs to ignore 18.7