[Tackle] Knock-on in a tackle

[OB..]

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.

In my experience, many clubs have not bothered to look at the 2018 law book. They thought there were not meant to be any changes, so saw no point.

 

[thepercy]

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

6.9.F What did you do last year if the ball hit something above the pitch? I would have given the scrum.

9.24 I have not changed how I would call this, it has just been added specifically.

13.3 Were you letting players that were off their feet participate in the game last year?

18.7 I would have called this the same last year.

18.26 What is different about this?

19.5 Rarely I have seen the #8 bind on a lock and flanker (I haven't seen other formations), I guess since that does not match up with the diagram then this is no longer allowed.

 

[crossref]

in fact scenarios relevant 6.9.f, 13.3, 18.7, 18.26 and 19.5 have all been discussed on this forum before - some of them very extensively as they are long-running gaps in the Law - google will help you find the threads - in every case you'll see that different refs had different views on how they should be reffed and for many the forum gives are examples of elite refs making different interpretations.

the point is : it doesn't really matter how you interpreted any particular one of those Law in 2017 - in 2018 these new Laws are clear and should be followed. You can't persist with your previous interpetation (like ARU are with 18.7)

You agree that 19.5 is a change - but no doubt there are some who say we should ignore it.



(18.26 for the first time gives the thrower's opponent the same special rights as the thrower).

 

[Marc Wakeham]

What does your society say?

Our interpretations were in line with the 2018 wording before January 1. So NO CHANGE.

 

[crossref]

You applied 19.5 prior to 2018 ? That's very unusual

 

[crossref]

Back to the OP - reading carefully (not forensically, obv, that would be very wrong) here's what the Law Books + Clarifications actually say in 2017 and 2018 --

Note in both cases the Law Books have gaps, the clarifications partially helping out

		2017	2018
Red tackler happens to dislodge ball from Blue hands	Ball goes toward Red DBL	12.Definition.Para 3 Clarification 2014/1 Knock on by Blue	Clarification 2014/1 Knock on By Blue
Red tackler happens to dislodge ball from Blue hands	Ball goes toward Blue DBL		11.2 Knock On by Red
Red tackler deliberately rips or knocks ball from Blue’s hands	Ball goes toward Red DBL	12.Definition.Para 4 Clarification 2011/4 Play On	11.5.b Clarification 2011/4 Play On
Red tackler deliberately rips or knocks ball from Blue’s hands	Ball goes toward Blue DBL	Clarification 2011/4 Knock On by Red	Clarification 2011/4 Knock On by Red

 

[Marc Wakeham]

You applied 19.5 prior to 2018 ? That's very unusual

It was not logical not to.

What did your society tell you to do about the 2018 re-write?

 

[crossref]

It was not logical not to.

It's just that 2018/19.5 contradicts 2017/20/Defintions/last-sentence

So it's quite unusual to have been applying it in 2017

 

[crossref]

In my experience, many clubs have not bothered to look at the 2018 law book. They thought there were not meant to be any changes, so saw no point.

yes, I think this is true - and it's a shame as it means that the good work the authors did clearing up various ambiguities has gone unnoticed, and some people will no doubt still be reffing with their old interpretation.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's just that 2018/19.5 contradicts 2017/20/Defintions/last-sentence

So it's quite unusual to have been applying it in 2017

What did your society say?

 

[ChuckieB]

19.5 Rarely I have seen the #8 bind on a lock and flanker (I haven't seen other formations), I guess since that does not match up with the diagram then this is no longer allowed.

who says it's not allowed when the laws go on to say..

1. All other players in the scrum bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm.

Hardly conclusive evidence of a change?

 

[crossref]

who says it's not allowed when the laws go on to say..

1. All other players in the scrum bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm.

Hardly conclusive evidence of a change?

The conclusive Law is

[LAWS]19.5 When both teams have 15 players, eight players from each team bind together in formation as outlined in the diagram. [/LAWS]

It could hardly be more conclusive - there is even a diagram !

 

[crossref]

Anyway - back to the OP - here's a clearer table of the differences between the 2017 and 2018 Law books

Tackler Action	Ball Direction	2017	2018	Clarification
Red tackler happens to dislodge ball from Blue hands	Toward Red DBL	12.Defn.Para 3 Knock on by Blue		2014/1 Knock on By Blue
Red tackler happens to dislodge ball from Blue hands	Toward Blue DBL		11.2 Knock On by Red
Red tackler deliberately rips or knocks ball from Blue’s hands	Toward Red DBL	12.Defn.Para 4 Play On	11.5.b Play On	2011/4 & 2014/1 Play On
Red tackler deliberately rips or knocks ball from Blue’s hands	Toward Blue DBL			2011/4 Knock On by Red

They are not in conflict exactly - but the interesting one is Row 2. The Law never spelt that out before (as far as I can tell) but I think that if asked, we would have said 'Play On' But now 11.2 seems to address it.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

Anyway - back to the OP - here's a clearer table of the differences between the 2017 and 2018 Law books

Tackler Action	Ball Direction	2017	2018	Clarification
Red tackler happens to dislodge ball from Blue hands	Toward Red DBL	12.Defn.Para 3 Knock on by Blue		2014/1 Knock on By Blue
Red tackler happens to dislodge ball from Blue hands	Toward Blue DBL		11.2 Knock On by Red
Red tackler deliberately rips or knocks ball from Blue’s hands	Toward Red DBL	12.Defn.Para 4 Play On	11.5.b Play On	2011/4 & 2014/1 Play On
Red tackler deliberately rips or knocks ball from Blue’s hands	Toward Blue DBL			2011/4 Knock On by Red

They are not in conflict exactly - but the interesting one is Row 2. The Law never spelt that out before (as far as I can tell) but I think that if asked, we would have said 'Play On' But now 11.2 seems to address it.

I'm not sure. Last season if the ball clearly came off Red last, who is tackling Blue, and went towards the Blue DBL I think I would have called knock on by Red, scrum; knocked on in the tackle. Of course it would need to be clear obvious, but may not specifically be a "rip" or deliberately.

Interestingly your use of the word "deliberatelty" for the final option suggests it should be a penalty to blue for a "deliberate" knock on by Red :chin:

 

[crossref]

Thunderhorse.. I tried to word the table as neutrally as possible , and I echoed the terminology in the Laws and Clarification

If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent’s handsand the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands

2014/1 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,

On 11.2 .. fair enough . I don't think 11.2 contradicts any previous Law. It fills a gap

 

[ChuckieB]

The conclusive Law is

[LAWS]19.5 When both teams have 15 players, eight players from each team bind together in formation as outlined in the diagram. [/LAWS]

It could hardly be more conclusive - there is even a diagram !

yet it is conclusive that in order to achieve that formation, the 8 must bind a lock with both arms. Can't have it both ways and as there are no changes.....

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The conclusive Law is

[LAWS]19.5 When both teams have 15 players, eight players from each team bind together in formation as outlined in the diagram. [/LAWS]

It could hardly be more conclusive - there is even a diagram !

And the diagram show a 3-4-1 formatiom.

3 in the front row
4 in the second row
1 in the back row

Conclusive!!!! Except....

19.5 says this:

19.5 When both teams have 15 players, eight players from each team bind together in
formation as outlined in the diagram.

Each team must have
two props and one hooker in the front row

and two locks in the second row.

Three back-row players from each team complete the scrum.

So the words say

3-2-3

In your zeal to prove that, 2017 and 2018 are inconsistant "so the must be changes", you miss or ignore the simple truth that 2018 disagree with itself!

Which is it Crossref?

the scrum "MUST" be 3-5-4-1 as in the diagram

Or the scrum "MUST" be 3-2-3 as in the wording of Law 19.5.


What do you think and what is your societies guidance to refs?

 

[crossref]

Sigh, the only way this could be made completely clear is by a diagram.. and there is one

 

[didds]

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

* simper *

didds

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The Diagram show 3-4-1 and not 3-2-3 so hardly "completely" anything.

Again: Can you tell us what your society says?