Law Clarification 1:2014 - Knock-on

[talbazar]

Hi All,

Have you all seen this?

Clarification - 1 – 2014
Union - SARU
Law Reference - 12
Date - May 9, 2014

Request
Law 12 – Knock-on
Law 12, definition states, “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 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.” The law does not explicitly cover scenarios where the ball is knocked-out of the grasp of a ball carrier.

We refer to ruling 4 of 2011 and believe the answer could come from this ruling.

Concern is expressed that this type of play may affect the game going forward as the “tackle” will be down played and the slapping, knocking the ball out of the ball carrier’s grasp will prevail.
However, for the sake of clarity and consistency of ruling by referees worldwide, in the following scenarios has a knock-on occurred?

1. A ball carrier from team red runs with the ball in the direction of team blue goal line, a defender/tackler from team blue attempts to tackle from behind and makes contact with his hand on the ball. This action caused the ball to be lost “forward” from the ball carrier. The last contact on the ball was that of the defender before it went forward. Is this a knock on by player red or a play on as the blue tackler knocked the ball back – similar to a rip, ruling 4 of 2011?

2. Same scenario as above but the defender/tackler does not make contact with the ball but his action causes the ball carrier from team Blue to loose possession of the ball and it travels forward. Please confirm that this is knock- on.

Clarification of the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carriers hands, that is a knock on.

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.

Am I the only one to think that the red part will be a nightmare to ref?

Thoughts please...

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Browner]

Yep, we've seen it!

IMO, it makes perfect sense. If you smack/punch/slap the ball directly out of a BC's hands then the BC isn't deemed responsible.

I imagine there will be a period of time before widespread application is seen !(so It is with most clarifications)

I know there is split opinion on this, but as written - this clarification can't really get any .......erm ....clearer.

As for referee judgement, C&O is always the test is it not?

 

[Ian_Cook]

talbazar

It is not as much of a nightmare as you might think.

The part in red only applies if the player is not also attempting to make a tackle, i.e. he targets the ball with no attempt to tackle the player; that is why it specifically refers to the tackle in the first sentence, and makes no mention of the tackle in the second. So long as the player makes an attempt to tackle the ball carrier, if the ball is dislodged, it does not matter how the ball was dislodged, even if the tackler struck the ball directly with his hand, it is a knock on against the ball carrier.

This makes it much easier for you to decide, since all you have to do is satisfy yourself that the player knocking the ball out was attempting a tackle.

Some here, particularly Browner, don't believe this is so, but the FACTS are that;

a. this interpretation this has been confirmed as the correct one by Lyndon Bray, SANZAR Referee Manager, both in radio (twice) and television interviews, since the Clarification came out, and

b. this interpretation is how it is actually being refereed, or at least it is in every competition I watch on television (Super Rugby, Aviva Premiership, Heineken Cup, Pro 12 and occasionally Top 14) and even in the local Nelson bays Club competition. (verbally confirmed with referees at that level too).

You can see clearly in the slo-mo replay at 0:48 that Gold 15 (Shields) is tackled by Blue 23 (Burghlie) who strikes the ball out in the tackle. Because he was making a tackle, it was ruled as a knock on against the Gold ball carrier.

There have been numerous similar instances where this has happened and they all have been ruled as a knock on against the ball carrier, except for one (Crusaders v Brumbies IIRC) where the Ball Carrier was held by a tackler and a second player (team mate of the tackler) without joining the tackle, stripped the ball out. This was not ruled a knock on.

 

[Rushforth]

You can see clearly in the slo-mo replay at 0:48 that Gold 15 (Shields) is tackled by Blue 23 (Burghlie) who strikes the ball out in the tackle. Because he was making a tackle, it was ruled as a knock on against the Gold ball carrier.

It seems to be knocked out of control of Gold 15, who is being tackled. Gold 15 then moves his hands backwards (relative to his body) in a seemingly successful attempt to keep the ball from travelling forwards, just before a Black player (retreating) attempts to scoop the ball back.

How can it be a knock on if the ball travels backwards relative to the player's own hands trying to recover the ball?

 

[Ian_Cook]

It seems to be knocked out of control of Gold 15, who is being tackled. Gold 15 then moves his hands backwards (relative to his body) in a seemingly successful attempt to keep the ball from travelling forwards, just before a Black player (retreating) attempts to scoop the ball back.

How can it be a knock on if the ball travels backwards relative to the player's own hands trying to recover the ball?

[LAWS]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]

Gold loses the ball in the tackle - "player loses possession of the ball..."

He attempts to catch the ball but fails - "...and it goes forward..."

the ball hits the ground - "...and the ball touches the ground before the original player can catch it"

If you lose possession of the ball, even if you then knock it back, if it still touches the ground, its a knock on.

Knocking the ball back is not enough to prevent the knock on, you have to catch the ball.

 

[Taff]

Perhaps I'm being thick here, but if a player rips the ball out of an opponents grasp, which one has last "played the ball"?

 

[Rushforth]

Knocking the ball back is not enough to prevent the knock on, you have to catch the ball.

I don't quite see how this works. Let us say that the ball carrier is moving towards the Oppo DBL at 8m/s, and is tackled from behind by a winger running at 9m/s. The ball is dislodged, but continues to travel at 7 m/s relative to the field of play, and -1 m/s relative to the player who makes a weak attempt to recover, considering that the ball is also effected by the force of gravity being applied in the vertical (9.81 m/s^2).

The same definition of "forward" must apply to both knock-ons and forward passes. I don't care which is used (and the momentum one is more attractive in many ways) but being consistent is important.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't quite see how this works. Let us say that the ball carrier is moving towards the Oppo DBL at 8m/s, and is tackled from behind by a winger running at 9m/s. The ball is dislodged, but continues to travel at 7 m/s relative to the field of play, and -1 m/s relative to the player who makes a weak attempt to recover, considering that the ball is also effected by the force of gravity being applied in the vertical (9.81 m/s^2).

The same definition of "forward" must apply to both knock-ons and forward passes. I don't care which is used (and the momentum one is more attractive in many ways) but being consistent is important.

Nice. You really are taking the piss now, you think momentum applies to a knock on but not a pass?.

There is no momentum in the Knock-on law, and there is no ruling as such from the iRB

► You knock or lose the ball forward
► you fail to catch the ball
► it strikes the ground or another player
then you have knock the ball on

Simples!

PS: this thread is not about what constitutes a knock on, its about Law Clarification 2014-1. If you want to discuss momentum as you think it relates to the knock-on law, please make another thread about it, and your friend can join you there.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Perhaps I'm being thick here, but if a player rips the ball out of an opponents grasp, which one has last "played the ball"?

I would say the player who ripped the ball out.

 

[Dickie E]

[LAWS]
Knocking the ball back is not enough to prevent the knock on, you have to catch the ball.

I have seen enough decisions (both on & off telly) contrary to this view to have reached the conclusion that this view is bollocks.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have seen enough decisions (both on & off telly) contrary to this view to have reached the conclusion that this view is bollocks.

Well its the Law Dickie, and I have seen plenty of decisions (both off and on TV) that support that view, including the one I posted earlier. The falling Gold player batted the ball backwards before it hit the ground, but the referee still called it a knock on.

 

[talbazar]

Ian,

You seem to say the the second sentence in the clarification only apply if there is no attempt to tackle.
Which would make it easier to referee indeed.
But even though, I'm not sure it helps reaching the goal of a fairer game...

Let's have a look at this action, try saver starting at 33 seconds in the clip:

- before clarification, I would given a 5 metre scrum defense's ball (based on the fact that it is (was?) the responsibility of the ball carrier to keep the ball in his possession)
- after clarification, I would have no choice but awarding a penalty try for white 11 voluntary knocking the ball over the dead ball line

Is it really what we want to achieve?

Just my 2 cents,
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Talbazar

Perhaps you ought to see the reason this clarification came about.

The order of controversy was basically as follows...

1. This was ruled as no knock-on therefore a try, and remarkably the South African commentators, as well known as they are for their bias towards their own teams and referees as any commentator from any country) thought the referees got it wrong.

2. Lyndon Bray (SANZAR Referee manager) asked the iRB Rugby Committee about it and got a reply from them that the decision was incorrect, and try should not have been awarded.

3. Bray then made that fact public on the SANZAR website and in the NZ, Australian and South African media.

4. Andre Watson (SARU Referee manager) was not happy, said he thought that Bray was wrong, and his referees were right, and his opinion was published on SAReferees.

5. Watson and SARU went to iRB for Clarification and were given the same story that Bray was given, the referees should not have awarded the try, and this was confirmed with the release of Clarification 2014-1.

6. SAReferees removed Andre Watson's opinion published in item 4 above

7. Since then, Bray has confirmed both in TV and radio interviews that his view was the correct one, and a South African poster on another forum has told me that Watson has been on a Rugby magazine TV programme in South Africa (which I assume is "Boots'n'All") and has agreed that Bray has it correct according to "both Law and Clarification". (I haven't personally seen the programme so I cannot personally vouch for its accuracy, but I have seen all the other official comments & interviews from SANZAR/Bray, so I can vouch for those.

Let's have a look at this action, try saver starting at 33 seconds in the clip:
<< video snipped >>
- before clarification, I would given a 5 metre scrum defense's ball (based on the fact that it is (was?) the responsibility of the ball carrier to keep the ball in his possession)
- after clarification, I would have no choice but awarding a penalty try for white 11 voluntary knocking the ball over the dead ball line

Is it really what we want to achieve?

Well, I can't see any PT in that, either before or after clarification; it is simply dislodging the ball in the tackle. Seriously, if a tackler dislodged the ball into touch, would you PK him for knocking the ball into touch?

The Law does not make intentionally knocking the ball out of an opponent's hand an infringement, otherwise a tackler who tackles an opponent head-on and knocks the ball out would be intentionally knocking the ball on. Also, although it is not written in Law, it has always been generally accepted that the Law regarding knocking the ball into touch, touch in goal or over the dead ball line, refers to a "loose" ball, i.e., one that is not in the possession of a player.

Even then, in the case of your video, I would argue that it was also an attempt to tackle the opponent anyway, its a knock on by the ball carrier and a 5m scrum, defending team to throw in.

 

[talbazar]

Ian,

First of all, I remember the discussions on the video you added and I know that clarification comes from there.
Secondly, I agree with you, the decision on that event was wrong and it was a knock-on.

So I've got not problem with the first paragraph in the clarification. My issue is with the second one...
IMHO this clarification's second paragraph makes things more confusing, and that's exactly why I chose to post this particular video:
1. I'm sorry, there isn't any attempt to tackle. It is C&O that White 11 is *only* going for the ball (definitely falls into the second scenario of the clarification)
2. The clarification supports the fact that White 11 is the last player who played the ball (hence no knock-on). And What did he do when he last played the ball, he knocked it over the dead-ball-line to prevent a try --> PT + YC, no choice

Also, although it is not written in Law, it has always been generally accepted that the Law regarding knocking the ball into touch, touch in goal or over the dead ball line, refers to a "loose" ball, i.e., one that is not in the possession of a player.

Indeed, because "knocking the ball off someone's possession" was never anywhere in the law. But now it's something defined... So how?

Maybe I'm just being thick. Apologies if that's the case!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Talbazar

No, you're not being thick.

Let me put this to you in a number if scenarios. Lets refer to the colour of the players as the same as those in your video; the BLUE player is the ball carrier and the WHITE player is his opponent who will sometimes be a tackler.

Tell me what your ruling will be in each case

1. The exact same scenario as the video but the ball is rolling more slowly to towards DBL. WHITE player gets to his feet first and tries to ground the ball, but it reaches the DBL first, just before he gets a hand on it.
a. knock on in goal against BLUE? (5m scrum WHITE)?
b. Play on. Taken into in goal by BLUE and made dead, drop out 22M ?
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead?
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)

2. The exact same scenario as the video but the ball is rolling more slowly to towards DBL. WHITE player gets to his feet first and tries to ground the ball, and succeeds just before the ball reaches the DBL.
a. knock on in goal against BLUE? (5m scrum WHITE)?
b. Play on. Taken into in goal by BLUE and made dead, drop out 22M
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d none of these (explain what your ruling would be)

3. The exact same scenario as the video happens on half-way.
a. knock on against BLUE?
b. Play on?
c. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)?

4. The same scenario happens on half-way, but the ball rolls 20m downfield into touch.
a. knock on against BLUE? (options to WHITE: line-out or scrum)
b. Play on. Ball in touch by WHITE (BLUE line-out)
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball into touch
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)

5. BLUE ball carrier is 5m out from, and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player tackles him head on, striking the ball out and the ball shoots away from the WHITE goal-line
a. Knock on against WHITE
b. PK for intentional knock-on against WHITE
c. Play on
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)

6. BLUE ball carrier is 5m out from, and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player tackles him head on but he stays on his feet. Another WHITE player, without attempting to tackle, rips the ball backwards hard, and it runs through the in-goal and over the dead ball line.
a. knock on by BLUE and then ball forward into in-goal and made dead (5m scrum WHITE)?
b. Play on. Taken into in goal by WHITE and made dead, (5m scrum BLUE)?
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)

7. BLUE ball carrier is 2m out from his own goal-line , and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player tackles him head on, striking the ball out and the ball shoots through the opposition in-goal and over the DBL
a. Knock on against WHITE
b. PK against WHITE for intentional knock-on
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d. Play on
e. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)

finally

8. BLUE ball carrier is 2m out from his own goal-line , and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player makes no attempt to tackle him, and instead strikes the ball out and the ball shoots through the opposition in-goal and over the DBL
a. Knock on against WHITE
b. PK against WHITE for intentional knock-on
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d. Play on
e. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)

 

[The Fat]

2. The clarification supports the fact that White 11 is the last player who played the ball (hence no knock-on). And What did he do when he last played the ball, he knocked it over the dead-ball-line to prevent a try --> PT + YC, no choice

Some would then argue that the ref must rule on the intent of 11 white. Did he intend to dislodge the ball from the ball carrier or did he intend to dislodge the ball from the ball carrier AND knock it over the DBL?

(c)
Throwing into touch. A player must not intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with his arm or hand into touch, touch-in-goal, or over the dead ball line.



I can already hear people screaming, "If he intentionally knocks the ball out of the BC's hand and it goes into touch/TiG/over DBL, then he has knocked it dead intentionally".
Perhaps, but what if his action dislodged the ball and sent it parallel to the DBL but then rugby balls, being that funny shape, can take funny turns and so it does a 90 degree turn and goes over the DBL. So the "tackler" knocked it in a direction to keep the ball in field/in in-goal, but the ball then bounces two or three times before changing course. Did the "tackler" intentionally knock the ball dead?

FWIW, I am firmly on Lyndon Bray's side of the fence re Clarification 1-2014 and have seen several occasions recently in Super Rugby where the referees have ruled accordingly.

 

[Taff]

Perhaps I'm being thick here, but if a player rips the ball out of an opponents grasp, which one has last "played the ball"?

I would say the player who ripped the ball out.

I'm inclined to agree with you. This is critical in deciding if the next player is offside. It's not an issue when the ball goes backwards, but I can see problem if the ball carrier is held, spun 180 degrees and then the ball is ripped out and played by a now offside team mate.

Come to think of it, if the BC is spun 180 degrees and the ball is ripped out by an opponent and goes forward relative to the opponent (not the original BC) is that a knock-on?

 

[talbazar]

Let's give it a shot :biggrin:

1. The exact same scenario as the video but the ball is rolling more slowly to towards DBL. WHITE player gets to his feet first and tries to ground the ball, but it reaches the DBL first, just before he gets a hand on it.
a. knock on in goal against BLUE? (5m scrum WHITE)?
b. Play on. Taken into in goal by BLUE and made dead, drop out 22M ?
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead?
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)
Either one of these. As stated by The Fat above, it all depends on either I believe the knock over the dead-ball-line was intentional or not. But I can sell any of the two.
I would probably go for c., PK / PT (even if I hate it)

2. The exact same scenario as the video but the ball is rolling more slowly to towards DBL. WHITE player gets to his feet first and tries to ground the ball, and succeeds just before the ball reaches the DBL.
a. knock on in goal against BLUE? (5m scrum WHITE)?
b. Play on. Taken into in goal by BLUE and made dead, drop out 22M
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d none of these (explain what your ruling would be)
Ball was knocked backwards by White 11 and he grounded it.

3. The exact same scenario as the video happens on half-way.
a. knock on against BLUE?
b. Play on?
c. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)?
Ball knocked backwards by White, play on.

4. The same scenario happens on half-way, but the ball rolls 20m downfield into touch.
a. knock on against BLUE? (options to WHITE: line-out or scrum)
b. Play on. Ball in touch by WHITE (BLUE line-out)
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball into touch
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)
Again, I could sell both above. Even though, by the ball rolling 20 meters into touch, I would go for b. Play on with BLUE line-out as 20 meters seems a long stretch to intentionally knocking the ball into touch.

5. BLUE ball carrier is 5m out from, and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player tackles him head on, striking the ball out and the ball shoots away from the WHITE goal-line
a. Knock on against WHITE
b. PK for intentional knock-on against WHITE
c. Play on
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)
There is a tackle, BLUE ball carrier loses possession of the ball towards his own dead-ball-line. Play on

6. BLUE ball carrier is 5m out from, and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player tackles him head on but he stays on his feet. Another WHITE player, without attempting to tackle, rips the ball backwards hard, and it runs through the in-goal and over the dead ball line.
a. knock on by BLUE and then ball forward into in-goal and made dead (5m scrum WHITE)?
b. Play on. Taken into in goal by WHITE and made dead, (5m scrum BLUE)?
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)
I'd go with this 5m scrum BLUE because the my initial instinct would be that the fact the rip resulted in the ball going over the DBL wasn't intentional. But again, if I was convinced White player didn't try to rip the ball to gain possession but to send it as far as possible from Blue player(s) I could go for PK.

7. BLUE ball carrier is 2m out from his own goal-line , and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player tackles him head on, striking the ball out and the ball shoots through the opposition in-goal and over the DBL
a. Knock on against WHITE
b. PK against WHITE for intentional knock-on
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d. Play on
e. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)
I would guess by "play on" you mean ball brought into in-goal by Blue knocking the ball backwards in the tackle and made dead. 5m scrum White ball.

finally

8. BLUE ball carrier is 2m out from his own goal-line , and running towards, the opposition goal-line. WHITE player makes no attempt to tackle him, and instead strikes the ball out and the ball shoots through the opposition in-goal and over the DBL
a. Knock on against WHITE
b. PK against WHITE for intentional knock-on
c. PK against WHITE for intentionally knocking the ball dead
d. Play on
e. none of these (explain what your ruling would be)
Either of the two above. Even if chronologically, b. comes first and as such should be the reason for the PK.

Now please, let me see your views on these scenarii. I'm very curious :biggrin:

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[The Fat]

Come to think of it, if the BC is spun 180 degrees and the ball is ripped out by an opponent and goes forward relative to the opponent (not the original BC) is that a knock-on?

Yes.

If blue BC is running towards red DBL and red defender rips the ball out and it travels towards red DBL, it is play on for everyone.

If blue BC is running towards red DBL and red defender comes into contact such that blue ball carrier is spun 180 degrees and red player rips the ball out and it travels towards blue DBL, it is a knock forward by red. The same result applies if blue BC is running towards red DBL and red defender chasing from behind the BC rips the ball out and it travels towards blue DBL. Knock forward by red. If another red player, closer to the blue DBL than where the rip occurred then plays the ball, he is offside. PK to blue.

 

[Browner]

[LAWS]. Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carriers hands, that is a knock on.

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]

I wonder why the IRB chose to put "or deliberately knocks" into the same sentence as "rips the ball" ?, perhaps they did this to CLARIFY/define that neither of the two instances are to be considered the action of a bonafide TACKLE.

IMO the IRB have clarified that: Ripping/Pulling/Hitting/Slapping/Knocking/Thumping/Punching or Yanking of the ball from the BC's possession ...... Are to be treated as NOT TACKLING

If you have a genuine tackle attempt, then ball dislodge as part of that IS a knock on.

So, it is the judgement of the referee to decide whether a 'Bonafide' TACKLE attempt was made, or whether deliberate ball targeting was achieved, from which all other laws are subsequently applied.

The refereeing 'Experts' will get to my view eventually, when they do I'll await an apology from my most vocal criticisers , but like all politicians heading toward defeat expect a U-Turn and claim of agreement all along or a claim that IRB thinking has changed ( or maybe i'll be booted off RR.com and my posts deleted Goebbels style) ... Store this post fellow refs it'll be my last if unilateral censorship is applied.

Or instead, maybe the same freedom of opinion that others display will be allowed to exist, we'll see.
Xx
Browner

PS..... Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric
Bertrand Russell.