Law Clarification 1:2014 - Knock-on

[Ian_Cook]

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

Finally!!

Thank Christ for that! I thought you were never going to get it!

 

[Rushforth]

Thank Christ for that! I thought you were never going to get it!

Don't worry Ian, I often think the same about you too. No sarcasm sign for the obvious reason that being Dutch I'm not going to pay to use it.

 

[Browner]

Despite the last smartarse comment to my last post, my position has never changed.

The original match incident that kicked this subject off, and caused the Clarification 1\2014 showed the ball being one handedly smacked out of the ball carriers hands.

That defenders action of slapping at the ball meant he did not effect a bonafide tackle ( ie he didn't tackle the opponent in a way that constitutes a Law15 tackle, ... held OR brought to ground etc ) this meant that the incident met the thrust of clarification 4\2011 [scenario 1] as I pointed out.

This meant that the TMO and I correctly assessed the incident, and as since shown Ian Cook hasn't.

U-Turn started?!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Despite the last smartarse comment to my last post, my position has never changed.

The original match incident that kicked this subject off, and caused the Clarification 1\2014 showed the ball being one handedly smacked out of the ball carriers hands.

That defenders action of slapping at the ball meant he did not effect a bonafide tackle ( ie he didn't tackle the opponent in a way that constitutes a Law15 tackle, ... held OR brought to ground etc ) this meant that the incident met the thrust of clarification 4\2011 [scenario 1] as I pointed out.

This meant that the TMO and I correctly assessed the incident, and as since shown Ian Cook hasn't.

U-Turn started?!

Nope! If it was a one handed smack, how come the ball carrier ended up on the ground? Since the Blues player's hand and arm went onto the shoulder of the Lions ball carrier FIRST, and THEN the ball was knocked out, and the ball carrier went to ground, I can only conclude that this was a GENUINE ATTEMPT TO TACKLE THE BALL CARRIER

Lyndon Bray says the Referee & TMO were WRONG

The iRB told Lyndon Bray that the Referee & TMO were WRONG

The iRB confirmed that the Referee & TMO were WRONG when they issued the clarifiaction

SARU have withdrawn their statement and admitted that their Referee & TMO were WRONG

What will it take for you to understand that you are WRONG?

 

[Browner]

So, readers

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L--gsidb7rU

On this video, between 0.50s and 0.55s

"Deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands" (wording copied from 1\2014 clarification) = I'm correct.
Or..
If White "in tackling an opponent" (wording copied from 1\2014 clarification) = Ian Cook & Lyndon Bray are correct.

Someone set up an opinion poll.....
Was white tackling red OR was white deliberately knocking the ball from red
( And in this incident proximity to the Goal Line might be of consideration. )

Let's see where the balance of opinion lies, after all it's a judgement call.

Poll please.

 

[Ian_Cook]

So, readers

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L--gsidb7rU

On this video, between 0.50s and 0.55s

"Deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands" (wording copied from 1\2014 clarification) = I'm correct.
Or..
If White "in tackling an opponent" (wording copied from 1\2014 clarification) = Ian Cook & Lyndon Bray are correct.

Someone set up an opinion poll.....
Was white tackling red OR was white deliberately knocking the ball from red
( And in this incident proximity to the Goal Line might be of consideration. )

Let's see where the balance of opinion lies, after all it's a judgement call.

Poll please.

Your Poll request, you do it

PS: Goal line proximity has no bearing!

 

[talbazar]

Ian,

No comment on my answers to your questions?
Come on, don't let me hanging there... Give me some sugar :biggrin:

On a more serious note:
The second paragraph of the clarification mention "Deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands"
Where is it written in the clarification or anywhere else in the law that a player cannot do two things at the same time?
Such as: tackling the ball carrier and deliberately knocking on the ball...

Remember that men (despite all women beliefs) can multi-task: for example I can talk and p**s my wife off at the same time...

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian,

No comment on my answers to your questions?
Come on, don't let me hanging there... Give me some sugar :biggrin:

1a
2a
3a
4a
5a
6b
7d
8a

On a more serious note:
The second paragraph of the clarification mention "Deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands"
Where is it written in the clarification or anywhere else in the law that a player cannot do two things at the same time?
Such as: tackling the ball carrier and deliberately knocking on the ball...

Remember that men (despite all women beliefs) can multi-task: for example I can talk and p**s my wife off at the same time...

Cheers,
Pierre.

Yes there is

[LAWS]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.[/LAWS]

Since the Law Clarification does not specify whether the contact with the ball is accidental or intentional, then BY DEFAULT, it does not matter what type of contact it is. So long as the player is attempting to tackle, he can also have a go at knocking the ball out while making the tackle, and it will still be a knock on against the ball carrier.

Then the only way it is not a knock on is...

[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]

Essentially, the first sentence applies when a tackle is made, the second when no tackle is made.

 

[talbazar]

Hi Ian,

Ok, I'm going to say something rare on RR.com:
You convinced me :biggrin:

I get your point and the subtlety of the clarification test now.
Thanks a lot for that.

Said that, I still have two question for you:

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

Why? As there is an attempt to tackle (even an actual tackle). Or did I miss something?

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

Why no PK?
Your description clearly states that White player "strikes" the ball out "instead" of tackling the BC. So I would believe it was C&O a voluntary movement.
You give a knock on against White but no PK for intentional Knock on?
I don't see the logic.

Btw, if you ever pop by Singapore, give me a ring: the first round is on me!
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Hi Ian,

Ok, I'm going to say something rare on RR.com:
You convinced me :biggrin:

I get your point and the subtlety of the clarification test now.
Thanks a lot for that.

No problem

Said that, I still have two question for you:

Why? As there is an attempt to tackle (even an actual tackle). Or did I miss something?


Why no PK?
Your description clearly states that White player "strikes" the ball out "instead" of tackling the BC. So I would believe it was C&O a voluntary movement.
You give a knock on against White but no PK for intentional Knock on?
I don't see the logic.

I have always understood that an intentional knock on does not apply if the ball is in possession of a player. The ball carrier is wholly responsible to maintain possession, and is fair game to have the ball ripped or knocked out. If a player ripped the ball out of an opponent's grasp and it went towards the opponent's dead-ball line, would you PK him for intentionally throwing the ball forward. If not, why would you differentiate a knock from a rip?

Btw, if you ever pop by Singapore, give me a ring: the first round is on me!
Cheers,
Pierre.

I was posted briefly to Changi Air Base in the late 1970's with RNZAF 41 Sqn until the squadron disbanded and became S.U.S. Haven't been back so I must be about due. I'll keep you in mind.

 

[Dickie E]

I have always understood that an intentional knock on does not apply if the ball is in possession of a player. The ball carrier is wholly responsible to maintain possession, and is fair game to have the ball ripped or knocked out. If a player ripped the ball out of an opponent's grasp and it went towards the ripper's goal-line, would you PK him for intentionally throwing the ball forward. If not, why would you differentiate a knock from a rip?

What about this: Red SH picks up ball at base of ruck. As he in the process of passing the ball, Blue player (legally bound in previous ruck) reaches out and slaps ball forward from Red SH's hands. Legal?

 

[Dickie E]

Btw, if you ever pop by Singapore, give me a ring: the first round is on me!
Cheers,
Pierre.

Recently bought a couple of Singapore Slings at Raffles. Not much change from $100 :wtf:

 

[Browner]

What about this: Red SH picks up ball at base of ruck. As he in the process of passing the ball, Blue player (legally bound in previous ruck) reaches out and slaps ball forward from Red SH's hands. Legal?

If you mean forward from blue/backward in relation to red, then no .... not legal because the ball was propelled forward from blues ball slap (ie a knock on) .... 1\2014 attempts to deal with deliberate knocking of ball towards your own DBL when being BC'd by an opponent.

 

[talbazar]

Recently bought a couple of Singapore Slings at Raffles. Not much change from $100 :wtf:

I know places where drinks are cheaper and surroundings at least as nice...
Contact me next time you're around... But the first round is on you; to pay for the tourist guide epper:
Pierre.

 

[Ian_Cook]

What about this: Red SH picks up ball at base of ruck. As he in the process of passing the ball, Blue player (legally bound in previous ruck) reaches out and slaps ball forward from Red SH's hands. Legal?

The SH is not trying to maintain possession of the ball, he is trying to pass it, so that would be an intentional knock on against the player slapping the ball forward. Had he tried to run around the ruck with ball in hand, then he is trying to maintain possession, and is fair game for a knock out of the ball.

Regards the Lions v Blues incident here is what Lyndon Bray had to say...

"Lions #13 is carrying the ball and about to attempt to score a try. Blues #11 effects a tackle and Lions #13 loses possession as a result. While the Blues player does jolt the ball out of his possession, he is not trying to deliberately 'rip the ball' out of the player's possession. The onus is on the ball carrier to maintain possession while being tackled. Therefore, this should have been ruled as a knock on and subsequently, no try."

The onus being on the ball carrier to hold onto the ball is Rugby 101, a fundamental characteristic of the game.....

Now, here is a video of another incident of the ball being knocked back, and Bray clearly explains why it is a different situation; it helps to illustrate why the Referee and TMO in the Lions v Blues match were wrong

"As Chiefs #12 starts to deliver a pass to his outside player, Stormers #14 deliberately propels the ball backwards with his hand towards his own goal line. As a result, a try was correctly awarded. Where this example differs from the previous clip is that the Lions player was intending to maintain possession of the ball during the tackle while the Chiefs player was in the action of passing when the ball was knocked away from him."

This all seems very obvious to me. I can't understand why some people just don't get it.

 

[The Fat]

This all seems very obvious to me. I can't understand why some people just don't get it.

And to me as well.
Clarification 1-2014 was discussed at our local ref's meeting together with the original video that sparked the request as well as subsequent comments from Lyndon Bray and they all got is as well.
Simple to referee and understand was the consensus.

 

[Dickie E]

This all seems very obvious to me. I can't understand why some people just don't get it.

Maybe because the 2 new phases called "in possession and not in the process of passing" and "in possession and in the process of passing" are recently dreamt up?

I wonder how we treat "in possession and pretending to be in the process of passing" (ie dummying)? May be too obvious to warrant an answer

 

[Ian_Cook]

Maybe because the 2 new phases called "in possession and not in the process of passing" and "in possession and in the process of passing" are recently dreamt up?

I wonder how we treat "in possession and pretending to be in the process of passing" (ie dummying)? May be too obvious to warrant an answer

They are merely expressions of what I have always taken for granted, i.e. that a player passing the ball is not trying to keep possession.

As for dummying, well how is anyone supposed to know until you don't pass, ESP? In other words, if you are passing and I slap the ball out of your hands, then whether you were actually passing or dummying is what we call "moot"!

 

[Taff]

I'm in work so haven't read the whole thread, but doesn't it all just boil down to (I'm pretty sure was Phill Es comment months if not years ago) that there's a difference between losing possession and having possession taken from you?

One is a knock on and the other errr .... isn't.

 

[Dickie E]

They are merely expressions of what I have always taken for granted, i.e. that a player passing the ball is not trying to keep possession.

As for dummying, well how is anyone supposed to know until you don't pass, ESP? In other words, if you are passing and I slap the ball out of your hands, then whether you were actually passing or dummying is what we call "moot"!

So maybe ball tucked under arm is to be treated differently to ball held in 2 hands as the latter may be the classic stance of a player who is considering passing the ball?

I wonder what Quade is about to do here? Pass or "show 'n go"?