Law Clarification 1:2014 - Knock-on

[Ian_Cook]

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"?

View attachment 2876

I don't give a fat rat's arse what he is about to do because it does not make any difference.

► If I tackle him, and knock it out of his hands, and it goes forward from him, it is a knock on against him.
► If I just knock the ball out of his hands, and it goes forward from him it is not a knock on - play on.
► If I just grab the ball (not the player) and take or rip it out of his hands, and it goes forward from him, it is not a knock on - play on
► If I just knock the ball out of his hands, and it goes forward from me, it is a knock on against me, but not an intentional one.

Why do you find this difficult to comprehend?

 

[Browner]

The tackle 'attempt' in the clip (post 35) looks very similar to the 'tackle' in the Poll.

I don't subscribe to the view that Lyndon Bray is authorised to introduce new definition interpretation or that he unilaterally can decide that held/passing possessions are differently treated in current law.

In both clips neither player wanted the ball knocked out their hand/s.

Did the TMO decide the Chief had passed it before the knock back? We simply don't know, as all the TMO confirmed was that it had been 'knocked back by white' we have no idea whether it was being viewed as a 1\2014 consideration or whether it was simply a knock back from a airborne pass. ....

As an aside, and in the absence of the 'possession interpretation' that is being touted , the two tackles attempts look remarkably similar, yet the decisions were opposite!

Actually, to my eye, the Stormers 'tackle' looks more like a bonafide tackle attempt (although the attempt wasnt completed) than the 'tackle ' by the Blues player (where BC was merely knocked off his feet) which means that if tackle dislodge as per 1\2014 is the sole assessment then the Stomers case has increased value.

More actually, I think that the Blues player was trying to knock the ball more deliberately than the Stormer player was, giving greater persuasion to a 'knocked on' in possession argument(if that were the only issue being considered here)

One thing is certain, neither clarification 4\2011 or 1\2014 mention pass/hold possession intention.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Did the TMO decide the Chief had passed it before the knock back? We simply don't know, as all the TMO confirmed was that it had been 'knocked back by white' we have no idea whether it was being viewed as a 1\2014 consideration or whether it was simply a knock back from a airborne pass. ....

We don't know, but every elite referee is fully debriefed after each match, so this incident would certainly have been discussed before Lyndon posted the update.

I see the two incidents as different

Lions v Blues: the White player attempted a tackle on a player who was running toward the goal-line holding the ball.
Chiefs v Stormer: the White player reached around the Black player and slapped the ball out of his hands as he was passing it.

I am happy to take the word of an experienced elite level referee and game manager that they are different over the opinions of a few, anonymous internet posters.

 

[The Fat]

We don't know, but every elite referee is fully debriefed after each match, so this incident would certainly have been discussed before Lyndon posted the update.

I see the two incidents as different

Lions v Blues: the White player attempted a tackle on a player who was running toward the goal-line holding the ball.
Chiefs v Stormer: the White player reached around the Black player and hit/made contact with the ball as he was passing it.

I am happy to take the word of an experienced elite level referee and game manager that they are different over the opinions of a few, anonymous internet posters.

Agree with everything you have said here except I have removed the word "slapped" and inserted "hit/made contact with" in the interest of being, IMO, more accurate. White was still attempting a tackle but I believe that the TMO has ruled that the pass has been knocked back by the Stormers player and therefore a try should be awarded. Correct decision.
I reject Browner's view that the Blues/Lions tackle and the Stormers/Chiefs tackles are very similar. They simply are not. Blues v Lions the BC is keeping possession and Stormers v Chiefs the BC is passing and I would argue that the TMO has judged the ball to be leaving the BC's hands.

Again, I cannot see why this is so hard for people to grasp the concept of. If someone could tell me why the site will not let me post a picture, I would put my little merry-go-round pic right here >

 

[Taff]

Did anyone notice that this happened in yesterdays Heineken Cup Final.

At first glance the BC lost the ball forward and IIRC Allain Rolland gave a scrum. Sky though showed a slo-mo replay of an opponent hitting / slapping the ball out of the BCs grasp ie strictly speaking not lost forward. A very difficult one to spot though in real time.

 

[Browner]

I reject Browner's view that the Blues/Lions tackle and the Stormers/Chiefs tackles are very similar. They simply are not. Blues v Lions the BC is keeping possession and Stormers v Chiefs the BC is passing


and I would argue that the TMO has judged the ball to be leaving the BC's hands./QUOTE]

Fat please don't misrepresent my words, its not a nice trait.

I said the Stormers Tackle Attempt more represents what a ' tackle' looks like than the Blues defenders one handed pseudo slapackle.

There is a legal difference in these two subject incidents, let me explain as clearly as I can ..

.....if the ball has left the chiefs players hands then the white Stormer is knocking backwards a ball that is in mid-pass-flight flight. 1\2014 is not applicable in such a scenario.

.....if the ball HASNT left the chiefs players hands, then 1\2014 is to be considered

..... you describe "to be leaving " , but this isn't a status that I recognise , either it's in possession (possessed) OR its not (unpossessed) Law doesn't cater for halfwayhouse .

I believe the TMO adjudged the ball was airborne, [ie. not possessed] ( yes I'd love to hear a de-brief transcript, and no I won't take anyone else's summarising of it!!) , and so 1/2014 wasn't necessary to consider, the normal ball knocked backwards & play on decision prevails.

Lions v Blues is a wholly different case because:
The ball was absolutely in possession of the Lion player - the slapackle IS then measured against 1\2014 to see whether the requirements of Law (as separately defined in the clarification) are required to be applied.

It remains a judgement based on how refs see the incident ...... Dislodge in a tackle, OR a deliberate ball knock.

Its fairly clear that some people are judging what they'd give 'in the weeds' some are even stating what " everyone would expect" , when we know that none of the 'everyone's' would be clued up to 1\2014.

Even less of them would understand the subtle law expectation of "person responsible" ....shrug.

 

[The Fat]

Fat please don't misrepresent my words, its not a nice trait.

I said the Stormers Tackle Attempt more represents what a ' tackle' looks like than the Blues defenders one handed pseudo slapackle.

If I have misrepresented your words or their intended meaning, I apologise.
I didn't directly quote from your post but rather was relying on my (sometimes fading) memory.
I took the following statement to mean that you thought the two "tackles" were similar.

"The tackle 'attempt' in the clip (post 35) looks very similar to the 'tackle' in the Poll."