Lions v Blues. No knock on - Try

[RobLev]

Staying with that line of thinking, if the defender was approaching the attacker front on and "attempted to, and did, strike the ball" and it went towards the red DBL, would then say that the action by the white player constitutes an intentional knock on?

I've just finished editing my post, because this occurred to me as well.

Having said which, I think it would be harsh if a ruling intended to sort out the difficulty in establishing who last touched the ball was then extended further to penalise the tackler, who is deemed to have done so, whether he did so in fact or not.

 

[Browner]

I've just finished editing my post, because this occurred to me as well.

Having said which, I think it would be harsh if a ruling intended to sort out the difficulty in establishing who last touched the ball was then extended further to penalise the tackler, who is deemed to have done so, whether he did so in fact or not.

It's who is "responsible" that is critical

A) if an opponent hits the ball, then he's responsible for its dislodge (direction determines law application thereafter)
B) if an opponent hits the BC who because of the impact loses control of the ball then the BC is responsible for its loss.

In all non C&O examples, all benefit of doubt to the BCing player.

After that its simply another judgement to be made.

 

[Browner]

Staying with that line of thinking, if the defender was approaching the attacker front on and "attempted to, and did, strike the ball" and it went towards the red DBL, would then say that the action by the white player constitutes an intentional knock on?

Yep, if with the hand/arm, & C&O , why not?

 

[menace]

I had an interesting chat on the phone tonight with a former top level NZ referee. He didn't have a real opinion on this (said he thought it could have gone either way) but he did say that Lyndon Bray was going to approach the iRB for clarification.

It seems that Clarification 2011-4 is about intent, i.e. that a rip, by definition, is an intentional act by the tackler, and that the 2011-4 was never meant to apply when the ball was merely dislodged in a tackle, whether the tackler made contact with the ball or not.

Stay tuned!

I look forward to that!

Thank god for this thread...I saw a couple of deliberate knock out this past few weeks just like the one in the clip (all ruled as knock on, and one by me in a 7s game) but it had me wondering why they shouldn't be treated just like a strip back vs the quandary of not rewarding the BC because he didn't secure the ball?

 

[Dixpat]

My tuppence worth

a) The Red player/s particluarly the one on the ground believed the ball had been KO
b) In my view the ball was dislodged by the Blue defender contacting the arm not by striking at the ball
c) Even if the Blue defender contacted the ball as he swept his arm around Red the last player to touch the ball was Red
d) If that had happened in general play refs 100% of the time would have called it a KO

 

[Browner]

My tuppence worth

a) The Red player/s particluarly the one on the ground believed the ball had been KO
b) In my view the ball was dislodged by the Blue defender contacting the arm not by striking at the ball
c) Even if the Blue defender contacted the ball as he swept his arm around Red the last player to touch the ball was Red
d) If that had happened in general play refs 100% of the time would have called it a KO

A) irrelevant
B) I'm 100% sure that the right hand of blue hit the ball downwards out of reds grasp
C) once the ball was hit out of reds possession , it matters not which part of reds body it then hit (assuming it wasn't arms or hands)
D) i don't agree

The notion that you can strip/pull the ball out, but you can't punch hit or wack the ball to achieve the same outcome is ridiculous.

Red didn't lose possession through disrupt, possession was hit away from him

Play on, try!

 

[talbazar]

Sorry if i throw a stone in the pound here but I have to disagree:
The scenario in the video doesn't match either of the scenarios in the clarification.
Red player does loose possession of the ball in the tackle.
To me white tackler (#11) doesn't rip the ball out of red's hands, it's just a side effect of the tackle.

BUT

My decision on this:
High tackle by white 11, penalty try, YC for white 11...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[Dixpat]

Sorry if i throw a stone in the pound here but I have to disagree:
The scenario in the video doesn't match either of the scenarios in the clarification.
Red player does loose possession of the ball in the tackle.
To me white tackler (#11) doesn't rip the ball out of red's hands, it's just a side effect of the tackle.

That is how I saw it as well

BUT

My decision on this:
High tackle by white 11, penalty try, YC for white 11...

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

I had tuppence worth so you are entitled to your 2 cents but if that is a high tackle and PT & YC then I will give up on the game!

 

[talbazar]

I had tuppence worth so you are entitled to your 2 cents but if that is a high tackle and PT & YC then I will give up on the game!

Well.....

 

[RobLev]

Well.....
View attachment 2833

...which freeze frame shows clearly White's right hand knocking the ball out of Red's arms....

 

[talbazar]

...which freeze frame shows clearly White's right hand knocking the ball out of Red's arms....

I'm not denying that white hand pushed the ball out of red's hand. What I'm saying is that the way it happens doesn't match with the Clarification's scenarios.

White player is not ripping the ball out of red's hands. He is performing a (dangerous) tackle which happened to touch the ball and have Red loosing control/possession of the ball...

Change the above scenario slightly:
Red ball carrier runs straight with the ball under his arm (as in picture above). White performs a legitimate tackle from the front: low and shoulder nicely tucked into Red's chest. Doing so, Red's shoulder touches the ball which pops towards white's dead ball line...
Knock on by Red, no?
So why not applying the same logic here?

 

[RobLev]

I'm not denying that white hand pushed the ball out of red's hand. What I'm saying is that the way it happens doesn't match with the Clarification's scenarios.

White player is not ripping the ball out of red's hands. He is performing a (dangerous) tackle which happened to touch the ball and have Red loosing control/possession of the ball...

Change the above scenario slightly:
Red ball carrier runs straight with the ball under his arm (as in picture above). White performs a legitimate tackle from the front: low and shoulder nicely tucked into Red's chest. Doing so, Red's shoulder touches the ball which pops towards white's dead ball line...
Knock on by Red, no?
So why not applying the same logic here?

Do you mean "White's shoulder touches the ball?".

The clarirication means, IMHO, that the only judgment the ref needs to make is whether the ball was directly knocked/ripped loose by the action of the tackler. If it was, then the clarification applies. If the BC loses the ball forward, however, not as a result of direct contact between the tackler and the ball, then he has knocked on. The whole point of the clarification seems to me to be to avoid making a judgment on how many ricochets the ball took between the BC and tackler, and who touched it last - indeed that latter is the express reason for the clarification request. Given that last, interpreting the clarification narrowly as only applying to situations strictly within the scenarios outlined defeats the its object.

Whether it is refereed that way, however...

 

[OB..]

White performs a legitimate tackle from the front: low and shoulder nicely tucked into Red's chest. Doing so, Red's shoulder touches the ball which pops towards white's dead ball line...
Knock on by Red, no?

Knock-on off the back of his shoulder? I think not.

 

[JP_Rocks]

For me, its a judgement call as to whether the tackler was playing at the ball, which is why I think they used the phrase 'ripped' in the clarification. This implies an intentional act by the tackler to dislodge the ball, rather than the ball becoming dislodged simply as a result of the contact made during the tackle.

But that is the beauty of our sport of refereeing, it is all judgement based, and two equally experienced and knowledgeable referees can see exactly the same footage and come to two different decisions, both backed up by their own interpretation of law. In my eyes, this is a case of the referee out thinking themselves and and ending up with a decision that, under their interpretation, is justifiable through the letter of the law. However, this leaves him as the only sane person in the asylum, as the decision went against the expectations of all the players, coaches, fans, and commentators, and more importantly, against the spirit of the law.

 

[Chogan]

Well said JP_Rocks

 

[Browner]

It didn't go against my expectations of a] knock on law, b] clarification interpretation c] common sense ...... so TRY.

 

[talbazar]

Knock-on off the back of his shoulder? I think not.

Oops... Read "Doing so, Red's shoulder touches the ball which pops towards red's dead ball line..."
My idea was along JP_Rocks'

 

[RobLev]

Oops... Read "Doing so, Red's shoulder touches the ball which pops towards red's dead ball line..."
My idea was along JP_Rocks'

In your scenario, Red is carrying the ball. Are you saying that when tackled by White, Red releases the ball upwards and then inadvertently strikes it with his own shoulder, whence it travels forwards (in relation to himself)? Or has White, when tackling, struck the ball with his shoulder and knocked it upward, there to be struck by Red's shoulder and forwards?

 

[talbazar]

In your scenario, Red is carrying the ball. Are you saying that when tackled by White, Red releases the ball upwards and then inadvertently strikes it with his own shoulder, whence it travels forwards (in relation to himself)? Or has White, when tackling, struck the ball with his shoulder and knocked it upward, there to be struck by Red's shoulder and forwards?

Ok, I guess I've been too messy.
1. Red carries the ball
2. White tackles red from the front
3. White's shoulder touches the ball
4. Red loses possession of the ball forward (due to white's shoulder's contact)
-> Knock on against Red or play-on?

To me, there is no difference between the scenario I describe above and the original post:
Red loses possession of the ball as a side effect of White tackling him.
White player do not rip the ball out of Red's possession (no intent).
--> Red knock-on.

Hope that helps to clarify my view.
Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[KML1]

Our survey said...:

Lyndon Bray: "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."
http://www.sanzarrugby.com/superrugby/news/referee-update-lyndon-bray/

Think we should expect this one to head up to IRB for further clarity...