Lions v Blues. No knock on - Try

[Ian_Cook]

Piutau (in a try-save desperation) threw his hand over the arm and effected a one handed slap of the ball, his left hand never even touched the BC, Law 15 doesn't recognise his act as a bonafide tackle.

To me it looked like a deliberate ball slap attempt, which after the slap continued into a shoulder one-handed grab, i think he chose this action deliberately because he recognised the desperation of his positioning v the goal line proximity and forward speed of the BC.

IMO the TMO adjudicated the same. Hense his decision.

I'm not interested if Ian views it differently, his failure to accept that the TMO or I can make a different judgment is the catalyst to his discourteous and arrogant communication style.

My opinion has remained consistent since the beginning of this thread, Ian ridiculed my 'palm carry' example, yet now endorses it since 1\2014 validated it.

To my eyes everything about this incident shouted 'premeditated\deliberate' attempt to ball slap, and no amount of bullying belittling language from
IC will change that.

I suspect the TMO saw it exactly the same.

Neither the TMO nor the Referee said anything about the knock being intentional, but that is not even relevant anyway, because the standard required for 2011-4, and its revision 2014-1 to apply is that the ball slap or rip must be intentional and not to have taken place during the course of a tackle.

THAT is what the iRB told Bray
THAT is what 2014-1 confirmed
THAT that is what Lyndon Bray has said publicly
Bray is the SANZAR Referee manager
The match was played under SANZAR Jurisdiction so their directives apply

Piutau's actions looked anything but intentional, and in any case, took place during the course of a tackle.

 

[The Fat]

And that matey, is exactly what the TMO adjudged. If you listen to his actual words used.


He said "Stuart, the ball was knocked back by white, thereafter grounded by red, so it was NO KNOCK ON"
He did not say 'it was lost in the tackle'....... why, because their wasnt a bonafide tackle...just a one handed ball slapdown.
So he therefore made the correct Law call thereafter.

Well matey, we will just have to agree to disagree and I will, as I have from the start of this thread, continue to take the line that SANZAR Referee's boss Lyndon Bray (backed by the IRB Clarification 1-2014) has expressed as correct in law.

 

[Baylion]

and its revision 2014-1 to apply is that the ball slap or rip must be intentional and not to have taken place during the course of a tackle.

Nowhere in 1/2014 does it say that

This first part talks of making contact with the ball in a tackle, a passive phrase which clarifies that incidental contact with the ball during a tackle isn't sufficient to rule for the ball carrier.

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.

The clarification then goes on to clarify when it will not be a knock on. Nowhere does it exclude the intentional rip or knock of the ball from occurring during a tackle

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

Even Lyndon Bray only have an issue with the fact that Piutau's knocking of the ball wasn't deliberate:

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

whereas in Craig Joubert's decision he agreed the action was deliberate

Stormers #14 deliberately propels the ball backwards with his hand towards his own goal line

Unfortunately he then goes and confuse the issue when he brings in the ball carrier's intent into the equation when talking about Craig Joubert's decision

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.

To me the issue is fairly simple (although for refs ruling on the field may not always be):

If the ball contact by the defender/tackler is a clear and obvious deliberate attempt to dislodge the ball it is not a knock on by the ball carrier irrespective of whether a tackle is made or not. If it's not clear and obvious it's a knock on

 

[Ian_Cook]

This first part talks of making contact with the ball in a tackle, a passive phrase which clarifies that incidental contact with the ball during a tackle isn't sufficient to rule for the ball carrier.

And that is where I totally disagree

"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."

This is silent about whether such contact is intentional or unintentional. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever to assume it means only unintentional contact. The only way to read this so that it is consistent with the wording, is that it means ANY contact, deliberate or not.

The clarification then goes on to clarify when it will not be a knock on. Nowhere does it exclude the intentional rip or knock of the ball from occurring during a tackle

Except that in the first part of the Clarification, the writer goes to the trouble of making it clear that it applies to a tackle ("a player in tackling an opponent) and then that phrase is omitted from the second part of the Clarification, and it refers only to "a player".

If they meant this to also apply to a player intentionally knocking the ball out in a tackle, why didn't they say that?

 

[RobLev]

...

If they meant this to also apply to a player intentionally knocking the ball out in a tackle, why didn't they say that?

By not saying "Otherwise than in making a tackle", they did.

 

[The Fat]

I'm getting very frustrated.
Sigh.....

 

[Baylion]

And that is where I totally disagree

Just read Lyndon Bray's, who you love to refer to at every turn, opinions on the two incidents, both involving tackles:

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

Stormers #14 deliberately propels the ball backwards with his hand towards his own goal line

 

[OB..]

I'm getting very frustrated.
Sigh.....

We have an argument over semantics, which assumes that various parties must have intended the various possible implications of what they actually wrote.

I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

(Alan Greenspan)

 

[Ian_Cook]

By not saying "Otherwise than in making a tackle", they did.

They don't need to say that. They did enough by pointedly including the phrase "a player in tackling an opponent" in the first part of the Clarification, and leaving it out of the second part

Just read Lyndon Bray's, who you love to refer to at every turn, opinions on the two incidents, both involving tackles:

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

Stormers #14 deliberately propels the ball backwards with his hand towards his own goal line

Thank you for helping to make my point. Lets quote the whole paragraph shall we

"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."

And get this... the Stormers #14 WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO TACKLE THE BALL CARRIER. Therefore, his actions are covered by the second part of Clarification 2014-1.

That is what Bray is explaining, and he had that confirmed for him by the iRB Rugby Committee before he made these statements. The iRB further Clarified this in 2014-1

 

[Browner]

By not saying "Otherwise than in making a tackle", they did.

Yep, it operates as a condition, which needs to be met in order for it to apply.

Was a L.15 Tackle made? Subjective judgement!

 

[Baylion]

And get this... the Stormers #14 WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO TACKLE THE BALL CARRIER. Therefore, his actions are covered by the second part of Clarification 2014-1.

Looks like an attempted tackle to me.



Video: http://youtu.be/Oicg-a1t-nc

Where does Bray say that Berry's decision was wrong because it was a tackle or that the Stormers player wasn't attempting a tackle? All he says is that Piutau's action wasn't deliberate and the Stormers player's was. The fact that the one ball carrier was intent on holding on to the ball and the other not is irrelevant.

Anyway, that's my last on this.

 

[leaguerefaus]

Looks like an attempted tackle to me.

View attachment 2851

Video: http://youtu.be/Oicg-a1t-nc

Where does Bray say that Berry's decision was wrong because it was a tackle or that the Stormers player wasn't attempting a tackle? All he says is that Piutau's action wasn't deliberate and the Stormers player's was. The fact that the one ball carrier was intent on holding on to the ball and the other not is irrelevant.

Anyway, that's my last on this.

They could have saved us all the trouble and picked up the knock on about 5 seconds into the video clip.

 

[RobLev]

They don't need to say that. They did enough by pointedly including the phrase "a player in tackling an opponent" in the first part of the Clarification, and leaving it out of the second part

I'm getting tired of this.

I construe legal language for a living; and yes, that is to some extent a claim to authority. The legal assumption would be that if they had intended the contrast between tackle/no tackle, they'd have put reference in both phrases.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Looks like an attempted tackle to me.

I see no attempt to grasp the ball carrier and bring him to ground, only an attempt (successful) to reach around the Ball carrier and knock the ball out.

Was a L.15 Tackle made? Subjective judgement!

No

A Law 15 tackle means the ball carrier is brought to ground.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Shall we all just agree that the clarification is unclear? It seems daft anyone saying that there is only one way of reading the clarification when both readings have full-throated and well reasoned support on here from sensible people. Personally, I tend to favour the Browner / RobLev approach, but I understand the other argument. I'm just not sure we all need to get so excited about it! Let's just referee these incidents sensibly and empathetically with the Clarification in mind.

 

[leaguerefaus]

I thought it was over, but evidently not...

 

[Ian_Cook]

For the past few weeks, I have kept quiet about this issue, choosing instead to watch and see how referees were handling these scenarios. Particularly, I was interested in incidents where the mechanics of the play were similar to that of the Lions v Blues incident, i.e. the tackler striking the ball out of the ball carrier's grasp with an hand over the ball carrier's shoulder.

My observations have been that, since the iRB Clarification 2014-1 came out, every incident in which the ball has been directly knocked out due to an opponent of the ball carrier striking the ball out in the course of executing a tackle, and the ball has then gone forward from the ball carrier, has been ruled as a knock on against the ball carrier.

Until tonight, every incident I had seen took place in a match refereed by either a New Zealand referee or an Australian referee. I was keen to see what would happen if one of these incidents were to take place in a match where a South African referee was in charge; would he rule it differently? Well tonight, I got my answer... they referee it exactly the same way as the Kiwi and Aussie referees and NOT how Stuart Berry and his TMO ruled it.

This is referee Jaco Peyper. The mechanics of the incident are very similar to that of the OP, except that it takes place in midfield rather than close to the goal-line. The tackle takes place at 0:18 with a slo-mo head-on replay at 0:48 which clearly shows the ball is not merely dislodged by the tackle, but is struck out of the ball carrier's grasp by the tackler's hand.