Pascal Gauzere - All Blacks v Pumas

[Browner]

Anyone got a video of this ruck charge?

That's a shocking 'cheap shot' of Botha vintage !, definate YC , but I'm heading toward RC , its more dangerous than many RC offences when viewed in a concussion context.

 

[ChrisR]

SimonSmith and others,

there is no definition of a charge down! Yes, there is a reference that states that a charge down is not a knock on even if the ball goes forward but there is no definition of a charge down.

Is it a charge down if a kicked ball caroms of an opponent who is standing still? Is it a charge down if a player, moving toward the kicker, tries to duck out of the way but gets hit by the ball? This stuff does happen.

In the two cases above if the ball goes forward off the arm of the player, is that a knock on?

 

[Pinky]

OK, seen the pickup after the charge down was clean, so for me, try time.

The hit on McCaw was a RC as evidenced by ban, but not too surprised the to3 missed it at first. Ball was at back, so ref prob watching ball and AR prob o/s lines, but if they went to TMO, surprised it was not more than PK

 

[Shane D]

Seriously if the AR was not looking at the incident where was he looking? The players were in line with the ball relative to his position & near the sideline. As an AR on the side of the field where the ball is, I would have thought that he would be looking at the ball, the chasing players & the proximity to the sideline. If the AR was not looking in this direction one can only assume he was distracted by some unexpected dancing gorillas!

 

[The Fat]

Am I correct in saying that the player who charged McCaw at the ruck at about 50 minutes is the same player who executes the charge down and "scores" the try at about 56 minutes?

I have not watched the replay of this game yet but if that is the case then I have just lost sympathy for the player with the disallowed try. He should not have been on the field at that time. If a player charged head first into an opponent at a ruck like that in one of my games, I would not hesitate to show the RC.
That being said, I believe the ref cocked it up with the charge down incident. An ordinary performance when you add in the player (Savea?) taken without the ball and the hit on McCaw (even though I do enjoy seeing Sir Ritchie cop a bit, I don't enjoy seeing a player hit like that with dangerous play).

 

[crossref]

Is it a charge down if a kicked ball caroms of an opponent who is standing still? Is it a charge down if a player, moving toward the kicker, tries to duck out of the way but gets hit by the ball? This stuff does happen.

In the two cases above if the ball goes forward off the arm of the player, is that a knock on?

unless the ball hits the player's arm/hand it doesn't matter if it's a charge down or not, ball coming off a body=play on.

charge down is only a relavant concept when it comes off an arm.

What's the general case here. If a player is standing up but paying no attention to the action (let's say he is getting up from an injury or a tackle) and a ball hits his arms and comes off forwards, would you give a knock on? Or is it play on ?
Does it make a difference whether the ball was kicked or thrown, and who by?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Am I correct in saying that the player who charged McCaw at the ruck at about 50 minutes is the same player who executes the charge down and "scores" the try at about 56 minutes?

I have not watched the replay of this game yet but if that is the case then I have just lost sympathy for the player with the disallowed try. He should not have been on the field at that time. If a player charged head first into an opponent at a ruck like that in one of my games, I would not hesitate to show the RC.

Nope, not the same player.

The player who charged Nonu's kick down was the No. 8 Leonardo Senatore. The player who charged into the ruck was the lock, Tomas Lavanini.

That being said, I believe the ref cocked it up with the charge down incident. An ordinary performance when you add in the player (Savea?) taken without the ball and the hit on McCaw (even though I do enjoy seeing Sir Ritchie cop a bit, I don't enjoy seeing a player hit like that with dangerous play).

Particularly as the ongoing and long term effects of concussion is such a focus at the moment, attacks to the head must be severely dealt with. The one week suspension he got is a joke. He should have been RC and copped a far longer break from the game.

 

[SimonSmith]

SimonSmith and others,

there is no definition of a charge down! Yes, there is a reference that states that a charge down is not a knock on even if the ball goes forward but there is no definition of a charge down.

Is it a charge down if a kicked ball caroms of an opponent who is standing still? Is it a charge down if a player, moving toward the kicker, tries to duck out of the way but gets hit by the ball? This stuff does happen.

In the two cases above if the ball goes forward off the arm of the player, is that a knock on?

I disagree. There is a definition of a knock on. There is then an exception to that definition, which to me makes it a definition.
I think the answers to your question are: maybe.
For a charge down be given, it must fulfill this part of the exception:If a player charges down the ball.

For a knock on to be given, the conditions laid out in the definition must be met. If he tries to get out of the way, fails and it hits his hands and goes forward, then yes, I think you have a KO.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I disagree. There is a definition of a knock on. There is then an exception to that definition, which to me makes it a definition.
I think the answers to your question are: maybe.
For a charge down be given, it must fulfill this part of the exception:If a player charges down the ball.

For a knock on to be given, the conditions laid out in the definition must be met. If he tries to get out of the way, fails and it hits his hands and goes forward, then yes, I think you have a KO.

I think Marauder is implying more that there is no description of what constitutes a charge down. Its one of those things, like the "Hand Off", which has only recently been defined in Law;

"Hand-off: An action taken by a ball carrier to fend off an opponent by using the palm of
the hand."

Everyone knew what it was, but it wasn't described.

Imagine someone who has never seen a rugby match before, reading the Law 12 definitions. The charge down exception would make no sense unless they had actually seen one. If they asked you what a charge down was, how would you respond?

How about something like....

"Charge Down: A charge down occurs when player attempts to block an opponent's kick without attempting to catch the ball."

 

[ChrisR]

Thank you, Ian.

 

[OB..]

OB, I know you want to defend the match officials, but at this level of the game I fully expect officials to have sufficient peripheral vision to see something a couple of degrees off the exact point at which they are looking, i.e. I expect referees of this calibre to see the moonwalking bear first time up.

Peripheral vision, yes, and scanning the play is good, but concentration is different. If a referee over-concentrates on the ball at a scrum to check for a valid throw-in, he might miss an offence by a prop. You can't paint these things in black and white.

You are effectively claiming that he must have seen it therefore he got it badly wrong. You may well be right, but we don't actually know if it was vision or judgement that failed. We can still point out the error.

 

[OB..]

How about something like....

"Charge Down: A charge down occurs when player attempts to block an opponent's kick without attempting to catch the ball."

50m kick is going over the full back's head. He sticks up his hands, making no effort to catch the ball. Charge down? That's why the current law says "as an opponent kicks it, or immediately after the kick".

I still think the essence is that the player has no realistic chance to adjust to the flight of the ball, so he can't be blamed if it goes forward off his hans/arms.. That means proximity is important. I don't think "ball rising" is enough because you can kick a low trajectory that can be caught on the rise some metres away.

 

[crossref]

I still think the essence is that the player has no realistic chance to adjust to the flight of the ball, so he can't be blamed if it goes forward off his hans/arms.. That means proximity is important. .

on that definition -- which is not a bad one -- then the Argentina v NZ incident wasn't a charge down, as because he wasn't very close to the kicker, and the kick wasn't very hard, the player was able to influence the path of the ball: viz: specifically I think he was able to ensure that it went forwards off his hands.

 

[OB..]

on that definition -- which is not a bad one -- then the Argentina v NZ incident wasn't a charge down, as because he wasn't very close to the kicker, and the kick wasn't very hard, the player was able to influence the path of the ball: viz: specifically I think he was able to ensure that it went forwards off his hands.

I thnk it is borderlne. I suggested earlier he may have flapped at the ball.

 

[crossref]

I thnk it is borderlne. I suggested earlier he may have flapped at the ball.

yes, I agree it's borderline -- which is why I do have some sympathy with the ref.

I actually think he could have sold a PK for a deliberate knock on. But a scrum was def wrong.

 

[ChrisR]

I think he did "flap" at the ball. But should that mean it wasn't a charge down? I'd caution against adding qualifiers as it can only muddy the waters.

Proximity? Immediately? Ian's definition doesn't these require those judgments.

 

[crossref]

I think he did "flap" at the ball. But should that mean it wasn't a charge down? I'd caution against adding qualifiers as it can only muddy the waters.

Proximity? Immediately? Ian's definition doesn't these require those judgments.

Ian's defintion

"Charge Down: A charge down occurs when player attempts to block an opponent's kick without attempting to catch the ball."

is a start, but it's faulty : as someone else points out that definition would allow a full back 30m from the kicker to block an oncoming grubber kick with his hands...

 

[Ian_Cook]

I thnk it is borderlne. I suggested earlier he may have flapped at the ball.

Watch the video again OB. He puts his arms up to block it and starts to jump before the kick is made. How can be be "flapping at" something that isn't yet there to flap at?

How about this definition?

"Charge Down: A charge down occurs when player attempts to block an opponent's kick without attempting to catch the ball. The kicked ball must be rising, and the attempt must must be pre-emptive, not a reaction to the flight of the ball"

 

[OB..]

Watch the video again OB. He puts his arms up to block it and starts to jump before the kick is made. How can be be "flapping at" something that isn't yet there to flap at?

I watched it several times. I agree he had his hands up and started to jump before the kick, but that is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not he had time to adjust to the flight of the ball. If, while in the air he realised his hands were in the wrong place and moved them to block the ball he could well be said to have hit the ball forward, rather than have it bounce off him.

I could not be sure. Hitting the ball is, of course, worse than trying to catch it and failing.

 

[crossref]

I suspect he had enough time, and control to be able to make sure that the ball bounced forwards off his hands. There was a suspicion, in my mind, of a volley ball type block. If that was indeed the case, that he was able to ensure it bounced forwards, then a PK would be correct.

I agree that it's borderline. I think the referee could have sold either decision (play on or PK) . Unfortunately, the decision that's clearly wrong is the one he gave, knock on.