Push in the back of the ball carrier

[Phil E]

Which is why Law 1.6b requires the referee not to start the game if such an object exists.

TV cameras, advertising hoardings, floodlight poles, spectators, fences................you can't not start because of these, and under normal circumstances they are safe, but if a player pushes a ball carrier who is on the edge of the pitch it could be dangerous.

I am just disputing your statement that "I don't believe that a push can ever be dangerous".

Never say never.....or ever!

 

[Browner]

This thread is in danger of taking a perfectly normal situation and making it utterly confusing to the OP. The fact is that it is legal in rugby to push a player - and even to push him so that he falls over (why else would you do it?). In both law and common sense, the specific trumps the general. So I suspect RobLev knew that he was just stirring the pot with his rather cheeky suggestion that knocking down with a failure to grasp might trump 7.1.

See above. This is the general provision that is trumped by the specific one allowing pushing.

I don't believe that a push can ever be dangerous, unless directed above the shoulders.

On the contrary ....
Law 7.1 acts as the general permission
Law 10.4(g) excepts the general permission.

Thats how Law is constructed, as a further example.....
Law 7.1 generally permits "

any player to throw the ball[FONT=fs_blakeregular].[/FONT]

Law 10.2(c) specifically ecepts/outlaws

intentionally throwing it into touch

Pushing an on-feet Ball carrier forwards/ backwards/sideways or into touch isnt barred , nor does Law prescribe the amount of force used in those acts provided they include a grasp attempt , furthermore if a grasp is attempted then a player is permitted to also force/push/shove player to the ground.

Law doesn't permit an ungrasped 'knocking' of the BC to the ground, this is misleadingly referred to as a "no arms tackle" when it might aid viewer/player understanding/compliance if it were described as "no grasp attempted"

Its the grasp (or lack of) that is crucial in determining a 10.4(g) offence, id cite- Liam Williams v SA as evidence.

Its fairly clear to me that any player who delivers a forceful two handed ' jabbing type' shove (without any evidence of a grasp being attempted) on an opponent ball carrier , commits an offence under 10.4(g).

I accept its ignored by many referees , and I accept that the upper level/adult game routinely ignores this Law, but that psuedo 'acceptability convention' in itself does not make it redundant.

The referee in the OP seemed law correct , as it was described.

 

[crossref]

Its fairly clear to me that any player who delivers a forceful two handed ' jabbing type' shove (without any evidence of a grasp being attempted) on an opponent ball carrier , commits an offence under 10.4(g).

this is the nub of it : I think you are plain wrong: The Law expressly says a player may push the ball carrier

(and pushes are normally two handed, a one handed push isn't likely to be effective)

 

[OB..]

Pushing an on-feet Ball carrier forwards/ backwards/sideways or into touch isnt barred , nor does Law prescribe the amount of force used in those acts provided they include a grasp attempt , furthermore if a grasp is attempted then a player is permitted to also force/push/shove player to the ground.

Law doesn't permit an ungrasped 'knocking' of the BC to the ground, this is misleadingly referred to as a "no arms tackle" when it might aid viewer/player understanding/compliance if it were described as "no grasp attempted"

Its the grasp (or lack of) that is crucial in determining a 10.4(g) offence, id cite- Liam Williams v SA as evidence.

Its fairly clear to me that any player who delivers a forceful two handed ' jabbing type' shove (without any evidence of a grasp being attempted) on an opponent ball carrier , commits an offence under 10.4(g).

I accept its ignored by many referees , and I accept that the upper level/adult game routinely ignores this Law, but that psuedo 'acceptability convention' in itself does not make it redundant.

The referee in the OP seemed law correct , as it was described.

You are entitled to your view, but I do not accept it. A "no arms tackle"refers to one where the shoulder is used with no attempt to grasp. A simple push with the hands is permitted and IMHO it is for the referee to judge if it is done dangerously. The fact that a player goes to ground is not in itself sufficient to label it dangerous. we don't want to encourage soccer-style diving!

 

[Browner]

You are entitled to your view, but I do not accept itA "no arms tackle"refers to one where the shoulder is used with no attempt to grasp. A simple push with the hands is permitted and IMHO it is for the referee to judge if it is done dangerously. The fact that a player goes to ground is not in itself sufficient to label it dangerous. we don't want to encourage soccer-style diving!

fftopic: im not debating subjectivity of 'dangerously'.

Was he the BC - yes
Was he 'knocked' to ground - yes
Did the opponent attempt to grasp him - no
PK then

Did he use his delt/pec/trap or biceps???, law doesn't specify which of those or any combination ...

Now if your saying thats rarely PK coz most either don't know, or don't care, or choose to ignore well thats a different thread where we could include many other law ignorings

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/push
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/knock

 

[crossref]

browner you're not listening. We are saying you have made a mistake about the law.

You are allowed to push the ball carrier.

You are claiming that is illegal to push the ball carrier with two hands and/or that is illegal to push the ball carrier if he falls over.

I am saying you are wrong on both counts: pushing a ball carrier is legal

 

[Browner]

this is the nub of it : I think you are plain wrong: The Law expressly says a player may push the ball carrier

(and pushes are normally two handed, a one handed push isn't likely to be effective)

Crossref, you're not listening !

You can't hang your hat on 7.1 being absolute , otherwise there are plenty of PKs that couldnt ever happen
7.1_is a start point, the detail is in each individual law.

[LAWS][FONT=fs_blakeregular]7.1[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] Playing a match
A[/FONT][FONT=fs_blakeregular] match is started by a kick-off.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may throw it or kick it.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may give the ball to another player.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may fall on the ball.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may ground the ball in in-goal.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.[/FONT][/LAWS]

How many of those have contrary exceptions within specific ( and overriding) law, you can continue the list if you wish , I started one with 10.2(c) ...TBC ?????

You might not agree with its application , and I've never actually said that I think its relevant in pro rugby , but its in there 10.4(g) , in black & white.

What I do think is, the more 'opponent grasping within tackling' is encouraged :clap: an 'not grasping' is penalised :clap:, then we will have a less 'hit/smash/bang/crash/concussion increasing code

As an aside, 10.4(g) Appears deliberately worded to me, do you think its a drafting error?

 

[crossref]

OK I'll give up..... after just one more attempt! ...

It's legal to push a ball carrier -
[LAWS]Law 7.1 - World Rugby Laws
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.[/LAWS]

it's illegal to charge/knock down a ball carrier

[LAWS]10.4(g): Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.[/LAWS]

your argument is based on the mistaken idea that push and knock down are the same thing.
But they are not the same :
- in ordinary language (as your dictionary defintions show) - 'push' is not the same as 'knock'.
- in the Laws, 'push' and 'knock' obviously are not meant to be the same thing, indeed they are carefully distinguished, one being legal and the other being illegal.

 

[Browner]

To evidence that 7.1 isn't absolute.

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]7.1 Playing a match[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A match is started by a kick-off.[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it. Unless he knocks on[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may throw it or kick it.But not deliberately throw forward or into touch[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may give the ball to another player.Unless he's handing it to a teammate in front[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may tackle, if he's on the ground he cant hold or push an opponent holding the ball.Provided he doesn't breach 10.4(g)[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may fall on the ball except in a scrum, or as it leaves a scrum/ruck [/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout. provided STE is observed[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Any player may ground the ball in in-goal. ??[/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent. [/FONT]
[FONT=fs_blakeregular]Whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game.

Individual Laws often amend this broad game play description.[/FONT]

 

[Browner]

OK I'll give up..... after just one more attempt! ...
.

Making an attempt is sufficient to avoid offending !

 

[OB..]

Was he the BC - yes
Was he 'knocked' to ground - yes
Did the opponent attempt to grasp him - no
PK then

You choose to say "knocked" rather than "pushed". If it was a push then I would mark that as a law error.

 

[RobLev]

OK I'll give up..... after just one more attempt! ...

It's legal to push a ball carrier -
[LAWS]Law 7.1 - World Rugby Laws
Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.[/LAWS]

it's illegal to charge/knock down a ball carrier

[LAWS]10.4(g): Dangerous charging. A player must not charge or knock down an opponent carrying the ball without trying to grasp that player.[/LAWS]

your argument is based on the mistaken idea that push and knock down are the same thing.
But they are not the same :
- in ordinary language (as your dictionary defintions show) - 'push' is not the same as 'knock'.
- in the Laws, 'push' and 'knock' obviously are not meant to be the same thing, indeed they are carefully distinguished, one being legal and the other being illegal.

You seem to assume that "knock down" excludes use of the hands, because pushing is allowed. If that is right, knocking a non-BC down with what part of my body is illegal? It's not the shoulder referrred to here, because a [shoulder] charge is rendered illegal per se in the self-same law.

 

[OB..]

The claim seems to be that while it is legal to push a ball carrier, if he goes to ground as a consequence, it is a penalty offence.

Sorry, but you are never going to convince me that makes sense.

 

[crossref]

You seem to assume that "knock down" excludes use of the hands, because pushing is allowed. If that is right, .

no - I am saying that pushing a player is different from charging/knocking down a player.

The dictionary defintions that browner himself posted above do a fine job of explaining the difference -

PUSH -
Exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself:
Hold and exert force on (something) so as to cause it to move in front of one:

KNOCK
Collide with (someone or something), giving them a hard blow

Meanwhile you seem to be saying that pushng and knocking are pretty much the same thing
- depsite the common meaning of the words being different
- despite the Laws clearly distingusihing, making one legal and one illegal

 

[Browner]

The claim seems to be that while it is legal to push a ball carrier, if he goes to ground as a consequence, it is a penalty offence.

Sorry, but you are never going to convince me that makes sense.

Rather that the game creators didn't want to see players running at a BCs and knocking /shoving/barging/pushing them to the ground, they wanted tackling via grasping, so provided you attempt to do that then you are fine, but conversely if you dont try to grasp then they created a PK sanction to dissude you from repeating the practice.

least that's my best guess .

The modern day crash/hit wasn't to be encouraged, not sure why it is ...... Maybe spectators love seeing it, and coaches demand it ?!!!! , the actual possession gaining value is fairly low.

IMHO penalising all non grasps would have a 'impact' ( excuse the pun) on reducing injuries & concussions, and any reduction - even if a small % saving (likely) would be welcomed. The media that glorify hits and smashes indicates there is a bloodthirstyesk baying spectator appetite, the general increase of the same which might correlate to the rise of impact injuries.

If i havent convinced you, then sobeit, its said "you can only lead a horse to water" :hap:

 

[Browner]

no - I am saying that pushing a player is different from charging/knocking down a player.

The dictionary defintions that browner himself posted above do a fine job of explaining the difference -




Meanwhile you seem to be saying that pushng and knocking are pretty much the same thing
- depsite the common meaning of the words being different
- despite the Laws clearly distingusihing, making one legal and one illegal

You are starting to get there Crossref

PUSH -
Exert force on (someone or something) in order to move them away from oneself:
Hold and exert force on (something) so as to cause it to move in front of one:

KNOCK
Collide with (someone or something), giving them a hard blow

hold and shove/nudge/force etc = push
No hold = a blow/knock/collision

The absence of a grasp attempt, makes to two acts fairly easily to identify and then sanction as law expects.

 

[damo]

I guess this means that you would also penalise an ankle tap Browner? After all, there is no attempt to wrap the arms in that type of tackle either?

 

[RobLev]

no - I am saying that pushing a player is different from charging/knocking down a player.

...

Meanwhile you seem to be saying that pushng and knocking are pretty much the same thing
- depsite the common meaning of the words being different
- despite the Laws clearly distingusihing, making one legal and one illegal

So how do I knock someone down (illegally) without using my hands or my shoulder?

And no, I do not say that pushing and knocking are pretty much the same thing.

 

[Browner]

I guess this means that you would also penalise an ankle tap Browner? After all, there is no attempt to wrap the arms in that type of tackle either?

Hi damo,

I wondered when this would pop up - thanks,

Start by removing the word TAP, its a misdescription.

The "ankle tap thingy" is much more akin to a Trip (or more accurately 'normally a hand swipe that connects with one of the BC legs/feet , causing them to collide & then because he is moving at speed causes him to unbalance or stumble or fall or collapse' )

If the game wants to keep it ( im actually non plussed either way ) then it would be better to define and specifically permit it in TLoTG IMO.

However, the current position seems to be that the tripping of an opponent with your hand aka "the ankle tap" seems to be expressely permitted merely because the trip law 10.4(d) doesn't include the use of a hand, which I assume was a deliberate attempt by the lawwriters to permit the hand swipe/trip/tappy thing , although it does seem to fly against the "try to grasp" ethos of the game, of that I agree.

I suspect it exists because a desperately flailing tackle attempt often results in these inadvertant hand ( finger/arm) Trippings, so it was thought better to allow it rather than bar it.

So, to answer your question, 10.4(d) appears to have a exemption permission that makes it more applicable than 10.4(g) in dealing with the act you describe.

:shrug:

 

[Browner]

Compare these collisions by freezing the vid at the point of impact.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2wtYc-PPCCE
http://www.rugbyonslaught.com/2015/05/japanese-defender-teaches-argentine.html

Neither grasp the BC, both lead with shoulder , Both BC are knocked into touch, but one stays on feet the other gets knocked to the ground.

So is it the fact that the BC doesn't get knocked to ground that determines the charging offence, or is it the BCs approach height/dive to the try line that is responsible for the japananese player escaping the same offence as LW?