Tackled while kicking

[Rushforth]

I may be missing something really obvious.

Clearly a player in possession of the ball, running forwards, needs to drop it forwards of himself in order to kick it.

Equally clearly the time it takes to do so (half a second for a drop of four feet) is far too short for a committed tackler to pull out, so there is no issue of a late tackle to worry about.

I think that it is generally accepted that the player in possession of the ball should kick it before he is at risk of being tackled (even from behind) and don't have a problem with awarding the throw forward as a scrum to the other side (after advantage, of course).

That said, a tackle must be on the ball CARRIER. It makes sense to describe a kicker as "in possession" whilst in the act of kicking, but not as "carrying" the ball.

Is there a definitive answer to this dichotomy?

 

[The umpire]

I think that it is generally accepted that the player in possession of the ball should kick it before he is at risk of being tackled ....

No, I don't think it is...
If you are carrying it, in possession of it, or have dropped it with the intention of kicking it, then you are fair game to be tackled.

 

[OB..]

Since you normally have to release the ball forward in order to kick it, and that in itself is never sanctioned, it makes no sense to me to sanction it simply because a tackle happens to prevent the would-be kicker actually getting his foot to the ball.

 

[Davet]

Is it different if he muffs the kick and simply fails to put boot to ball?

Does an action by an opponent that creates the same effect make any difference?

 

[Rushforth]

Umpire, I don't disagree with you, but the way I phrased it was deliberately weaker (i.e. included within) your "fair game".

OB.., you were the expert I was hoping would come up with a ruling from 1959. But the problem is that the would-be kicker is no longer carrying the ball, and therefore it can equally be argued that tackling a player not carrying the ball is never sanctioned either.

This isn't like the case of the relativistic non-forward pass. There is a clear arrow of time: (1) release of ball, almost certainly forwards, with intent to kick; (2) tackle on a player not carrying the ball, yet sufficiently soon after release that there is no question of an illegal late tackle.

Edit: Davet, if (if!) that action is physical contact between a defender and an attacker who is not the ball carrier, then yes! First 7 words of definition of tackle in law 15.

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

 

[Phil E]

This is no different to a ball carrier who offloads just before he is tackled.
The tackler doesn't know the ball carrier is going to get rid of the ball (by whatever means) just before the tackle is made. He makes the tackle in good faith.

It's just one of those "falls between the cracks in the law" moments.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think it is generally accepted that the ball carrier is still carrying the ball until the moment he kicks it. Otherwise, a player to feints to kick even to the point of releasing the ball and catching it again, would be losing and regaining possession.

Note: those of us who are old enough to remember Hugo Porta will remember he was very good at this, so good in fact that he sometimes fooled his own outside backs, who would charge upfield in anticipation of the kick.

 

[OB..]

This is no different to a ball carrier who offloads just before he is tackled.

The concept of a forward pass is different. For a kick, the player releases the ball forwards. By convention, that is not usually penalised. I see no reason why the occurrence of a tackle should alter this, and I also think that should apply to an accidental air shot.

 

[Davet]

OB you seem to be suggesting that if a player tries to kick the ball - releasing it forward to drop so he can apply his boot to it, and then fluffs the kick - missing completely - an "air shot" - that this would not be called as a throw forward, or knock on (he lost possession and the ball went forward).

That would be an interesting non-decision to sell to the players.

I find the standard response is everybody has a fit of giggles and the ref blows up for the throw-forward, while smiling and saying - "unlucky..."

 

[OB..]

OB you seem to be suggesting that if a player tries to kick the ball - releasing it forward to drop so he can apply his boot to it, and then fluffs the kick - missing completely - an "air shot" - that this would not be called as a throw forward, or knock on (he lost possession and the ball went forward).

That would be an interesting non-decision to sell to the players.

I find the standard response is everybody has a fit of giggles and the ref blows up for the throw-forward, while smiling and saying - "unlucky..."

It is rare, usually resulting from slipping. However I think my view makes more sense than treating the (also rare) tackle scenario as a knock-on. I object to having a situation where an opponent can turn an accepted move into an infringement.

I would add something like the following to Law 12 [LAWS]Exception
Releasing the ball forward with the intention of kicking it is not a knock-on.[/LAWS]

 

[Davet]

Well that's a view - but clearly would require a Law change along the lines you suggest to make it happen.

As things stand I would take the view that the player attempting a kick who fails to connect with the ball for whatever reason has knocked-on/thrown-forward. Current law doesn't look for excuses in this area, merely the fact of it happening. I suggest the moral there is, ensure you have the necessary skills and time to complete the kick, or on your head be it.

 

[OB..]

Well that's a view - but clearly would require a Law change along the lines you suggest to make it happen.

As things stand I would take the view that the player attempting a kick who fails to connect with the ball for whatever reason has knocked-on/thrown-forward. Current law doesn't look for excuses in this area, merely the fact of it happening. I suggest the moral there is, ensure you have the necessary skills and time to complete the kick, or on your head be it.

Strictly speaking, current law does not allow a player to release the ball forward - but that is what we all necessarily allow. I see my view as a natural corollary.

 

[didds]

TBH I had never considered that a fluffed kick woud be a knock on... I think I'd be/am surprised that people may think it would be.
(tho thinking about the emchanics of it I woud agree it probably technically is one).

didds

 

[FlipFlop]

Sorry Didds - fluffed kick is always a knock on in my view, and never considered it wasn't. Ball released and goes forward. Can't see why it wouldn't be to be honest.

 

[didds]

oh I see your point flipflop... I just honestly had never considered that it would be treated as such ... never occurred to me. S'all.

didds

 

[Browner]

Strictly speaking, current law does not allow a player to release the ball forward - but that is what we all necessarily allow. .

It's almost impossible to punt or drop kick a ball without releasing it forward, There is an implied 'overriding' permission to do both within LoTG IMHO.

 

[menace]

Strictly speaking, current law does not allow a player to release the ball forward - but that is what we all necessarily allow. I see my view as a natural corollary.

But I think the laws now have been overcomplicated with too many exceptions and options....sometimes I wonder if those exceptions or options are needed and do the game good?

IMO..it's lost forward...tough. Next time make sure you give yourself actual time to kick it. I would hate to be arguing with a player on the merits of a dropped ball and he just flings the leg out.." But I was trying to kick it sir...I'm just not very good at it" . This will also only encourage props to try and kick as there will no infringement if they stuff it up. And we don't want that do we? :nono::nono:

Leave it as is...lets not complicate it by assessing intent...facts are easier to rule on.

 

[OB..]

It's almost impossible to punt or drop kick a ball without releasing it forward, There is an implied 'overriding' permission to do both within LoTG IMHO.

So you think it is fair that a legitimate move should be turned into an infringement by an opponent? For me that is a nonsense. I agree permision to release forward must be applied in order to play the game. I want it applied consistently.

 

[Rushforth]

For me that is a nonsense.

Lovely turn of phrase.

I'm glad this turned out to be in no way obvious (I was feeling like an idiot for posting about this issue, but then again, I am one often enough about other things).

I also have sufficient sympathy for the fluffing kicker who genuinely slips to support OB..'s interpretation.

Today I refereed three matches involving players born since Y2K (those born last millennium tended to be bigger and better), and the skill levels were sometimes low enough that I opted with marginal knock-ons to play on.

Not that I have any sympathy for adult players attempting to catch the ball if it bounces forward off their legs any more should they not be standing side-on, but there are sufficient cases of such "knock-ons" merely being undetectable by the referee, and similarly of "late tackles" not punished because there was no way in hell that the tackler could pull out, that with an obvious kick attempt, I'd be happy with a "play on" if the kicker is tackled.

Or simply a clarification that a kicker in the act of kicking is fair game. As long as it is consistent.

 

[Davet]

As far as I'm concerned if the ball carrier is tackled and drops the ball forwards then he has knocked on.

If he tries to kick and misses it then the ball has clearly gone forward. That's a scrum.

If an opponent gets to him and interrupts the kick process that becomes a knock on.

I see no problem around the opponent's action creating an offence. After all it did so in case 1 above, and I really hope that is not contested.