Was white ...tackling red ...OR ...was white deliberately knocking the ball from red

[Ian_Cook]

And unless you are saying it is impossible to rip the ball or deliberately knock it from an opponent's hands while at the same time tackling him, the two choices in the poll are not mutually exclusive.

This is where we differ I think.

Browner has finally come around to agreeing with most of the rest of us, including the iRB, SANZAR Referee Manager and now, the SARU Referee Manager that if a player is attempting to tackle an opponent, then ANY contact with the ball (in possession of the ball carrier) is part of the tackle, and therefore if the ball goes forward from the Ball Carrier, it is a knock on. This is what Law Clarification 2014-1 says

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 sentence
a. refers to the fact that we are talking about a tackle.
b. refers to "contact with the ball" but it does not specify intentional or unintentional contact, therefore, BY DEFAULT, this must mean ANY contact.

However, a situation can arise where a player makes no attempt to tackle an opponent, and instead, targets the ball to rip or knock the ball out of the ball carrier's grasp. This is covered by the second sentence...

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.

THIS sentence
a. talks about intent... rips the ball or deliberately knocks...
b. does not refer to the tackle in any way

The mistake that you, and I believe some others, are making is that you are treating the two sentences as individual statements, whereas in fact they are each part of a whole, part of the explanation.

The first sentence explains the situation when there is a tackle.
The second sentence makes no mention of the tackle. It doesn't because that is covered by the first sentence.

If this wasn't so, then the second sentence would partially contradict what they have just said in the first sentence. Therefore Browner is right (did I just say that!?), the two poll choices are mutually exclusive, because "tackling" automatically rules out any intentional knocking out of the ball, and intentional knocking out the the ball automatically rules out a tackle being involved.

If the Rugby Committee had meant that intentional contact with the ball in the tackle was not to be considered a knock-on by the ball carrier, the simple insertion of one word would have made that clear

If a player in tackling an opponent makes unintentional contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carriers hands, that is a knock on.

They didn't, and while we all know the iRB has something of a reputation for lacking clarity in their Laws and Rulings, I think its fair to say that they would likely have made an extra effort to be clear in this case, since it was not just a request from a Union, but a matter of some contention between two Unions.

Having seen the light, I believe that Browner is now hanging his hat on the actual circumstances of the incident in the Lions v Blues match that brought all this up. I believe he is saying that the Referee and TMO in that match applied the second sentence, and by putting up this poll, he is hoping others agree. Its probably fair to say that, so far, this hasn't gone quite the way he had hoped.

 

[Browner]

Classic Cook, a jaundiced diatribe within which he condescends his view on what others opine..

The only thing I've 'seen the light on' is that spiteful communication trait.

But in true Rugby off field tradition, should he ever stray unshepherded into my locality , Id happily buy him the first pint of Spitfire Ale.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Classic Cook, a jaundiced diatribe within which he condescends his view on what others opine..

The only thing I've 'seen the light on' is that spiteful communication trait.

But in true Rugby off field tradition, should he ever stray unshepherded into my locality , Id happily buy him the first pint of Spitfire Ale.

Condescending? Spiteful? Strong words with no basis; and I'd sooner have a beer with Simon Cowell

Try attacking the opinion, not the person, and you'll get on better here!

 

[Dixie]

I think you underestimate the skill / decisions speed of elite players

While I have seen some quite wonderful skills displayed on a field, I've also seen far too many simple overlaps butchered at the very highest level (particularly by miss-passes allowing the defence to drift) to be overawed by the infallibility of the pro player.

 

[RobLev]

This is where we differ I think.

Browner has finally come around to agreeing with most of the rest of us, including the iRB, SANZAR Referee Manager and now, the SARU Referee Manager that if a player is attempting to tackle an opponent, then ANY contact with the ball (in possession of the ball carrier) is part of the tackle, and therefore if the ball goes forward from the Ball Carrier, it is a knock on. This is what Law Clarification 2014-1 says

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 sentence
a. refers to the fact that we are talking about a tackle.
b. refers to "contact with the ball" but it does not specify intentional or unintentional contact, therefore, BY DEFAULT, this must mean ANY contact.

However, a situation can arise where a player makes no attempt to tackle an opponent, and instead, targets the ball to rip or knock the ball out of the ball carrier's grasp. This is covered by the second sentence...

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.

THIS sentence
a. talks about intent... rips the ball or deliberately knocks...
b. does not refer to the tackle in any way

The mistake that you, and I believe some others, are making is that you are treating the two sentences as individual statements, whereas in fact they are each part of a whole, part of the explanation.

The first sentence explains the situation when there is a tackle.
The second sentence makes no mention of the tackle. It doesn't because that is covered by the first sentence.

If this wasn't so, then the second sentence would partially contradict what they have just said in the first sentence. Therefore Browner is right (did I just say that!?), the two poll choices are mutually exclusive, because "tackling" automatically rules out any intentional knocking out of the ball, and intentional knocking out the the ball automatically rules out a tackle being involved.

If the Rugby Committee had meant that intentional contact with the ball in the tackle was not to be considered a knock-on by the ball carrier, the simple insertion of one word would have made that clear

If a player in tackling an opponent makes unintentional contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carriers hands, that is a knock on.

They didn't, and while we all know the iRB has something of a reputation for lacking clarity in their Laws and Rulings, I think its fair to say that they would likely have made an extra effort to be clear in this case, since it was not just a request from a Union, but a matter of some contention between two Unions.

Having seen the light, I believe that Browner is now hanging his hat on the actual circumstances of the incident in the Lions v Blues match that brought all this up. I believe he is saying that the Referee and TMO in that match applied the second sentence, and by putting up this poll, he is hoping others agree. Its probably fair to say that, so far, this hasn't gone quite the way he had hoped.

We do disagree; the natural meaning of the words used, IMH(but semi-expert)O, goes against you, as does the interpretation adopted by this referee. Having said that, we have already had a long-ish thread where our differences of interpretation were aired, and I see little point in revisiting it. We can only see how it is interpreted by the referees...

 

[beckett50]

IMO the TMO and the referee conspired to reach the wrong conclusion in this instance.

White did indeed knock the ball from the red ball carrier's arm and the last touch of the ball was by red's chest before it hit the ground. Therefore, in the strict letter of the Law - and many subsequent clarifications - a knock-on has occurred and so the decision should have been a scrum to white.

 

[RobLev]

IMO the TMO and the referee conspired to reach the wrong conclusion in this instance.

White did indeed knock the ball from the red ball carrier's arm and the last touch of the ball was by red's chest before it hit the ground. Therefore, in the strict letter of the Law - and many subsequent clarifications - a knock-on has occurred and so the decision should have been a scrum to white.

I take the point BUT: clarification 4/2011, of which 1/2014 is a further clarification, was in the context of a request for clarification making it unnecessary to try to establish in minute detail who last touched the ball:

[LAWS]The Law does not explicitly cover scenarios where the ball is ripped out of the possession of a ball-carrier by an opponent. In these situations it is almost impossible for the referee to determine exactly who last touched or had physical contact with the ball.[/LAWS]

so it is unnecessary and I would suggest unhelpful to analyse the ping-pong as you have.

 

[RobLev]

We do disagree; the natural meaning of the words used, IMH(but semi-expert)O, goes against you, as does the interpretation adopted by this referee. Having said that, we have already had a long-ish thread where our differences of interpretation were aired, and I see little point in revisiting it. We can only see how it is interpreted by the referees...

Having said which, there is one question which may generate more light than heat.

Scenario: defender makes contact (between hip and shoulder) with, and grasps, ball carrier who already has a team-mate bound on. After a couple of seconds, instead of continuing to try to get the BC to ground, the defender instead rips the ball from the BC's grasp and the ball lands behind him (the defender). Knock-on or no knock-on, and why (not)?

 

[Browner]

IMO the TMO and the referee conspired to reach the wrong conclusion in this instance.

White did indeed knock the ball from the red ball carrier's arm and the last touch of the ball was by red's chest before it hit the ground. Therefore, in the strict letter of the Law - and many subsequent clarifications - a knock-on has occurred and so the decision should have been a scrum to white.

Thats interesting Beckett, because all Law requires is a deliberate "ball knock" outside of a bonafide tackle attempt. Your reference to the hitting of the chest is irrelevant because hitting the chest doesn't constitute a 'knock on' as defined in law. Unless you can reference something new!!!!???!!!.

If you adjudge it a ' tackle attempt' then thats up to you, I didn't, because the conditions of a tackle (wrap/held/brought to ground etc) weren't clear enough for me.

Did White knock Red off his feet?, yes - clearly, but that's not sufficient for it to meet the definition of Tackle in Law.

 

[Browner]

Condescending? Spiteful? Strong words with no basis; and I'd sooner have a beer with Simon Cowell

Try attacking the opinion, not the person, and you'll get on better here!

No action, no reaction Rodney.
& that suggestion is about as as hypocritical as I've heard this decade!
Go away.

 

[Browner]

Having said which, there is one question which may generate more light than heat.

Scenario: defender makes contact (between hip and shoulder) with, and grasps, ball carrier who already has a team-mate bound on. After a couple of seconds, instead of continuing to try to get the BC to ground, the defender instead rips the ball from the BC's grasp and the ball lands behind him (the defender). Knock-on or no knock-on, and why (not)?

Is it a maul? No - forming conditions didnt exist.
Rip is exempt from being a knock on (4\2011) , so not a knock on.

 

[The Fat]

Having said which, there is one question which may generate more light than heat.

Scenario: defender makes contact (between hip and shoulder) with, and grasps, ball carrier who already has a team-mate bound on. After a couple of seconds, instead of continuing to try to get the BC to ground, the defender instead rips the ball from the BC's grasp and the ball lands behind him (the defender). Knock-on or no knock-on, and why (not)?

Regardless of the fact that a maul existed and then ended, it is play on for everyone.
Defender rips the ball from BC and ball travels towards defender's DBL so no knock-on by ball carrier's team = play on for them.
Ball has gone back from the defender's rip/strip = play on for his team.

RobLev,
I do realise you are wanting to discuss tackle attempt v maul.

 

[The Fat]

So far the poll is supporting the view that there was an attempt to tackle the BC (83%).
Your thoughts at this stage please Browner? (Should I have said Mr. Browner? My question is a polite one but just seems the opposite as written. Is there a "Polite and Genuinely Interested" smiley?)

 

[Treadmore]

Alrighty, I see the white player try to tackle by putting an arm over the shoulder of the red runner and his hand hit the ball as he did that. Stuff like that happens in tackles sometimes.

So you say a tackle or tackle attempt above the line of the shoulders - why doesn't 10.4 (e) apply?

 

[RobLev]

Is it a maul? No - forming conditions didnt exist.

Really? We have a ball carrier with players of both teams bound onto him. Are you relying on the order of binding?

Rip is exempt from being a knock on (4\2011) ,

Not in a tackle, according to Ian, to whom I directed the question.

so not a knock on.

 

[Browner]

Really? We have a ball carrier with players of both teams bound onto him. Are you relying on the order of binding?



Not in a tackle, according to Ian, to whom I directed the question.

yes the bind order is important.
If it wasnt , a bound pair of players couldn't result in the BC being tackled by the first arriving opponent without deliberatec maul collapse simultaneously occurring.

 

[RobLev]

yes the bind order is important.
If it wasnt , a bound pair of players couldn't result in the BC being tackled by the first arriving opponent without deliberatec maul collapse simultaneously occurring.

There have been a lot of electrons sacrificed to discussing precisely that point on this very blog. Unless I read the debate wrong, you are not expressing the majority view.

Having said that, assume that the bind order is reversed; that the defender's tackle is immediately followed by the BC's team-mate binding on.

 

[RobLev]

Regardless of the fact that a maul existed and then ended, it is play on for everyone.
Defender rips the ball from BC and ball travels towards defender's DBL so no knock-on by ball carrier's team = play on for them.
Ball has gone back from the defender's rip/strip = play on for his team.

RobLev,
I do realise you are wanting to discuss tackle attempt v maul.

I agree your analysis; but I am, as you say, interested in how Ian would referee it during the time when he is waiting to see whether the tackle has been successful before calling it a maul.

 

[The Fat]

I agree your analysis; but I am, as you say, interested in how Ian would referee it during the time when he is waiting to see whether the tackle has been successful before calling it a maul.

As you replied to Browner, the existence of a maul and the timing of calling the maul has been discussed at length on this site.
FWIW, if I was refereeing your scenario, I would be looking at the dynamics of the "maul/tackle attempt" for a second or two (please don't take me to task on exact timing people), to determine what phase of play we have.
If the players remain on their feet, I would call "Maul, taken in by....(insert colour)....).
If the momentum of the contact means that they are going to ground, then we have a tackle phase. Yes, I know, I can hear howls of "it was technically a maul so you have to penalise the defender for collapsing", but we have debated that one to death and you would not have much of a game if you called maul the instant that a BC and a player from each team came together the instant that happened at every occasion during a game.

I'll go out on a limb here, with your scenario being directed at Ian C, and say that I think that he will give the same answer that I did.

 

[Ian_Cook]

As you replied to Browner, the existence of a maul and the timing of calling the maul has been discussed at length on this site.
FWIW, if I was refereeing your scenario, I would be looking at the dynamics of the "maul/tackle attempt" for a second or two (please don't take me to task on exact timing people), to determine what phase of play we have.
If the players remain on their feet, I would call "Maul, taken in by....(insert colour)....).
If the momentum of the contact means that they are going to ground, then we have a tackle phase. Yes, I know, I can hear howls of "it was technically a maul so you have to penalise the defender for collapsing", but we have debated that one to death and you would not have much of a game if you called maul the instant that a BC and a player from each team came together the instant that happened at every occasion during a game.

Pretty much.

If a maul is instantly called in those circumstances, we'll end up with a game that bears less resemblance to rugby union, and more resemblance to a game we used to play at school, called "scrag", which was just little more than a continuous maul punctuated by occasional bouts of kicking, and which ran for most of lunch-time until the bell rang.. This discussion has been done to death here previously.

I'll go out on a limb here, with your scenario being directed at Ian C, and say that I think that he will give the same answer that I did.

Yup!