PDA

View Full Version : [In-goal] Your call?



MrQeu
24-05-16, 20:05
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgtPXWTv0k8

Scrum 5?
PK?
PT?

The Fat
24-05-16, 21:05
PK to Pink on the 5m in line with where the yellow player attempted to gather the ball and it went forward to a yellow team mate (offside).

Ref probably went for 5m attacking scrum for accidental offside.

Staffs_Ref
24-05-16, 21:05
I'd go with the ball being lost forward in the tackle. 5m scrum - Yellow ball.

L'irlandais
24-05-16, 21:05
What I see :
The ball carrier, Pink7 looses the ball in the tackle.
First defender Yellow13 knocks the ball on.
12.1 (d). Knock-on or throw forward inside the in-goal. If a player of either team knocks-on or throws-forward inside the in-goal, a 5-metre scrum is awarded in line with the place of infringement not closer than 5 metres from the touchline.
Second defender Yellow2 plays the ball from the knock on. I am not convinced there were any attackers that probably would have touched down, if the offside player had not accidentally caught the ball. So no PT for me.
‪11.7‬ Offside after a knock-on
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage. Sanction: Penalty kick
From that camera angle, it does not look like the ball carrier looses the ball forward, so for me the first offense is knock-on by defender.


Arbitrage vidéo ! Le Parisien Nicolas plonge dans l'en but avant que Morgan Parra ne tape dans le ballon ! Superbe geste défensif, en avant parisien et mêlée à 5 pour Clermont !Match referee gave Scrum 5 put in to Yellow for Pink knock-on.

MrQeu
24-05-16, 21:05
So none of you see/think it's yellow 9 who knocks the ball (i.e. only touches the ball and not the hand/arm of pink player)?

L'irlandais
24-05-16, 21:05
My French is getting rusty. The TMO decision centered around that point, however TMO decided the tackler had not knocked the ball from BC's grasp.

- - - Updated - - -

L'irlandais
24-05-16, 21:05
So none of you see/think it's yellow 9 who knocks the ball (i.e. only touches the ball and not the hand/arm of pink player)?It can only be a PT if Yellow9 committed foul play22.17 (b)Foul play by the defending team. The referee awards a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.if the ball went forward from the attacking player, then the defender if he knocked the ball from the "try-scorer's" grasp, knocked it back toward his own dead ball line.
Fair contest for the ball?

Taff
24-05-16, 22:05
... Ref probably went for 5m attacking scrum for accidental offside.
I'd agree with him.

Given that the Yellow catcher had practically no time to react, I think a PK for deliberate offside would have been a bit harsh.

DocY
25-05-16, 08:05
Given that the Yellow catcher had practically no time to react, I think a PK for deliberate offside would have been a bit harsh.

I don't like this argument - whether he had time to think or not the outcome is the same as far as the opposition is concerned. It's just the same as a tackler landing on the wrong side and being unable to move away - still a penalty. We don't lessen the infringement due to incompetence.

Had the ball hit him, but he'd not played it, I'd give that as AO (and there's maybe a bit of a grey area where a player might catch the ball, realise what they're doing and drop it again).

On the original point, though. Am I missing something with the discussion about whether Parra knocked the ball out of his hands? Why would that be a penalty?

Staffs_Ref
25-05-16, 08:05
Out of interest, what call did the officials go with in the end? I can see that the referee signals a scrum, but the footage cuts away before I can see who he awards the scrum to.

crossref
25-05-16, 08:05
this is a great clip.

Decision 1 : does yellow knock the ball from pink hands, or does pink simply lose the ball forward.

- if it is lost forward then, sigh of relief, it's an easy call : first knock on by pink, then knocked on by yellow. 5m scrum, yellow put in.
- if Parra actually knocked the ball out, then it's trickier. That's perfectly legal, so what happens next

Yellow try and gather, knock on, and the ball is caught by an offside team mate.

So Decision 2 : is that scrum for accidental offside or a PK for offside

a)
When an offside player cannot avoid being touched by the ball or by a team-mate carrying it, the player is accidentally offside. If the player’s team gains no advantage from this, play continues. If the player’s team gains an advantage, a scrum is formed with the opposing team throwing in the ball.

In this case clearly he could have avoided the ball -- (and you can see from his demeanour that he knows he is offside), so it would be a PK to Pink


Reffing that in real time - I think the best decision, the safest decision, is lost forward, scrum yellow. That's the decision that doesn't make it into an angry match report.

With a TMO - TBH technically it looks like a should have been PK to Pink to me, really, but the TMO would have decided that he couldn't be certain that Parra had knocked the ball.... so lost forward then..

Ex-Flanker
25-05-16, 17:05
Is there an argument that Parra deliberately knocks the ball forward in dislodging it from Pink 7's grasp? It's not clear from the video but it looks like Parra's left arm comes all the way around the back of Pink 7 and in the act of dislodging the ball knocks it forward (i.e. towards Pink's dead ball line).

If that's the case, Pink 7 hasn't lost it forward, so would you give a penalty try for a deliberate knock-on by Parra?

Ex-Flanker
25-05-16, 17:05
Also, the definitions in Law 12 state:


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.

As such, was the referee wrong to penalize Pink 7 for the knock-on?

I think I would have gone for a penalty to Pink on the 5m for offside by Yellow 2, gathering the ball after the knock-on by Yellow 13.

Staffs_Ref
25-05-16, 17:05
Is there an argument that Parra deliberately knocks the ball forward in dislodging it from Pink 7's grasp? It's not clear from the video but it looks like Parra's left arm comes all the way around the back of Pink 7 and in the act of dislodging the ball knocks it forward (i.e. towards Pink's dead ball line).

If that's the case, Pink 7 hasn't lost it forward, so would you give a penalty try for a deliberate knock-on by Parra?
If Parra has knocked the ball towards his own dead ball line then it is not a knock-on, let alone a a deliberate one.

Ex-Flanker
25-05-16, 17:05
Sorry, I wasn't clear. It looks like the ball might go towards the Pink team's dead ball line as a result of Parra's attempt to dislodge the ball, as a result of the angle he took to get to the ball. Admittedly, it is not clear from the video (to me, anyway) in which direction the ball travels from Parra's knock but if it did go towards Pink's dead ball line (in other words, there was a clear and obvious knock-on from Parra), what would you give?

Staffs_Ref
25-05-16, 17:05
It isn't that clear and you may well be right. My gut reaction was that the ball was lost forward in the contact, so I would have gone with 5m scrum to the defending team. Micro analysis of the video may show that the ball was not actually lost forward by Pink - it is hard to tell - but that is what it looked liked to me on first viewing.

MrQeu
26-05-16, 10:05
So, maybe there's something I'm missing in understanding the laws.

What I see is,

Yellow9 hits the ball and makes it get out of Pink7 hands. The hit is done by applying force in the direction of pink's DBL (forward from Yellow perspective). As the ball is held by Pink7 in-between his arm and chest, the ball doesn't go directly towards pink's DBL but also has a lateral component.

So, my question is, is that legal? Can a player hit a ball forward (from his teams POV) and no sanction accrues ?

Parra attempted no tackle, so it's not within the scope of the tackle outcome of the definitions



A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.

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.

AFAIU, the debate with this point is whether the last "and" applies to any of the clauses before or just the last one.

Anyhow, we have a player deliberately hitting the ball forward who doesn't regain the control of it before it touches the ground or another player.


So, why wouldn't it be a PT for deliberately knock on in the in-goal?



Moreover, had Parra missed the ball and hit only pink7 hand, would it be a PK? It's no push, nor tackle nor nold. But a hit to a player.

Rich_NL
26-05-16, 10:05
But pink doesn't lose the ball forward. Forward from himself, but not towards the DBL - it looks clearly parallel to me. No disruption from the offside... So my call would be knock-on by yellow, pink scrum at 5.

Edit: Sorry, missed the whole second page of comments before replying! In any case, giving my real-time response as I watched it.

crossref
26-05-16, 10:05
Anyhow, we have a player deliberately hitting the ball forward who doesn't regain the control of it before it touches the ground or another player.


I don't think Parra is deliberately hitting the ball forward, everything is happening in the direction of his own dead ball line and he was trying to knock the ball out. Micro-analysis of the video is needed to determine what direction it went, and who touched it last. The TMO seemed to think Parra missed it completely.

L'irlandais
26-05-16, 10:05
So, maybe there's something I'm missing in understanding the laws.

What I see is,

Yellow9 hits the ball and makes it get out of Pink7 hands. The hit is done by applying force in the direction of pink's DBL (forward from Yellow perspective). As the ball is held by Pink7 in-between his arm and chest, the ball doesn't go directly towards pink's DBL but also has a lateral component.

So, my question is, is that legal? Can a player hit a ball forward (from his teams POV) and no sanction accrues ?

Parra attempted no tackle, so it's not within the scope of the tackle outcome of the definitionsI would point out that the match referee, after consulting the TMO, felt that Pink had lost the ball forward. So that suggests the ball travelled backwards, if Parra dislodged it.

MrQeu
26-05-16, 10:05
I'm astonished.

Parra gets round Pink7 and positions himself -his arm and hand actually- between the ball and the DBL at the precise moment he contacts the ball. And he does it by means of a swinging motion.

As I said, for me it's clear that he hits the ball forward (towards pinks DBL). Then the ball may or not travel forward, but that's because the ball is held by the player from whom the ball is dislodged.


But seeing everybody praising it, not raising a single eyebrow and saying its legal is what makes me believe I'm missing something very obvious.


PS: TMO was never asked about knock-on, but simply if there was or not grounding by pink.

DocY
26-05-16, 11:05
I'm astonished.

Parra gets round Pink7 and positions himself -his arm and hand actually- between the ball and the DBL at the precise moment he contacts the ball. And he does it by means of a swinging motion.

As I said, for me it's clear that he hits the ball forward (towards pinks DBL). Then the ball may or not travel forward, but that's because the ball is held by the player from whom the ball is dislodged.


But seeing everybody praising it, not raising a single eyebrow and saying its legal is what makes me believe I'm missing something very obvious.


PS: TMO was never asked about knock-on, but simply if there was or not grounding by pink.

Knocking the ball out of a player's hands (other than with your foot) is not an offence in itself. Though it does raise an interesting question about a deliberate knock on.

You consider a player knocking the ball out of a players hands as a deliberate rip (i.e. it's treated as coming off the knocker), but if it goes towards the BC's dead ball line, does that make it a deliberate knock on?

I don't think so. Surely the knocker's intention is to dispossess the BC, and that's fine, rather than to knock the ball forward.

crossref
26-05-16, 11:05
Then the ball may or not travel forward,


I agree, so it's not very clear...

RobLev
26-05-16, 13:05
So, maybe there's something I'm missing in understanding the laws.

What I see is,

Yellow9 hits the ball and makes it get out of Pink7 hands. The hit is done by applying force in the direction of pink's DBL (forward from Yellow perspective). As the ball is held by Pink7 in-between his arm and chest, the ball doesn't go directly towards pink's DBL but also has a lateral component.

So, my question is, is that legal? Can a player hit a ball forward (from his teams POV) and no sanction accrues ?

Parra attempted no tackle, so it's not within the scope of the tackle outcome of the definitions



A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.

‘Forward’ means towards the opposing team’s dead ball line.

If a player in tackling an opponent makes contact with the ball and the ball goes forward from the ball carrier’s hands, that is a knock-on.

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.

AFAIU, the debate with this point is whether the last "and" applies to any of the clauses before or just the last one.

Anyhow, we have a player deliberately hitting the ball forward who doesn't regain the control of it before it touches the ground or another player.


So, why wouldn't it be a PT for deliberately knock on in the in-goal?



Moreover, had Parra missed the ball and hit only pink7 hand, would it be a PK? It's no push, nor tackle nor nold. But a hit to a player.

Watching it in real time; Parra clearly making no attempt to tackle. Instead, he deliberately attempts to knock the ball from the BC's grasp with an arm swinging from his own DBL forward. If it works, he's going to knock the ball forward. It did work. So deliberate KO preventing a probable (=nailed-on) try; must be a PT.

With Slomo - same.

I don't; see his action as any different from a player deliberately batting down an opposition pass - PK every time - indeed, some here would give a PK for a deliberate knock-on even if the player tries to catch/intercept the pass, if the hope of catching was not better than evens.

Phil E
26-05-16, 14:05
Watching it in real time; Parra clearly making no attempt to tackle. Instead, he deliberately attempts to knock the ball from the BC's grasp with an arm swinging from his own DBL forward. If it works, he's going to knock the ball forward. It did work. So deliberate KO preventing a probable (=nailed-on) try; must be a PT.


World Rugby law (which you even quoted in your post above) disagrees.


Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee

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.

DocY
26-05-16, 14:05
World Rugby law (which you even quoted in your post above) disagrees.

I think they're meaning the BC didn't knock it on. And usually with rips, the ball does go away from the BC's dead ball line, so this makes sense, but the corollary is surely that if the ball goes the other way the 'tackler' has knocked it forward.

The question then becomes whether this constitutes a deliberate knock on. I'm of the view that it doesn't, but clearly not everyone is.

Phil E
26-05-16, 14:05
I think they're meaning the BC didn't knock it on. And usually with rips, the ball does go away from the BC's dead ball line, so this makes sense, but the corollary is surely that if the ball goes the other way the 'tackler' has knocked it forward.

The question then becomes whether this constitutes a deliberate knock on. I'm of the view that it doesn't, but clearly not everyone is.

I refer you to the previous answer, which doesn't differentiate between (would be) tackler and ball carrier in this scenario.

that is not a knock on.

crossref
26-05-16, 15:05
the law covers one scenario

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.

it doesn't explicitly cover the scenario


If a player rips the ball or deliberately knocks the ball from an opponent's hands and the ball goes forward from the knocking player's hands, then ... is that a knock on ?

crossref
26-05-16, 15:05
I have to say I am drawn to Phil E's interpretation : it's just not a knock on either way, that seems fair and equitable, and avoids the referee being drawn into micro-analysis of a split second event.

DocY
26-05-16, 15:05
I can see an argument for it. Ripping the ball off an opponent is good play, so should be rewarded (or shouldn't be punished).

When the clarification first came out my understanding (perhaps wrongly) was that the ball was treated as having come off the ripper, but there's nothing in clarification or subsequent law to explicitly state that.

beckett50
26-05-16, 15:05
I have to say I am drawn to Phil E's interpretation : it's just not a knock on either way, that seems fair and equitable, and avoids the referee being drawn into micro-analysis of a split second event.

It is not an interpretation but a WR clarification.

Think about it logically. The ball carrier is running forward toward the opposition try line. Para comes from behind, tackles the player and dislodges the ball from the hands/grasp of the BC and the ball then goes toward the try line of Para - in other words from Para's hands the ball has gone BACKWARD hence the reason for no knock on.

Now to the play in the in-goal area.

Yellow player knocks on the ball and then another yellow player catches the ball. That can hardly been viewed - certainly at anything lower than L7 I would suggest to my learned colleagues - as being accidental off-side. The player caught the ball, and whilst it may have been an instinctive reaction he could also not caught it and jumped out of the way (as did a Bristol player at the weekend in their semi-final with Wasps).

The fact that the Referee and the TMO settle on a scrum 5 to pink is a very poor call IMHO. Should have been a PK 5m to pink.

No PT as there was no Pink player in the vicinity who would have got to the ball before it would have been regathered by the yellow player who originally knocked on.

crossref
26-05-16, 16:05
in other words from Para's hands the ball has gone BACKWARD hence the reason for no knock on.

.

Mr Que and RobLev beleive it went in the other direction, hence it might be a knock on, (by Parra) depending on how you understand the clarification.

crossref
26-05-16, 16:05
It is not an interpretation but a WR clarification.
.

I know.
The normal situation in a rip is that to the lazy observer it looks like the ball carrier loses the ball in the tackle, knock on by ball carrier.

The clarification was there to say : look more closely, if it was ripped, then the ball-carrier didn't lose it, it wasn't a knock on by the ball carrier, it was a knock backwards by the ripper. Play on.



It pretty unusual for the ball to come out in the other direction - ie back towards the ball carrier's own DBl.
.. But if that happens, is it the case that the 'ripper/knocker' himself has committed a knock on -- by knocking it so squarely out of the ball carriers hands that it's actually travelling toward the ball carriers own DBL. Is that a deliberate knock on ? Surely not. Is it an accidental knock on?

Phil E
26-05-16, 16:05
The clarification was there to say : look more closely, if it was ripped, then the ball-carrier didn't lose it, it wasn't a knock on by the ball carrier, it was a knock backwards by the ripper. Play on.
?

That's not what the clarification says at all.
It simply says if the ball is knocked clear by the would be tackler, then it's not a knock on.
You are reading what isn't there.

DocY
26-05-16, 16:05
That's not what the clarification says at all.
It simply says if the ball is knocked clear by the would be tackler, then it's not a knock on.
You are reading what isn't there.

The clarification says "if the ball is deliberately ripped and goes forward from the ball carrier's hands". If the ball doesn't go forward from the BC's hands, then this law doesn't apply (or might not apply, depending on what was intended).

crossref
26-05-16, 17:05
That's not what the clarification says at all.
It simply says if the ball is knocked clear by the would be tackler, then it's not a knock on.
You are reading what isn't there.

TBH I am happy to go with your reading. It's not the way it was explained to us when it first came out, and I don't know whether it's what was intended, but it's practical.

thepercy
26-05-16, 17:05
TBH I am happy to go with your reading. It's not the way it was explained to us when it first came out, and I don't know whether it's what was intended, but it's practical.

So if there is a rip/punch situation then there can never be a knock-on?

crossref
26-05-16, 17:05
So if there is a rip/punch situation then there can never be a knock-on?

well that's what Phil's saying, right. -- it's a new idea to me, but turnng it over in my mind it's pretty practical idea, and seems equitable. What do you think?

it would mean that a rip/knock is rather like a charge down .. I dunno

RobLev
26-05-16, 21:05
World Rugby law (which you even quoted in your post above) disagrees.

No, it doesn't. We're not talking about the ball going forward from the ball-carrier''s hands. The clarification doesn't even address the ball going backward from the ball-carrier's hands - which is what I see happening.

RobLev
26-05-16, 21:05
That's not what the clarification says at all.
It simply says if the ball is knocked clear by the would be tackler, then it's not a knock on.
You are reading what isn't there.

Pot, kettle. The clarification specifically addresses the ball going forward from the ball-carrier's hand's. It says not a dicky-bird about the ball going forward from the tackler's hands; which is what I saw happening.

L'irlandais
26-05-16, 23:05
It is not an interpretation but a WR clarification.

Think about it logically. The ball carrier is running forward toward the opposition try line. Para comes from behind, tackles the player and dislodges the ball from the hands/grasp of the BC and the ball then goes toward the try line of Para - in other words from Para's hands the ball has gone BACKWARD hence the reason for no knock on.

Now to the play in the in-goal area.

Yellow player knocks on the ball and then another yellow player catches the ball. That can hardly been viewed - certainly at anything lower than L7 I would suggest to my learned colleagues - as being accidental off-side. The player caught the ball, and whilst it may have been an instinctive reaction he could also not caught it and jumped out of the way (as did a Bristol player at the weekend in their semi-final with Wasps).

The fact that the Referee and the TMO settle on a scrum 5 to pink is a very poor call IMHO. Should have been a PK 5m to pink.

No PT as there was no Pink player in the vicinity who would have got to the ball before it would have been regathered by the yellow player who originally knocked on.two things : Match referee gave Scrum 5 put in to Yellow for Pink knock-on. Also from the camera angle in the video clip it is impossible to judge if the ball went back, forward or laterally. We MUST trust the TMO, who had the benefit of several camera angles and more replays. The TMO said the ball carrier lost the ball forward in the tackle. I am happy to accept that the referee's decision was incorrect along the lines of Phil's interpretation, but please accept that the match official knows what lost forward means!

RobLev
27-05-16, 14:05
two things : Match referee gave Scrum 5 put in to Yellow for Pink knock-on. Also from the camera angle in the video clip it is impossible to judge if the ball went back, forward or laterally. We MUST trust the TMO, who had the benefit of several camera angles and more replays. The TMO said the ball carrier lost the ball forward in the tackle. I am happy to accept that the referee's decision was incorrect along the lines of Phil's interpretation, but please accept that the match official knows what lost forward means!

I've been watching without sound; surprised to hear that TMO thought it went forward from Pink.

If though that was the TMO's decision, then it's difficult to see why Yellow got the scrum. Unless Parra made a tackle, so the clarification applies so as to prevent it being a Pink knock-on, it's scrum 5 attacking ball, play stopped but no other infringement. Can anyone else see even an attempt at a tackle by Parra?

In fact, if that was a "tackle" by Parra, I'd suggest it's a PT anyway for the no-wrap "tackle". :wow:

Staffs_Ref
27-05-16, 14:05
I've been watching without sound; surprised to hear that TMO thought it went forward from Pink.

If though that was the TMO's decision, then it's difficult to see why Yellow got the scrum. Unless Parra made a tackle, so the clarification applies so as to prevent it being a Pink knock-on, it's scrum 5 attacking ball, play stopped but no other infringement. Can anyone else see even an attempt at a tackle by Parra?

In fact, if that was a "tackle" by Parra, I'd suggest it's a PT anyway for the no-wrap "tackle". :wow:
Clearly there isn't a completed tackle by Parra, but I can see why it would be interpreted as an attempted tackle. Both arms extend towards the ball carrier as he attempts the tackle, so it would be guesswork at best to assume that he was not making any genuine attempt to wrap his arms around him, so no case for a penalty try.

RobLev
27-05-16, 19:05
Clearly there isn't a completed tackle by Parra, but I can see why it would be interpreted as an attempted tackle. Both arms extend towards the ball carrier as he attempts the tackle, so it would be guesswork at best to assume that he was not making any genuine attempt to wrap his arms around him, so no case for a penalty try.

Not the way I see it; the left hand is always and only going for the ball. The right arm is doing nothign positive about tackling - it brushes the hip only; because in going for the ball with his left, Parra is falling in that direction.