PDA

View Full Version : Article: Law clarification requests



Robert Burns
17-07-11, 15:07
You can view the page at http://www.rugbyrefs.com/content.php?162-Law-clarification-requests-info

wrowe
10-02-15, 20:02
Recently I had a bizarre incident. In a 7's scrum the team not putting the ball in went backwards purposely, pulling the attacking team with them which obviously made the ball fly out the back.
Is this legal?

Browner
11-02-15, 16:02
Recently I had a bizarre incident. In a 7's scrum the team not putting the ball in went backwards purposely, pulling the attacking team with them which obviously made the ball fly out the back.
Is this legal?

See Law 20.8(g).
Front row players must not twist or lower their bodies, or pull opponents, or do anything that is likely to collapse the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards.

Pharginell
29-07-15, 09:07
If a player is tackled close to the try line and his torso, arms and ball are all touching the ground, is he allowed to reach forward to score a try in an immediate action while his arms and ball remain in contact with the ground and his torso remains stationary?

Phil E
29-07-15, 09:07
If a player is tackled close to the try line and his torso, arms and ball are all touching the ground, is he allowed to reach forward to score a try in an immediate action while his arms and ball remain in contact with the ground and his torso remains stationary?

If he reaches out and "places" the ball over the line that's fine.

If he pushes the ball along the ground, in a forward direction, that's NOT fine.

Pharginell
29-07-15, 11:07
If he reaches out and "places" the ball over the line that's fine.

If he pushes the ball along the ground, in a forward direction, that's NOT fine.

Rule 15.5 (d) states that in the act of releasing the ball it may not pushed forward. The ball in the scenario I posted however, is not being released. The ball is in fact in the process of being used to score a try. In which case, surely 15.5 (g) comes into play and a reach for the line is made with no release of the ball occurring in the action.
As an example, a player is tackled, slides while held and the ball and his arms are also in contact with ground and his arms are being extended in front of him while he slides, at which point the slide of his body ceases and a split second later the extension of his arms also ceases with the ball on the line.

He has fulfilled 15.5 (g) and has never intended to release the ball, so surely 15.5 (d) is not relevant.

OB..
29-07-15, 13:07
Phil E has explained the standard interpretation of reaching out to score when the player is stationary on the ground.

If the player is sliding along the ground he can just hang on to the ball until he crosses the line..

Pharginell
29-07-15, 14:07
Phil E has explained the standard interpretation of reaching out to score when the player is stationary on the ground.

If the player is sliding along the ground he can just hang on to the ball until he crosses the line..

Cheers Phil E and OB for the replies, however.....

The scenario does not entail the continuation of the slide. The slide terminates a split second before the players extending arms touch the ball on the line. The ball travelling forward on the ground is mentioned in the laws in terms of a tackled player releasing the ball and specifically the act of "pushing" which heavily implies an un-held ball but is not outlawed for a controlled (held) ball reaching out to make contact with the line in the act of scoring a try.

Add to this scenario the possibility of the tackled player sliding in on his back, holding the ball with one hand, arm and ball in contact with the ground and the hand holding the ball closer to the try line than the ball. The very loose term "pushing" cannot be employed here either with the possibility of this being termed "pulling" which is mentioned nowhere. Is there a law that specifically rules out a held ball being in contact with the ground as the reach for the line is carried out, considering it can be achieved with a "pulling" motion? Rule 15.5 (d) is specific to the release of the ball and not the act of try scoring and I cannot find a rule that outlaws a controlled ball being in contact with the ground as it is manoeuvred in a try scoring action.

Does the term "reach" have an official definition somewhere that determines the ball being lifted off the ground, projected forward and then being returned to the ground? I have looked but cannot find it.

Thanks.

ChrisR
29-07-15, 15:07
Are you chopper15?

OB..
29-07-15, 16:07
I'm afraid there is little point in using forensic dissection of the laws. They are simply not written with that approach in mind. If they were, they would look like Statute Law and be incomprehensible to any but expert lawyers.

The standard view is that a player is allowed to reach out with his arm to place the ball, not push it. He is not allowed to move his body forward after any slide has stopped, though he can roll off the ball if it is underneath him, so that he can place it.

It would be helpful to have some indication about your role in the game so we can address your point of view.

Pharginell
29-07-15, 18:07
I'm afraid there is little point in using forensic dissection of the laws. They are simply not written with that approach in mind. If they were, they would look like Statute Law and be incomprehensible to any but expert lawyers.

The standard view is that a player is allowed to reach out with his arm to place the ball, not push it. He is not allowed to move his body forward after any slide has stopped, though he can roll off the ball if it is underneath him, so that he can place it.

It would be helpful to have some indication about your role in the game so we can address your point of view.

Yes I realise the laws must remain easily communicated but this is an instance where there is nothing in the laws that defines the word "reach" and therefore the act of moving the ball on the ground to the try line in the act of scoring (reaching) is not actually outlawed anywhere and may in fact be a refereeing artifact that hasn't been challenged.

The only time the word push is used in the laws is highly specific to one act which is the "release" of the ball by a tackled player and is not a coverall statement that includes the act of scoring. It would not require any legalese style addition to the laws to define the act which is why I am trying to burrow in to your little info cell here to find out what information source some referees are party to that clarifies the view.
I have a suspicion this "reach" vs "push" really is an artifact that has no basis in the laws.

For a situation similar to this, the try scored by the All Blacks first five against England at Twickenham in 2014 is a good example. It was refereed by Nigel Owens who had a completely unobstructed view of the first five being brought to the ground and with his arms and ball on the ground as he came to a stop he instantly "reached" forward with the ball on the ground about 3-4 inches to touch the try line and had the try awarded by Nigel Owens. The ball maintained contact with the ground during the try scoring act.

Was Nigel Owens wrong or was he correctly following the laws by not whistling for something that has never been outlawed?

Phil E
29-07-15, 20:07
Are you a lawyer by any chance?

ChrisR
29-07-15, 22:07
Was Nigel Owens wrong or was he correctly following the laws by not whistling for something that has never been outlawed?

If NO clearly saw that the ball was pushed forward along the ground after the player's body had come to a stop then he made a mistake.

Otherwise he made the correct call.

OB..
29-07-15, 22:07
Pharginell - you still seem to believe that you can solve the problem by studying the wording of the laws. You can't. Referees develop an interpretation of the laws that in general makes sense of the various lacunae, ambiguities and contradictions.

The lack of a definition of "reach" is a case in point. I described how it is applied in practice.

Why are you asking and what are you trying to achieve?

crossref
29-07-15, 22:07
Was Nigel Owens wrong or was he correctly following the laws by not whistling for something that has never been outlawed?

is there a video of this on-line anywhere? that would really help

ChrisR
30-07-15, 00:07
If I correctly remember the incident the player was in a pile of bodies and the ball was pushed forward about 6 inches.

Pharginell
30-07-15, 05:07
Pharginell - you still seem to believe that you can solve the problem by studying the wording of the laws. You can't. Referees develop an interpretation of the laws that in general makes sense of the various lacunae, ambiguities and contradictions.

The lack of a definition of "reach" is a case in point. I described how it is applied in practice.

Why are you asking and what are you trying to achieve?

The wording of laws is a valid technique for defining laws. The poor wording of laws allows artifacts to introduce themselves. For instance, this is a possible addition that could avoid this very situation being investigated "At no point during play, can a player holding the ball project the ball forward if it maintains contact with the ground during the action" There is no complex word salad required, it appears to have no holes in the statement and is brief. No coverall statement like this appears in the laws. Or this "To reach with a ball in the act of scoring shall be defined as elevating the ball off the ground to ensure any forward motion is achieved without contact with the ground" Again, hardly a word salad. I swing spanners for a living and am, like many rugby fans, just one in a large group that communally mulls over various facets of the game and the possibilities of geographical refereeing artifacts is one of them.

The dichotomy of interpretations between NH and SH referees gives credence to the notion of artifacts appearing via localised repetition of personal interpretations. This may be one of those "repetition of statement" artifacts that takes hold despite having no basis anywhere apart from "it just is, okay" similar to the "female wage gap" myth.

My posts are essentially the voice of a group of rugby fans talking via one keyboard to find out whether referees have a directive from a body to enable this call to be made (as I stated previously, this can not come from the laws as they are written) or whether it is an artifact of repetition.

If it is an artifact then it may be deserving of a challenge or a clarification being issued by World Rugby.

Here is a link to the All Blacks try https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMUQvYiuqA

damo
30-07-15, 07:07
Yep. No surprises that it is a whinge about the All Blacks that is at the bottom of all of this. :biggrin:

I think that is very close. Right on the border between a push and a place. Live, in the position that NO was in I'd probably give it. On slow mo with the TMO, it was probably a dubious decision.

On the other hand, that clip displays some excellent rugby from the All Blacks. The back play to get the ball to a free Ben Smith when there was no overlap to begin with was brilliant, as was the run from Bender, and the clean out close to the line to create the quick ball. Thanks for sharing that clip, it makes me happy to see such good rugby on display.

Dickie E
30-07-15, 07:07
Are you a lawyer by any chance?

I think its a fair question.

If the tackled player maintains clear posession of the ball is it a "push" (for the purpose of Law 15.5) if the ball makes contact with the ground while on its way to the goal line? Was it the law makers intent to require that the ball be lifted clear of the ground? (he'll be home from primary school now, I'll ask him).

IMO the answer to both questions would have to be yes. The only other type of "push" would be where the ball carrier loses possession of the ball and that would clearly be no try.

Pharginell
30-07-15, 07:07
Yep. No surprises that it is a whinge about the All Blacks that is at the bottom of all of this. :biggrin:

I think that is very close. Right on the border between a push and a place. Live, in the position that NO was in I'd probably give it. On slow mo with the TMO, it was probably a dubious decision.

On the other hand, that clip displays some excellent rugby from the All Blacks. The back play to get the ball to a free Ben Smith when there was no overlap to begin with was brilliant, as was the run from Bender, and the clean out close to the line to create the quick ball. Thanks for sharing that clip, it makes me happy to see such good rugby on display.

I'm an AB's supporter damo, there is no whinge here and I feel that is a valid try by the written laws.
The fact that there is no clear statement in the World Rugby rules book has allowed this to become debatable instead of clear. Having been tortured by the indignant and rabble rousing, jowly flobbering of Brian Moore over the years it would be great to snipe each of these little law deficiencies as they break from cover and deny that sentient potato a chance to get a round off.

There are clear additions to the rules to outlaw certain actions deemed anathema to the game and this action is not one of them. So how exactly has the interpretation given been established? My bet is regional interpretation becoming accepted artifact and this is not a valid technique in the eyes of many fans.

Pharginell
30-07-15, 08:07
I think its a fair question.

If the tackled player maintains clear posession of the ball is it a "push" (for the purpose of Law 15.5) if the ball makes contact with the ground while on its way to the goal line? Was it the law makers intent to require that the ball be lifted clear of the ground? (he'll be home from primary school now, I'll ask him).

IMO the answer to both questions would have to be yes. The only other type of "push" would be where the ball carrier loses possession of the ball and that would clearly be no try.

What if the player is holding the ball one handed and that hand is gripping the forward end of the ball?
This would now, surely become a "pull" under the interpretations posted here and receives no mention anywhere at all in the rules.

The fact that the term"IMO" gets included in any discussion on rules is a red flag that something has not been established by an authority and is merely a current and potentially localised consensus.

Catholics vs protestants, sunni vs shia, push vs reach, this is how the great schisms occur....... lack of clarity. LOL

The Fat
30-07-15, 09:07
What about the try Sam Warburton scored for Wales (could have been against the Wallabies???) about 5m left of the posts where he ROLLED the ball the last few inches to score. I think Alain Rolland was the ref. If someone can remember the game, I'll search for a video

Dickie E
30-07-15, 10:07
What if the player is holding the ball one handed and that hand is gripping the forward end of the ball?
This would now, surely become a "pull" under the interpretations posted here and receives no mention anywhere at all in the rules.



Next time it happens in one of my games I'll let you know what I did.

I was initially impressed with your well-reasoned and articulate posts then you fessed to being an AB supporter and the magic evaporated. So sad. :cry:

crossref
30-07-15, 11:07
pharginell -- I have lost the thread, and can't work out any longer what is the gap you see in the Laws (not rules).
The Cruden try looks good to me...

Pharginell
30-07-15, 12:07
Next time it happens in one of my games I'll let you know what I did.

I was initially impressed with your well-reasoned and articulate posts then you fessed to being an AB supporter and the magic evaporated. So sad. :cry:


Way to bigot there Dickie E. Total indifference mode has been activated.

damo
30-07-15, 12:07
Way to bigot there Dickie E. Total indifference mode has been activated.
That is uncalled for.

Pharginell
30-07-15, 13:07
pharginell -- I have lost the thread, and can't work out any longer what is the gap you see in the Laws (not rules).
The Cruden try looks good to me...

I agree with you crossref, it looks good to me as well. There is a lazy and longwinded debate over instances like this amongst the ex rugby playing mob of reprobates that I associate with. A number (it's 2) promote the idea that the ball can not be moved to the line while in contact with ground but still in complete control by the attacking player. The rest, including myself, hold the position that if this action is not outlawed it is a valid action.

The pro groups reasoning also involves not using 15.5 (d) as an influence as this specifically outlaws pushing the ball forward in the release. This implies a ball that is not held, as per every release, and therefore the only action that could move it would be a push and so, would be a knock on. 15.5 (g) seems to be the appropriate law as there is nothing that outlaws a ball held and in control being in contact with the ground as an immediate reach is made for the line.

The ball being "pulled" to the line by a shovel handed gorilla scenario is, admittedly, a pretty rare possibility but is a reveal as to why 15.5 (d) is not the law (and therefore also not the word "push") to use to decide the validity of a controlled ball maintaining contact with the ground while reaching for the line in the act of scoring a try.

When some proffered an opinion that a reach involves the ball not having contact with the ground during its forward movement I asked where this had come from as there seems to be nothing influencing that thought process in official World Rugby information sources.

I suspect those that hold the "reach must be airborne" policy are repeating a locally developed artifact that has not actually been outlawed by World Rugby.

OB..
30-07-15, 15:07
The wording of laws is a valid technique for defining laws.
I'm afraid not. As I explained the laws do not in fact cover all possibilities, and the wording can be missing, ambiguous, or even contradictory.

You need to recognise that the referees have been over all this already. In order to do their job they need to agree on the interpretations that they will all use. Some of this gets dealt with formally: if a player catches the ball before it crosses the plane of touch, and has one foot on the touchline. everybody agrees that the ball is in touch. However initially some said the catcher had put the ball in touch, and some said the kicker (or whoever) had done so. New Zealand and Australia developed opposing interpretations so the IRB ruled that the catcher had not put the ball into touch.

There is another controversy going at the moment. If a player kicks the ball into touch just short of the opposition 22m line and it rolls on some distance, you could envisage an extension of the 22m line and argue that the ball has gone past it so the kicker has put the ball into the opponents 22. This affects whether or not the opponents can gain ground by kicking direct to touch (after a quick throw-in, probably). South African referees say he can. English referees say what matters is where the ball crossed the touchline, not where it is pickled up. This one is unresolved.

Some other standard usages are universal but not technically correct if you insist on following the wording of the law. At a ruck, the scrum half is allowed to pick the ball out (provided it is clearly one, even though the law say a player may not handle the ball ia ruck.

Some scenarios are simply not covered: the ball is kicked towards touch. A player jumps, knocks the ball back in-field and then lands in touch. How do you decide if the ball was in touch? The only law reference close to covering this simply refers to a player jumping and catching the ball - it then matters where he lands.

I could go on, but I won't. I want to make the point that trying to decide how the game should be played by looking at the laws, is not enough. Like a referee you need to not only know the laws but also how to apply them sensibly.

Referees will heartily agree with you that many (most?) laws are badly written, but their job is to make them work.

On the NZ try, the player could just push the ball forward, but instead he changes his grip to hold the ends of the ball. For me he is attempting to lift it to reach for the line. It is not clear if it does clear the ground, but I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

tim White
30-07-15, 18:07
I think most refs would give a try where the player had a clear grasp of the ball and 'slid' it along the ground. I firmly believe the prohibition of 'pushing' the ball over the tryline is to clearly show that as a knock-on rather than scoring a try.

I have no proof but I see no problem either.:shrug:

OB..
30-07-15, 20:07
I think most refs would give a try where the player had a clear grasp of the ball and 'slid' it along the ground. I firmly believe the prohibition of 'pushing' the ball over the tryline is to clearly show that as a knock-on rather than scoring a try.

I have no proof but I see no problem either.:shrug:Interesting.

I haven't come across that view before. Most discussion revolves around the player moving his body in some way. Laws 15.5 (c) & (d) distinguish "putting" from "pushing". If the prohibition on "pushing" is indeed to demonstrate that there was no knock-on, I would expect it to apply to "reaching" as well.

Browner
31-07-15, 17:07
I'm an AB's supporter ..........

Having been tortured by the indignant and rabble rousing, jowly flobbering of Brian Moore over the years .....

...... and deny that sentient potato a chance to get a round off.

& I can imagine the MODs energetically sharpening their sanctioning pencil as they read this, apart from any like minded brethren who might merely overlook such directed wit.

Whilst we've got you in full voice, tell us your perspective on 'that forward pass that Wayne Barnes didn't give', or the 'BoD spearing', or whether Richie McCaw was a full 2meters away from his teammates in the lineout as it commenced last weekend .....?!:biggrin:
on second thoughts, don't, i'm happy to predict the 'slant' :deadhorse:

Welcome,
[pulls up a comfy chair :bday:].

Brit50
17-04-17, 09:04
Northampton vs Saracens Sunday April.16 This from match report....
73 minutes
Quote 'Bit of TMO-based drama. Billy Vunipola burst through and tried to loop a pass over to the right. Foden batted the ball up in the air and attempted to regather, but was taken out by Schalk Brits. Original decision is a scrum to Saracens. The TMO suggests another look, but Matthew Carley sticks with the initial call. unquote courtesy Daily Telegraph
In fact ref even goes so far as to say there was 'no certainty' that guy who last touched ball (Foden) would have caught the ball. Rule 10.4 (f) clearly states "(f) Playing an opponent without the ball.
Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick My rugby ref buddy says ref call was correct because the act of ball bouncing up from players' hands means he is in possession. Ridiculous IMO

didds
17-04-17, 09:04
Isn't this the Tim Simpson ruling?

ChuckieB
17-04-17, 10:04
A definition of possession, per what your buddy says, is newly introduced as law amendment trial for 2017 , but in respect of Law 19 specifically, i.e. clarity about a ball being juggled on and around touch.

Then a quick search on the laws for Definition of possession does not present the same definition:

Possession: (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Possession) This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that team’s possession.

but it also then throws out:
"Law 0: (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=possession&law=0)


Definitions (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?highlight=possession&law=0)
A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball."

Can't find where that "Law 0" is being cross referenced but I can perhaps infer it would be back to the LAW amendment Trial in Law 19. So the online laws have a bit of a "bug".

So while it may indeed be there for the future, I suspect it is not perhaps intended for the situation envisaged above and, even if 2017 laws were applicable, I doubt this would have helped resolve the situation to many people's satisfaction.


For me , gut is that wasn't a contest for the ball as such, or even a mistimed tackle.

It was interference with a player who was attempting to play the ball and something not covered, or so I can see, in the strict definitions of foul play but something we can best pigeonhole into :

"Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play" within 10.4 (e) Dangerous tackling.

Personally I would err on the side of the penalty as I think this was the outcome best supported in law.

According to David Flatman on the highlights, the officials suggested it was way more complicated than that.

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 10:04
Hello Brit50,
Not sure why you didn't start a new discussion for this, but seeing as you asked in this thread


https://youtu.be/4HQ4T_K6bV0

At 1 minute 20" into these short highlights the incident can be seen
Referee's call was correct. The player does not have to be in possession to knock the ball on. That was clearly not a tackle, he had obviously lost his footing before contact with the opponent. Controversial only if you looking for controversy. (Jim Mallinder is no stranger to looking for it. Perhaps it is time to introduce a gagging order against coaches who repeatly question Official's decisions without any basis in law to back up their claims.). When players do actually take the man out without the ball, the tackled player quite often tends to get stretchered off afterwards.

DEFINITION: KNOCK-ON
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.

It's not clear from that clip, was that an attempted interception of a floated pass? In which case it could be considered a deliberate knock-on preventing a (possible) try scoring pass. (No I wouldn't have penalized it, however, it's no less ridiculous than suggesting a penalty for tackling the man without the ball.)

crossref
17-04-17, 11:04
Well, I thought that incident exposed an unexpected interpretation - in the discussion both TMO and Ref seemed to agree that Forden could NOT be tackled. But MC thought it wasn't material as Foden likely couldn't have regathered the ball anyway

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 11:04
I always thought if a defender makes a bid to intercept a pass, he had better gather the ball. The fact he was never likely to get the ball makes it an infringement? So material in the sense it prevented the player (Red13) out wide going over for a try in the corner.

crossref
17-04-17, 11:04
it was clearly a bona-fide attempt to catch the ball -- and very nearly succeeded. Certainly not a deliberate KO.

crossref
17-04-17, 11:04
however, it's no less ridiculous than suggesting a penalty for tackling the man without the ball.)

you say that would be ridiculous, but that's exactly what the TMO stopped play to suggest ...

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 11:04
Brit50 said it was ridiculous to consider the attempted interception as being in possession. I pointed out that to knock on the ball one didn't need to be in possession of it. I actually agree with the conclusion arrived at by referee, Matthew Carley and TMO, Graham Hughes.
Even with the benefit of replays that is not a clear and obvious tackle, So nothing wrong with asking the TMO to have a look at it. In all honesty, Fodden had little chance of intercepting that ball. He then lands awkwardly and loses his footing.

Previous forum discussions (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?16403-The-attempted-intercept/page6)felt getting only one hand to the ball, was worthy of a penalty for a deliberate knock on. His actions disrupt the pass, So spoiling a try scoring chance for the opponents. The only saving grace would be regathering the ball, which in this instance he did not manage to do. YMMV.

OB..
17-04-17, 12:04
If a player tries to intercept a pass, but knocks it backwards. there is no offence. If he knocks it forwards, the referee has to decide if he did so deliberately.

If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled.

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 12:04
Fair point OB..
Judging intention is simply not possible. However the player knew if he only got a finger to the ball he could prevent a probably try. I don't think his thought process went much beyond "Disrupt the pass, worry about regathering the ball after."

I recall Brian O' Driscoll calling Romain Poite's yellow carding of Rob Kearney ridiculous. (NZ 60 - 0 Ireland) back in June 2012. I think it was the right call from the French man. Pretty much agree with Scrum to Red in this instance.

Unfortunately the extent to which Laws are open to interpretation by individual referees is what is becoming ridiculous in the game. That anybody could see that as an off the ball tackle is bewildering.

OB..
17-04-17, 12:04
Judging intention is simply not possible. Often difficult, but essential in many cases.


That anybody could see that as an off the ball tackle is bewildering.Hear, hear.

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 12:04
A little bit tongue in cheek, but Kurtley Beale, insists he didn't intend to knock the ball on (http://www.rugbydump.com/2010/03/1324/kurtley-beale-knock-down-leaves-sharks-fuming) is this instance.

"I just saw it was two-on-one and tried to go for the intercept and hit the ball up. If I hadn't hit the ball up, it was going to be a try and it would have been a totally different story," he said. I think Mr. Beale needs to revise his definitions more often. For him "slap down" was the only cardable offense in this situation.

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 14:04
Palm up/palm down debate? Never heard of it. Which Law is that based on?


https://youtu.be/TeNPWEaqVvo

For the guilty party, the determining factor was "they wouldn't have scored from there"

ChuckieB
17-04-17, 16:04
If a player tries to intercept a pass, but knocks it backwards. there is no offence. If he knocks it forwards, the referee has to decide if he did so deliberately.

If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled.

Must he be considered in possession?

There are two references of possession that I see currently within the laws:



Possession: (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?search=Possession) This happens when a player is carrying the ball or a team has the ball in its control; for example, the ball in one half of a scrum or ruck is in that teamís possession.(definitions)
A player who is attempting to bring the ball under control is deemed to be in possession of the ball (2017 law amendment trial: law 19: which should perhaps be reasonably considered restricted to trying catch a ball around the touch line given its placing in the laws)


I see neither offers absolute help in this instance.

So for me, I potentially see BF's initial action as a legitimate attempt, one that he didn't immediately gather possession on and so not deliberate. If he had eyes for the ball only, he was not going to be prepared for someone taking him out (dangerously or otherwise). If it wasn't absolutely immediately considered a knock on the TMO still suggested to look at it perhaps as otherwise, i.e. potentially as foul play, something that could have overturned any KO call anyway.

Under the circumstances, yes, I am one who might see this as not being a fair contest for a ball knocked into the air, even though he was on the ground, and consistent with the principle of contesting the ball not the man. As such I could perhaps justify and all within the laws a penalty.

I have a TMO who alluded to it yet others who immediately thought otherwise. Without the years of experience, who am I potentially doing a disservice to by suggesting one argument over another

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 16:04
The IRFU raised another point in the past.

Clarification 9 2004 (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=10&clarlaw=10&clarification=50)
..., it would appear inconsistent for an offence which, taking place in mid-field, would not merit a temporary suspension but would merit a temporary suspension close to a goal-line.

For the moment I seem to be the only one who considers Fodden hadn't a snowflake's chance in hell of cleanly intercepting that ball. He barely got a finger tip to it in the first instance, sending the ball skyward.

@ChuckieB, I think to ignore the knock on (first infringement) and not award the scrum to Red, the "tackle" would have to be considered foul play. On review it was deemed not to be.

SimonSmith
17-04-17, 17:04
The IRFU were off beam on that.

There are offences that take on a heavier burden closer to the goal line, precisely because they are close to the goal line. Slowing the ball down being an immediate example

OB..
17-04-17, 18:04
For the moment I seem to be the only one who considers Fodden hadn't a snowflake's chance in hell of cleanly intercepting that ball.Why does he have to catch it cleanly?
He barely got a finger tip to it in the first instance, sending the ball skyward.IMHO it was NOT a deliberate knock-on. If it was a knock-on, then a scrum is correct. If it wasn't, then having knocked the ball up in the air, he was in a good position to catch it.

OB..
17-04-17, 18:04
Must he be considered in possession?
Yes.

If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled.
At one time the knock-on laws allowed no more than adjusting the ball in your grasp.. The current version would seem to allow a player to knock the ball over an opponent (accidentally, of course), run round him, catch it, and thus avoid the possible tackle. I don't see it as being in the interests of the game if a player is allowed to benefit from his own error. CF estoppel, as mentioned in another thread.

ChrisR
17-04-17, 18:04
Hear, hear.

Shouldn't that be "Here, here" as in "Me too".

chbg
17-04-17, 19:04
Shouldn't that be "Here, here" as in "Me too".

No - probable contraction of 'hear him, hear him'; often used in UK Parliament to voice approval with points made in debate.

Or is this another example of "two countries separated by a common language"?

L'irlandais
17-04-17, 20:04
A similar idea was expressed by Oscar Wilde in The Canterville Ghost, 1887


"We really have everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language".

OB.. I accept your point it was not a deliberate Knock-on, but still think scrum red was the correct call.

SimonSmith, agreed some infringements carry a different penalty near the goal line. Interestingly WR did not really try to address this part of the clarification with their answer to the IRFU.

didds
17-04-17, 21:04
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/here-here-vs-hear-hear/

ChuckieB
17-04-17, 23:04
Just noting it was Matt Carley, no stranger to being at the centre of some debate on some big decisions in recent weeks.

crossref
18-04-17, 07:04
Just noting it was Matt Carley, no stranger to being at the centre of some debate on some big decisions in recent weeks.

it was the TMO who is at the centre of this one.
MC gave what most posters here believe was the correct decision.
The TMO didn't agree - he evidently thought it was a tackle off the ball.
MC kept with his decision (albeit possibly for the wrong reason)

VM75
18-04-17, 19:04
For me, Foden genuinely tried to intercept & was in a good position to catch the ball when it came down. MC says he wasn't 100% certain that BF was going to catch the ball, but I think it was very very likely that he would. Accordingly the main reason he didn't was that he was tackled & prevented from catching it.

Timing is everything, & IMO the red player who pulled Foden away from the ball knew Foden wasn't currently in possession & knew exactly what he was doing.

So I award PK to Northampton.

"OB - If he knocks it up in the air and is attempting to regather it, he must be considered "in possession" in the sense that he can be tackled - otherwise fumbling a catch protects you from being tackled." IMO It's insufficient to have a blanket view on this, context & timing have an important role.

Pinky
19-04-17, 01:04
This has been considered before. Craig Joubert allowed the player not in contact with a knocked ball to be tackled as a ball carrier adding that you couldn't juggle all the way to the goal line.

ChuckieB
19-04-17, 09:04
I am one for context in this situation. As I suggested in a prior post, in this situation I saw it was one player contesting the ball directly, his eyes on it all the way, and another player taking a punt on the player being in possession of the ball as he instinctively made his attempt or interfered.

For me that leaves it in the territory of, not even a mistimed tackle but, in the 10.4 (e):

Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

Still a penalty but not necessarily reckless.

It is no less acceptable to me to have a player who is legitimately receiving a ball who has yet to gather it, to be wrapped by an opponent who has his head down and making an assumption the pass will be completed. What if it had been a missed pass over the top. and the player wasn't even involved?


I should like some more examples. It is clearly a fine line and something I need to be more certain on my understanding for application on the pitch.