Blues v Chiefs

The Fat

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/australia
#1
At 1:06 on the YouTube clock, Black 9 makes a break and is tackled just short of the line. As the players continue to slide, black 9 reaches forward looking to ground the ball when he reaches the goal line. However, just before his arm/hand holding the ball reaches the goal line, blue 11 dives and knocks the ball from black 9's grasp just before the goal line. Unfortunately, I don't have the definitive front on view (need to wait for full game to be uploaded). This is in the same phase of play where, as you will see from the highlights, Stephen Luatua gets a RC for a high contact on a player without the ball.

I thought the TMO should have looked at the actions of 11 blue whose actions would have been legal in-goal but I suppose my question is, should the decision have been a PT to the Chiefs as blue 11 went off his feet and knocked the ball from black 9 in the field of play instead of going back for the PK from the Luatua incident?

Anyone else watch the game?
[video=youtube;hIc5CPfKb7s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIc5CPfKb7s[/video]
 

FlipFlop

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/switzerla
#2
Better views here: http://www.rugbyrampage.co.nz/blog/steven-luatua-receives-red-for-this-reckless-high-tackle

(hope everyone goes Red for the card!)

The try - for me, the tackle was complete, so the blue defender enters the tackle zone from the side. So PK minimum. Stops a probable try. So PT. Which leads to a possible YC.

I don't agree with the call in the game. If you ignore the side entry, then Blue defender knocks the hands of black, so ball is lost BACKWARDS from black. Don't see their result of knock on by black.
 

beckett50

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#3
Good point raised.

I agree with the :norc: for Blue 6 for late tackle. But agree that the sanctions should have gone further in that the challenge on #9 in that the entry was illegal. That being the case there is a case for a PT and a :yellow:
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#4
The RC
That was a head-high, swinging arm, on a player not carrying the ball. For mine, regardless of any new protocols, that was a RC anyway.

The non try
To award a PT in that situation would be to show a complete lack of empathy with the defender. What is the defender supposed to do... just let the try be scored?

Besides, there may be an argument that what the defender did was legal anyway.

LAW 22.4
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.


I'd say knocking the ball out of the player's hands is fine, and it says nothing about those defenders having to be between the ball and their goal-line. We all know that sometimes the Laws become indefinite near the goal-line, and referees are expected to put equity ahead of Law.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#5
The non try


To award a PT in that situation would be to show a complete lack of empathy with the defender. What is the defender supposed to do... just let the try be scored?

Besides, there may be an argument that what the defender did was legal anyway.

LAW 22.4
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.
(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.


I'd say knocking the ball out of the player's hands is fine, and it says nothing about those defenders having to be between the ball and their goal-line. We all know that sometimes the Laws become indefinite near the goal-line, and referees are expected to put equity ahead of Law.
Just been catching up with the game. Attacking player is certainly on the ground and so the tackle is definitely complete. The defender was going down as he lunged toward the outstretched arm (I haven't quite understood yet what going off your feet entails). Yet he slapped the hand rather than pull the ball. Pulling infers something more specific rather than dislodging or knocking.

So it does raise a real question especially as if you disallow the attempt of the defender then there is no immediately clarity as to a restart mechanism if it is not a knock on. You back yourself into an unwanted alley on this one!

On commentary it was suggested that it was a deliberate knock on ( comment in the heat of the moment). but in the definition of 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" (here I am assuming general acceptance that contact with the hands and not ball directly is acceptable even if not clearly stated)

Interestingly the TMO decision (checked alongside foul play call) was "lost control of the ball". Something often referred to but not generally explained?
 
Last edited:

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#6
Interestingly the TMO decision (checked alongside foul play call) was "lost control of the ball". Something often referred to but not generally explained?
If you are the ball carrier then IMO, should be YOUR responsibility to maintain possession. If an opponent knocks or rips the ball out of your hands. it should be your problem.
 

Paule23

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/scotland.
#7
I sympathetic to the views that the person disputing the ball was offside as the didn't come through the gate, but how is this any different to the multiple instances where players close around the ball carrier at/over the line to hold the player/ball up?

for me, great skill, play on. No kock on, ball went backwards from ball carriers hand. If the referee has blown, scrum 5 attacking ball.
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#8
I sympathetic to the views that the person disputing the ball was offside as the didn't come through the gate, but how is this any different to the multiple instances where players close around the ball carrier at/over the line to hold the player/ball up?

for me, great skill, play on. No kock on, ball went backwards from ball carriers hand. If the referee has blown, scrum 5 attacking ball.
I think that in this situation you definitely are subject to the the In-Goal laws. Which I see as an extension to the tackle laws rather than out there on their own.

In this case:

Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.


(f)

In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

This addition is so specific and serves nullifies the issue of the gate in the tackle laws. I would see that as making some reasonable sense.

(I guess I am also starting to better appreciate seeing this as a case of a dive from feet by the defender as being "on feet" until the point his knees touch the ground as would be applied to the tackled payer, something I have been struggling with)
 

OB..

, Advises in England
#9
There is a conflict between the laws on entering a tackle through the gate (please don't use "offside" to refer to this - it will confuse the uninitiated) and the specific provision in Law 22.4 (f). The latter must surely take precedence, otherwise it is otiose.

We could spend time arguing about "knock" versus "pull", and whether the defender was off his feet, but for me that is over-thinking the problem. The laws just do not cover the grey areas, nor can they be expected to. From a rugby point of view it was a brilliant save.
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
#10
There is a conflict between the laws on entering a tackle through the gate (please don't use "offside" to refer to this - it will confuse the uninitiated) and the specific provision in Law 22.4 (f). The latter must surely take precedence, otherwise it is otiose.

We could spend time arguing about "knock" versus "pull", and whether the defender was off his feet, but for me that is over-thinking the problem. The laws just do not cover the grey areas, nor can they be expected to. From a rugby point of view it was a brilliant save.
The Law creates a sharp line by defining that certain things can only happen in the field of play, and that sharp line is the goal line. Then, by allowing a tackled player to place the ball forward over the goal-line, they have caused the sharp line to become blurred. Referees can alleviate this problem to a certain extent with the use of empathy in these situations, but ultimately, IMO, WR need to clarify what can and cannot be done in this situation,

I would suggest an alteration to the exception Law 15.6 (a)

15.6 OTHER PLAYERS
(a) After a tackle, all other players must be on their feet when they play the ball. Players are on their feet if no other part of their body is supported by the ground or players on the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Exception: Ball goes into the in-goal or after a tackle near the goal line, if the ball has been
released and has gone into the in-goal
any player, including a player on the ground, may
ground the ball, or attempt to prevent the ball being grounded.


NOTE: I have also noticed an inconsistency in the Laws in this situation (nothing new there then)

In the situation where an attacking ball carrier has been tackled near the opposition goal-line and is attempting to place the ball over the line...

Law 15.6
(j) When a tackled player reaches out to ground the ball on or over the goal line to score a try, an opponent may pull the ball from the player’s possession, but must not kick or attempt to kick the ball.


but

Law 22.4
(e) Tackled near the goal line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player can immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal line, a try is scored.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.



So Law 22 says that player who try to prevent a try in this way must be on their feet, but Law 15 doesn't
 

ChuckieB

Rugby Club Member
#11
Prior to law 15.6 (j), the sequences within law 15 have already determined a player must be on his feet 15.4 (c) & 15.6 (a) to try and play the ball and so no real need to repeat.

As such I wouldn't definitely consider them inconsistent but I can see where you are coming from. Here we appear to have almost identical situations having to be stated in 2 different LAw sections. Without actually checking consistency with other laws, it might bee seen as unnecessary duplication.
 

Pegleg

Rugby Club Member
#12
Just been catching up with the game. Attacking player is certainly on the ground and so the tackle is definitely complete. The defender was going down as he lunged toward the outstretched arm (I haven't quite understood yet what going off your feet entails). Yet he slapped the hand rather than pull the ball. Pulling infers something more specific rather than dislodging or knocking.

So it does raise a real question especially as if you disallow the attempt of the defender then there is no immediately clarity as to a restart mechanism if it is not a knock on. You back yourself into an unwanted alley on this one!

On commentary it was suggested that it was a deliberate knock on ( comment in the heat of the moment). but in the definition of 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" (here I am assuming general acceptance that contact with the hands and not ball directly is acceptable even if not clearly stated)

Interestingly the TMO decision (checked alongside foul play call) was "lost control of the ball". Something often referred to but not generally explained?
You may infer that pulling is more specific but I'm not sure the law is meant to be that specific.

You have two choices. Either the ball was dislodged by the defender or it was lost by the attacker. No "unwanted alley" make a call and go with it. There was a clarifcation (1/2014) on the matter.