Solving the knock-on puzzle

Another instance was the BI Lions vs Reds last year. BIL had a good scrum on Reds. Reds 8 Schatz picked it up from the back, and started running. BIL 9 Phillips ripped it away from Reds8. It went forward towards the tryline from a BIL stanpoint. Backward from a Reds standpoint. BIL 9 picked it up, plonked it over the tryline. Ref gave it five points I couldn't tell whether it was normal play according to rules, or whether it was bad/missed call. The commentators were also clueless / unclear.

no that is the final scoreline. the full story is everything that happens in the 80 minutes (not always told by the black and white score).

dont overthink it. if a player loses control and it goes forward and touches another player or the ground its a knock on.its its not about who applies how much force. theres only one question. did someone apply any force to the ball forward with their arms without regathering.. its also not about who last touched it. in fact ur more likely to get a knock against you if you first touched it.. even if they both touch it at the same time whicever direction the ball goes will decide who gets a knock on. if a player passes it back and then its knocked back (the other direction) by the other team no one has knocked on and its play on. it really is very simple despite the stuff up in one of the tries on the weekend. the real grey area is what happens if its ripped out. would be much simpler if that was a knock on too. i had thought it was but not so sure after brays comments.

bil i agree that a lot of these knock ons from a tackler arent really but i think the refs are just erring on the side of caution as its almost impossible for them to tell whether someone was making a play for the ball if it comes of their arm while they try and make a tackle.

BB I Agree whithy both those reasonings, and we will still be having this discussion many years too come, unless the refs all get on the same page, because all you can ask for is consistency good all bad, I'm a Blues fan through and through and can take these decisions if for the rest of the year they call that a try. I believe the responsibility should be on the attacker but If they call that a try all year I can't feel too a grieved, but I'm sure Stormers fans want the same thing if there is Consistency in interpretations of the laws.

Ignore both the tries of the weekend, I am not referring to either of them, I am talking of the knocks we often see in general play whereby the tackler is seen to knock the ball towards the opponents line in his attemlt to tackle the ball carrier.

"If you tackle a guy from front on and knock the ball that it shoots out from his grasp, more often than not, a scrum is awarded because the referee rules the ball was knocked on in the tackle by the tackler" I think i understand the situations you are talking about and that usually happens while a player is trying to pass the ball if you are talking about the ball going back behind the carrier, in that case the Chiefs try should have been awarded as it was. The Lions try however was a a case of the man holding the ball tucked into his chest in which it would be almost impossible for a front on tackler to ever be deemed to knock the ball on in the tackle so in that situation if the ball was dislodged from front on the scrum would be awarded to the tackler. I don't quite understand what you are asking in the last question but a knock on is deemed to be when the ball is motioned toward your opponents goal line not your own.

I think the instant reaction of the SA commentators, making it seem obvious it was knock on Lions, made it worse. Seemed like a tough call to make, either way.

Kuruki, I implore on you to watch the replay again. The "tackle" or "attempted tackle" by Piatau, is his arm going around the shoulder of the Lions ball carrier, and his right hand knocks the ball down from the hold of the Lions player. It is a clear case of a hand knocking the ball. Now forget for a moment whether the try has been awarded or not. Just consider the following point. If you tackle a guy from front on and knock the ball that it shoots out from his grasp, more often than not, a scrum is awarded because the referee rules the ball was knocked on in the tackle by the tackler. So whether you knock the ball from in front to wards the opposition goal line, or from behind towards your own goal line as the tackler, what is the difference?

I thought the Chiefs try was a knock on at first until you see the still frame and it shows there is a strong case for separation as the Stormers player intentionally knocks the ball down, i'm happy with the call either way to be honest it is that close. In the Lions Blues match it was not a ripping motion from Piutau who was effecting a tackle which as Bray said still puts the onus on the ball carrier to control possession. The rule states it is not a knock on if the ball is "ripped" not "slapped". I would not like to see the try the Lions scored being awarded in future, that should be a knock on. The Chiefs decision is less clear cut as there is a strong argument the ball was released from Marshalls hands going from the still frames Jerry has posted however if decided he was still in possession i would like to see that awarded a knock on also.

However, how do you measure the effect of the force the tackler exerts by knocking the ball? you don't. Be it forward or back? thats irrelevant and determined by whover propelled the ball. How do you decide who last touched the ball? via the ref...(TMO) The only grey area for me is whether Piatau actually dislodged the ball directly himself and in doing so was he the 'last' of the two to touch it on its way 'forward' or 'back'. To knock a ball on, or back you have to touch it. Surely that is a minimum requirement for a knock on/ back? otherwise, what did you 'knock'? the player? cant recall knocking a player being called a knick on? Did Piatau touch it? thats for the tmo and after deciding that, did touching it knock it on? or, was the onus on the player still to control it. In watching the ref he had decided piatau had done effectively the same as the Stormers player. Knocked the ball on giving no responsibility for the onus on the ball carrier- as fas as he was concerned, the innocent party in all this. In his eyes, Piatau came in, knocked the ball out of his hands and therefore backwards. Brays view is that the Lions player was deemed to have control over the ball and in losing it, knocked it on. It is one where either could be right depending on what you think you saw. I didnt see a lot of Piatau on the actual ball, but the ref clearly thought he dislodged it.

"which flatters the scoreboard and does not tell the full story" The full story is the score after the 80th minute not the 75th.

Agree with the premise of your reasoning. However, how do you measure the effect of the force the tackler exerts by knocking the ball? Be it forward or back? How do you decide who last touched rhe ball? Should the law which by the way was asked for clarification by the ARU, then not change and read at any given point in time, no matter wherher the tackler exerts any pressure on the ball, if the ball is dislodged from the ball carrier's hands, a forward motion will be deemed a knock by the ball carrier and therefor a scrum will be awarded to the defending team, in a case where the ball has not gone forward, play on will be called?

After relooking at both the two are considerably different. In looking at the behind shot my opinion is the ball has already left Marshalls hands and then it has been propelled forward. So Marshalls pass wasnt forward and he contributed to 'zero' percentage of the propulsion of the ball to the line. The last player to have any contact with the ball is the Stormers player. knocked back. Piautau tackled the Lions player in his effort to score the try himself. He came round the shoulder in a way that he turned the player around causing him to lose control of the ball. The last player to have contact with the ball before it spilled towards the line was the Lions player, therefore making it forward. That for me is the difference So the scenarios are different. Brays explanation that the onus is on the ball carrier to maintain possession doesnt apply to Robinson...he wasnt the ball carrier. It had left his possession, albeit just. You need to view the behind view very closely. In your scenario biltong if you are the last player to have contact with the ball before it propelled in any direction, then you are the cause of that, but I agree if you did not touch the ball then how can you have knocked it on? The tackled player is responsible for the propulsion of the ball, being the last player to have contact with it, and not controlling it, meaning your try is valid. That scenario falls within Brays explanation.

Thanks, informative. There is more ball ripping and knocking recently, and I suspect the laws and officials haven't clarified it. TV commentators haven't helped much

I have given my opinion, you have given yours, the law doesn't provide a full explanation but from the interpretations I have seen when a tackler knocks a ball and a scrum is awarded, I disagree and it won't change my mind. You of course can continue to debate the merits of Bray's judgement if you wish.

Biltongbek - Blues were robbed, it was a knock on according to Bray. Bray says a try awarded to the Lions against the Blues by the TMO at Ellis Park last weekend should have been ruled a knock-on. When Blues defender Charles Piutau jolted the ball from Lions full-back Coenie van Wyk's grasp, he did not deliberately try to rip possession. Bray underlined that the onus is on the ball carrier to maintain possession, so it should have been ruled as a knock on, and thus no try, contrary to the decision from referee Stuart Berry and his TMO Johan Greeff

Hi Jerry and RC, Yep In those days it was just a bloody good match saving tackle. The force that Gregan hit Wilson with was great. The advent of close up slomo TV today has added to every possible scenario being examined. Even Foluas knocking out ball could also be construed as tryingto sweep the ball in to regain it ,as his arm was crooked. He hasn't really learnt the rugby art of going down on the ball to first gain it protect it then delay any scavengers from pilfering it. I refereed school matches and junior reps as a young teacher. In N Z . A few years ago I had to do the refs course allied to attaining coach level1 and starting level2. I learnt a lot but the interpretations you can make on many of the rules. I wouldn't go near a whistle for quids! Really before we bag any ref we should really think of the complexities of the job and the decisions. Having said that, I must confess that at last SFS Waratahs game one of the assistant referees had definitely lost his Seeing Eye Dog.

Thanks for the reply mate. IF we see two sides of the coin it means the law needs clarity. If we are going to say the ball carrier must take responsibility then the law that says a ball may be ripped but cannot be seen as a knock is wrong as well. The same thing apples at the breakdown, how many times do we see the irriving player going for the ball on the ground and the tackled player still has his hands on the ball, as the pilferer gets to the ball he is driven off and the ball moves forward from his grasp and the referee rules knock on. How far do you take the responsibility?

BB I personally think Bray is right there has to be responsibilty on the attacker as in the lions try because that happens 50 times a game neally all these little knockons have a helping hand I think his explanation is fair enough. With the Chiefs try it is a little border align that decision could go either way any day of the week the reason being he was passing, from one angle there is seperation, from the other angle it is 50/50 the problem is marshalls backhand looks close to the ball I was happy for a try but not a confident decision if there was a little more seperation the decision would be a bit easier so I sort of agree with bray just think his explanation was a bit confusing. And Rambo I think there has been a few poor reffing performances against all countries represented in super rugby and if ya think Kiwis get the rub have got the rub of the green can you show me were this has happened for the Blues?