Blocking

[breako]

Recent game here between Racing Metro 92 and Bordeau
Looks like a clear case of blocking leading up to the Try. It is referred to TMO but try is allowed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3EKxzOdGRs

Ok so the blocker is in a position to receive the ball, but he is in front of carter and obstructs a would be tackler?

Can someone explain this to me?

Thanks

 

[Ian_Cook]

Recent game here between Racing Metro 92 and Bordeau
Looks like a clear case of blocking leading up to the Try. It is referred to TMO but try is allowed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3EKxzOdGRs

Ok so the blocker is in a position to receive the ball, but he is in front of carter and obstructs a would be tackler?

Can someone explain this to me?

Thanks

Are you talking about White 6 blocking Black 6 prior to Carter's line break? I so, then IMO, Black 6 wasn't anywhere near close enough to tackle him. No material effect, so play on

If you are talking about the player who received the pass from Carter, then there is you answer; he received the ball.

This goes back to the ridiculous thread we had a few weeks back where people were arguing that a support runner was obstructing. If the support runner actually received a legal pass (and this one did) then how on earth can he be obstructing. If this is obstruction, then the inside pass would be eliminated from the game.

 

[Paule23]

If we're talking white 6 and black 6 I think this is obstruction. The only reason black 6 is not close enough to make a tackle is because white 6 ran in to him without the ball.

The second one is not obstruction as the player was always in position to receive the pass, not in front and not obstructing.

Ian seems to be referring to a non ridiculous thread where people debated whether a player running in support could be obstructing or not. There was some difference of opinion but I think it is rude to refer to the thread as ridiculous.

 

[breako]

Are you talking about White 6 blocking Black 6 prior to Carter's line break? I so, then IMO, Black 6 wasn't anywhere near close enough to tackle him. No material effect, so play on

Yes I was talking about that. I think he was close enough to attempt a tackle.

 

[Dickie E]

Yes I was talking about that. I think he was close enough to attempt a tackle.

Agree. The obstruction left a gaping hole. Even Carter couldn't believe his luck.

Carter couldn't help but smile when the ref awarded his team's try after a replay showed an obstruction in the lead up to Racing 92's try against Bordeaux Begles.

TVNZ

 

[breako]

Agree. The obstruction left a gaping hole. Even Carter couldn't believe his luck.

So what are we missing?

If a decision goes to TMO and an elite official is making the call they should be right, we should be wrong.
You'd hope.

 

[didds]

Agree. The obstruction left a gaping hole. Even Carter couldn't believe his luck.

TVNZ

Well.. what white 6 collidiing with black 6 did is slow black 6 up significantly. however, and FWIW, black 13 made no attempt to cover the next channel outside 6 but instead covered the channel over ie did not react to the initial threat of white 6 as a ball carrier as a defensive team.

Poor defensive communication and understanding for sure.

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

If we're talking white 6 and black 6 I think this is obstruction. The only reason black 6 is not close enough to make a tackle is because white 6 ran in to him without the ball.

How close does a player have to be before it counts as obstruction? 1m, 2m? 5m? 10m? Its a subjective judgement isn't it.

Black 6 was at least 4m away from the ball carrier. He also chose to push White 6 rather that try to get past him. In professional rugbyspeak that translates to "I don't have a fat rat's chance of tackling the ball carrier so I'm going to push this player to get the attention of the referee"

In my judgement, Black 6 was too far away from Carter to have any material effect and certanly too far away to tackle him. I am not at all surprised that the TMO has reached a similar conclusion.

IMO, the gap Carter ran through wasn't created by the actions of White 6, it was created by Black 6 defending in the wrong place. In that position, he's playing openside flanker (in France they tend to play the L/R Flanker rather than OS/BS Flanker), and if he had been where he was supposed to have been, i.e. 2/3 steps to his left (our right) there would have been no gap for Carter to run into.

The second one is not obstruction as the player was always in position to receive the pass, not in front and not obstructing.

Agree

Ian seems to be referring to a non ridiculous thread where people debated whether a player running in support could be obstructing or not. There was some difference of opinion but I think it is rude to refer to the thread as ridiculous.

You appear to have redefined "rude"

I was referring to the length of time the thread went on.... and on.... and on with entrenched positions and no progress, rather than the nature of the opinions expressed therein.

 

[menace]

The problem I have with white 6 affecting the obstruction is not the distance that he prevents black 6 making a tackle but rather that white 6 was angling across field then as the ball passes to 10 he straightens up and aim at black 6 purely cause black 6 did not fall for the dummy. Had white 6 maintained his angle run then no problem, the fact that he straightened up at 6 is the obvious obstruction, IMO.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The problem I have with white 6 affecting the obstruction is not the distance that he prevents black 6 making a tackle but rather that white 6 was angling across field then as the ball passes to 10 he straightens up and aim at black 6 purely cause black 6 did not fall for the dummy. Had white 6 maintained his angle run then no problem, the fact that he straightened up at 6 is the obvious obstruction, IMO.

I don't have a problem if you think it was obstruction. After all, I did say it was a subjective call

The only really issue I have is, was it material? I don't think it was.

 

[Thunderhorse1986]

You could also make an argument that 13 Black's defensive read would have been different had he known the two Black defenders inside him were going to be impeded (even if only slightly). If I was defending in 13's channel and I saw the "blocker" so far ahead of play I may have thought it wouldn't impact my team-mates and hence started the drift, expecting them to avoid the White blocker and hence get to the White 10. Maybe this involves too much guesswork about Black 13's defensive system and skills. I guess this is again just one of those subjective calls we have to make and stick by it and stay consistent through the game to similar calls too.

I had a crossing call in my last game which I deemed immaterial at the time and didn't penalise. It led directly to a try and when watching back on the video seemed 50-50 (a defender was impacted by the "obstructing" player but was unlikely to ever get near the ball-carrier). Maybe these things (like many others) look "worse" with the benefit of slow-motion, like many aspects of foul play do.

 

[Phil E]

It looked like material obstruction to me; but I can see it going the other way as well.

 

[thepercy]

If we're talking white 6 and black 6 I think this is obstruction. The only reason black 6 is not close enough to make a tackle is because white 6 ran in to him without the ball.

The second one is not obstruction as the player was always in position to receive the pass, not in front and not obstructing.

Ian seems to be referring to a non ridiculous thread where people debated whether a player running in support could be obstructing or not. There was some difference of opinion but I think it is rude to refer to the thread as ridiculous.

You must be new here, the poster in question is often rude (while either not realizing or admitting that he is), if you do not agree with his opinion.

 

[SimonSmith]

You must be new here, the poster in question is often rude (while either not realizing or admitting that he is), if you do not agree with his opinion.

At least he's up front and in people's face about it and not passive aggressive.

 

[menace]

At least he's up front and in people's face about it and not passive aggressive.

oh and you think that's reasonable justification then? wink: that's the best passive aggressive response I could muster! :biggrin

 

[menace]

I don't have a problem if you think it was obstruction. After all, I did say it was a subjective call

The only really issue I have is, was it material? I don't think it was.

Agree. Truth is I'd probably would not have seen it live and would have played on. Only a replay changed my mind.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Agree. Truth is I'd probably would not have seen it live and would have played on. Only a replay changed my mind.

I agree. I don't think I would have seen it in real time either, but the thing that strikes me as funny, is that this is almost the opposite of what actually happened. The referee did see it (or he would not have referred it), and when the TMO saw it, he decided it wasn't material obstruction.

 

[RobLev]

.msf.

 

[4eyesbetter]

1:07 and 1:45 - who is leaving cones lying in-goal? What happens if the ballcarrier trips over one and knocks on before he can ground the ball? (I can smell the lawyers salivating already...)

From my perspective, where we're happy with dummy runners as long as the player who doesn't get the ball does certain things, this is as clear an obstruction as you would ever want to put on a training video. The runner runs directly at his opponent, and then stops right in the defensive line. We would want him to aim his run into a gap, and then continue through the line before stopping. Obstruction every day of the week and twice on Sunday.