Cuthbert try - Obstruction and TMO

[talbazar]

Hi All,

A pretty good game Saturday. Enternaining at least..

I'm surprised I haven't seen any post on Cuthbert try and the TMO decision, so here I go.

When the ref calls for TMO he asks if there is "any obstruction in the mid field".
After reviewing the action TMO answers "There is no clear and obvious obstruction, you may award the try".

Looking at the video (on youtube here) there is an obstruction.
Is it clear and obvious? I would answer yes as I saw it before the replay.
Is it material? I guess that debatable, but at that level of rugby, I guess the little push O'Driscoll gives is enough for the Oz Centre to miss Cuthbert.

Am I the only one to think that way?
Happy to get your views...

Cheers,
Pierre.

 

[beckett50]

Pierre the defender wasn't obstructed as he was able to make an attempted tackle.

It does, however, raise the larger question of "curtain runners".

 

[Toby Warren]

I think rugby by hook or crook has got itself a benefit of the doubt law.

The TMO now needs a slam dunk case to overturn a try.

 

[winchesterref]

I thought it stopped the defender being closer, and was definitely material as he missed him by a whisker. Clear and obvious enough to me on the replay but I was so excited I didn't spot it during the game! Personally thought it would have been disallowed.

 

[Womble]

Was BOD an "eligable reciever" ? if so IMO there is no way he can be done for obstruction. If a pass to BOD would have been forward then he does become an obstructive runner... Very tight call I would say

 

[Taff]

I think rugby by hook or crook has got itself a benefit of the doubt law. The TMO now needs a slam dunk case to overturn a try.

It had one yesterday Toby.

In the England v Wales JWC Final from a ruck England passed the ball out wide and the winger scores a try. However, I think one AR had his flag in - or at the very least asks the Ref to get the TMO to review it. Sure enough White 5 was seen kneeing a Red player a couple of times in the head at the ruck. His recommendation was that the try be disallowed, a PK given to Red and a :noyc: be given to White 5.

 

[irishref]

It had one yesterday Toby.

In the England v Wales JWC Final from a ruck England passed the ball out wide and the winger scores a try. However, I think one AR had his flag in - or at the very least asks the Ref to get the TMO to review it. Sure enough White 5 was seen kneeing a Red player a couple of times in the head at the ruck. His recommendation was that the try be disallowed, a PK given to Red and a :noyc: be given to White 5.

Brave - and correct - call by the AR, using the technology and protocol at their disposal, with the TMO getting in (in my humble one) right.

In light of the Horwill stamping incident, let's give the team of 3 and TMO a pat on the back for a very good call.

I watched it on the IRB feed and what annoyed me was the commentator - "there's nothing in that, I can't see what's been called here..." etc etc. The kneeing action was very clear and obvious. Perhaps even Red territory, but yellow was fair enough.

 

[FlipFlop]

Yes BOD was in front, and prob a bly technically obstructing. However if that gets given, then to maintain consistancy, there were about 50 other similar incidents (by both sides) that would have needed being PKs, and we would be slating Pollock for constantly blowing the whistle.

This one is one where the technical obstruction, needs to be overlooked, for the benefit of the game. It was far enough away from the ball that the impact was negligible (and the defender pushed off BOD, so maybe could be argued that he managed to change direction quicker than normal). Bascially what I am saying is that if we allow dummy runners to end up infront of the ball, we can't penalise this.

 

[talbazar]

Well, we don't allow dummy runners to end up in front of the ball, they are offside:
[LAWS]In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.[/LAWS]
We judge materiality to blow or not...

To me, this instance was material,,,

Said so, I'm happy for Cuthby... And I can bully my British mates on how lucky they got last Saturday :biggrin:

Pierre.

 

[talbazar]

Pierre the defender wasn't obstructed as he was able to make an attempted tackle.

It does, however, raise the larger question of "curtain runners".

That's exactly my point: BOD did touch/push the defender and still the defender managed to make "an attempted tackle"...

What if BOD didn't touch the defender? Would have the "attempted tackle" been successful? Or more likely to be successful?
I would believe so...

Pierre.

 

[winchesterref]

What if BOD didn't touch the defender? Would have the "attempted tackle" been successful? Or more likely to be successful?
I would believe so...

BOD was a legitimate receiver but his blocking line obstructed the defender and I'm with Pierre on this one. Still, I'm pleased for him as well, ensured we stayed in a good position! My brother went to school with AC.

 

[OB..]

BOD was a legitimate receiver but his blocking line obstructed the defender and I'm with Pierre on this one. Still, I'm pleased for him as well, ensured we stayed in a good position! My brother went to school with AC.

If he is a legitimate receiver until the ball is passed, it is hard to expect him to evaporate thereafter. However you do expect him to try to avoid contact.

 

[winchesterref]

Will check again later when I can see video, but I thought once he was no longer an option he ran a blocking line

 

[irishref]

On a similar(ish) note - OK totally unrelated - the Barnes injury. Push by North on the player who hit Barnes. Worthy of a PK at least?

To my mind a push, not an attempted tackle at all. With a tragic and very material consequence.

 

[Toby Warren]

On a similar(ish) note - OK totally unrelated - the Barnes injury. Push by North on the player who hit Barnes. Worthy of a PK at least?

To my mind a push, not an attempted tackle at all. With a tragic and very material consequence.

But 7.1 expressly allows the push?


7.1 Playing a match
A match is started by a kick-off.

After the kick-off, any player who is onside may take the ball and run with it.

Any player may throw it or kick it.

Any player may give the ball to another player.

Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.
Any player may fall on the ball.

Any player may take part in a scrum, ruck, maul or lineout.

Any player may ground the ball in in-goal.

A ball carrier may hand-off an opponent.

Whatever a player does must be in accordance with the Laws of the Game.

 

[Account Deleted]

I thought, in real time, it to be obstruction. It certainly impeded the tackler.

In the Baby game I though the knee incident was a clear read. One knee = maybe yellow. The second knee going in made it a clear red for me. Excellent spot by the AR.

The Game was very enjoyable and played in a very good spirit, this incident apart. Wales failing to capitalise on the card was there big error. The best team won.

 

[Taff]

In the Baby game I though the knee incident was a clear read. One knee = maybe yellow. The second knee going in made it a clear red for me. Excellent spot by the AR. The Game was very enjoyable and played in a very good spirit, this incident apart. Wales failing to capitalise on the card was there big error. The best team won.

That TMO deserved a pat on the back. Even the TMO needed a couple of looks to spot it. As much as it grates to say this, England did deserve to win it.