forming up before contact

[jynxy]

this morning i ref'd an U10's game and the opposition obviously had a set move where from the free pass the ball carrier would run at the opposition but before making contact (im talking about maybe 1 or 2 metres) the ball carrier would turn (brave boy) and 2 teammates would bind onto him, each time this happened i would blow up and call obstruction. after about the 3rd time i had a quiet word with there coach. he couldnt understand why it was an offence. i explained that as the teammates were binding behind the player they were making the ball uncontestable ??. was i right what would of you done.

i must note that this was my first match ever to referee.

 

[crossref]

it certainly doesn't sound like a very constructive move at U10 rugby. If it looked like obstruction to you, then it probably was.

one thought would be -- how come they got to do it three times? I wonder if you explained properly to the kids why you blew, and that you weren't happy with the move, and they mustn't do it again? It feels like they weren't sure what the problem was, else why keep trying it?

welcome to the happy world of refereeing kids - expect all manner of weird and unusual things to happen!

How did the game go apart from that?

 

[jynxy]

yes the first time the coach shouted across as he was unsure why i gave the free pass and i explained it to him, but he allowed his players to do it. i know im there to help them through but not to coach them against something theyve been taught to do, if he disagrees with me.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/entry.php?23-1st-Game

my blog on my first game and the start to my refereeing

 

[Taff]

.... -- how come they got to do it three times? I wonder if you explained properly to the kids why you blew, and that you weren't happy with the move, and they mustn't do it again? It feels like they weren't sure what the problem was, else why keep trying it?

this morning i ref'd an U10's game ...

I rest my case M'lud. :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

I rest my case M'lud. :biggrin:

he he! you are quite right :smile:

but I guess there's a serious point, if you penalise a very young team for doing something they've specifically been coached to do, it's probably time to take a moment to make them understand it was the move itself you didn't like, (not something that went wrong with it) and not to try it again.

 

[dave_clark]

especially as mini / midi games are deemed as a training session rather than as a game.

 

[Davet]

If the ball carrier is still the front man why is it obstruction?

 

[jynxy]

If the ball carrier is still the front man why is it obstruction?

As the attackers formed they put there arms in front of the ball carrier, thus being in front of the ball carrier.

 

[The Fat]

As the attackers formed they put there arms in front of the ball carrier, thus being in front of the ball carrier.

Need more detail. Did the other attackers bind to the ball carrier whilst still facing the defender's DBL or did they turn their backs (god knows why) to the defenders just as the ball carrier did (this would then put them offside and potentially obstructing).

So far, I'm with Davet. If the BC is the front man then where is the obstruction?

 

[jynxy]

Need more detail. Did the other attackers bind to the ball carrier whilst still facing the defender's DBL or did they turn their backs (god knows why) to the defenders just as the ball carrier did (this would then put them offside and potentially obstructing).

So far, I'm with Davet. If the BC is the front man then where is the obstruction?

Yes they bound facing the DBL but I must reiterate the one thing that stuck out to me is that thy bound around him so to say therefore almost forming a blocking wedge.


Its like back in the day when the line out jumper would ome down and the lifters stand almost in front


They weren't as obvious in front but arms and shoulders were making it impossible or the defending team to challenge the ball carrier.( although they could of just walked around and attacked it from behind as no maul was formed . )

 

[The Fat]

Yes they bound facing the DBL but I must reiterate the one thing that stuck out to me is that thy bound around him so to say therefore almost forming a blocking wedge.


Its like back in the day when the line out jumper would ome down and the lifters stand almost in front


They weren't as obvious in front but arms and shoulders were making it impossible or the defending team to challenge the ball carrier.( although they could of just walked around and attacked it from behind as no maul was formed . )

If they were bound in such a way that the defenders could not get to the ball carrier, then IMO you were correct to PK them

 

[Ian_Cook]

this morning i ref'd an U10's game and the opposition obviously had a set move where from the free pass the ball carrier would run at the opposition but before making contact (im talking about maybe 1 or 2 metres) the ball carrier would turn (brave boy) and 2 teammates would bind onto him, each time this happened i would blow up and call obstruction. after about the 3rd time i had a quiet word with there coach. he couldnt understand why it was an offence. i explained that as the teammates were binding behind the player they were making the ball uncontestable ??. was i right what would of you done.

i must note that this was my first match ever to referee.

To me, this looks like some form of "Flying Wedge" arrangement.

In any case, although I think it is not "technically" obstruction, you are entitled to blow it up if you think its dangerous. Anyone trying to tackle the ball carrier is effectively having to tackle three players at once. U10s should not be getting coached to do this sort of stuff.


Safety comes first

 

[crossref]

It smacks of one of those coaches who are too clever by half, for whom coaching kids to pass, scrum, tackle, run, kick is all too boring, and much more fun contriving complicated set piece moves,
Sigh

 

[Taff]

To me, this looks like some form of "Flying Wedge" arrangement.

Just what I was thinking, but my understanding is that the "wedge" wasn't moving.

... Safety comes first

If it looked like I think it looked (ie stationary) I can't see it being dangerous. If I was the opposition coach, if the ref hadn't PKd it I'd just tell them to go round the wedge and nick the ball - after all, as has been mentioned no tackle had taken place and no ruck or maul had formed. We're still in open play - go where you like. :biggrin:

 

[jynxy]

Just what I was thinking, but my understanding is that the "wedge" wasn't moving.

If it looked like I think it looked (ie stationary) I can't see it being dangerous. If I was the opposition coach, if the ref hadn't PKd it I'd just tell them to go round the wedge and nick the ball - after all, as has been mentioned no tackle had taken place and no ruck or maul had formed. We're still in open play - go where you like. :biggrin:

am i that bad at describing the situation , yes the three players were moving towards the opposition DBL and i blew as one of the defenders was about to go and attack them.

 

[L'irlandais]

Hi jynxy,
You've described it well and I think you dealt fine with this situation during the match.
As Ian pointed out above "safety comes first".
Didd's post #33 in the other mini/midi thread explains why you're right to discourage young players from such moves even if their coach believes the move to be okay.

 

[didds]

It smacks of one of those coaches who are too clever by half, for whom coaching kids to pass, scrum, tackle, run, kick is all too boring, and much more fun contriving complicated set piece moves,
Sigh

I agree... with the addition that it sounds like a really really old fashioned method of setting a maul.

I am still undure why it was obstruction though? unless the binders both stood in front of the BC completely? Binding arms over his bak still leaves his buttocks "available" - assuming all along he still has the ball of course.

??

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

Hi didds,
I don't think it sounds like obstruction either, as Taff says it's open play - Defence coach should get his boys to nip round and steal the ball.
Attacking team's coach should probaly be looking at getting his boys to try open running play in this 3 on 1 situation. Mini/midi rugby suffers enough from all in wrestling without coaches encouraging players to "set-up" the maul in this way.

 

[Dixie]

So Jynxy, if they'd bound as though rucking (i.e. pushing the ball carrier forward, rather than pulling him), are you saying you'd have had no issues? That does seem to me to be correct - but like Davet, I'm not sure that obstruction really applies even with the "pulling" bind - though you were there and saw what you saw. HOWEVER: U.10, anyone trying to tackle the ball carrier around the legs risks a knee in the face from the bound players. I think a call of dangerous play could well be apt at that level, where the onus is trying to develop the core rugby skills such as tackling low.

 

[didds]

Attacking team's coach should probaly be looking at getting his boys to try open running play in this 3 on 1 situation. Mini/midi rugby suffers enough from all in wrestling without coaches encouraging players to "set-up" the maul in this way.

Absolutely. Not much "Go Forward" there.

They need to read a certain global coaching e-magazine. Lots of great advice from some top coaches in that apparently.

;-)

didds