Never seen this before

[Phil E]

Video here: http://www.leicestertigers.com/matchdaytv/index.php?play=media&id=19147

 

[menace]

If you decide the scrum is over, at a time when the opposition might well believe it isn't, you should say so. I suspect both sides thought the scrum was continuing, which is why nobody came round to challenge. They can't tackle if he is just playing the ball with his feet, but they could kick it away or even fall on it.

I do not subscribe to the view that it can only be obstruction if players attempt to get to the ball carrier. It must be likely that they could get to him but for the obstruction, but I see no legal requirement for a token effort.

In hindsight I tend to agree OB and take your point that perhaps a verbal 'something' would have been best but at the time it all happened in 2 seconds (2 or 3 hops) and it was over, no one seemed advantaged or disadvantaged so in the end decided I found good enough reason not to blow the whistle. I'd deal with it differently next time I'm sure.

In regards to your obstruction comment, I interpret that you're saying that every obstruction is material and therefore should be called? Isn't that getting on a slippery slope? The are regular obstructions in broken play, and if we called them all we'd be stopping the game a lot?

 

[menace]

Video here: http://www.leicestertigers.com/matchdaytv/index.php?play=media&id=19147

Interesting...has anyone come out at all and said the move is illegal?

 

[RobLev]

...

In regards to your obstruction comment, I interpret that you're saying that every obstruction is material and therefore should be called? Isn't that getting on a slippery slope? The are regular obstructions in broken play, and if we called them all we'd be stopping the game a lot?

OB can answer for himself but, for my part, insisting on the defenders tackling a man without the ball so as to get a PK against the attackers for obstruction risks letting the game get out of hand. The obstruction is complete and material when the attacker is prevented from making a tackle he'd otherwise have been able to make. Taking away the option of tackling the ball-carrier is surely always material?

Again, for 10.1(b), (c) (d) and (e) the obstruction has to be intentional; and for 10.1(a) and (e) contact is required by law; so most of the "regular obstructions" in broken play (if by that you mean inadvertent masking of the ball carrier as everyone runs in all directions) would not be offences.

 

[menace]

Agree RobLev, but in your post you use the words 'prevented' and 'intentional', and I agree with you without issue these are material and need to be pulled up. In the scenario I'd posted, imo, nobody was effectively 'prevented' as someone could have come round and chopped him down, equally the 'hopper' had no intention for obstruction as they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. Also for eg...there is often lots of obstruction when BC runs behind their player, they may have even touched them, but we may let them go because there was no defender prevented from reaching the BC and the BC didn't obstruct intentionally and there was no material affect to anyone. So it's those sorts of immaterial 'obstructions' I interpreted OB may have meant should still be pulled up?
I guess like anything, it's a judgment call on the ref to determine 'prevented' and 'intention' when it comes to obstruction. I was just picking OBs thoughts on his interpretation.

 

[menace]

Interesting...has anyone come out at all and said the move is illegal?

ps....other than those in this forum of course. I meant anyone in high places associated with coaching, elite refereeing, 'expert' journalists etc

 

[Phil E]

Not that I am aware of.
Would have been interesting to hear what the assessor had to say on the day?

 

[Browner]

In hindsight I tend to agree OB and take your point that perhaps a verbal 'something' would have been best but at the time it all happened in 2 seconds (2 or 3 hops) and it was over, no one seemed advantaged or disadvantaged so in the end decided I found good enough reason not to blow the whistle. I'd deal with it differently next time I'm sure.

Actually 10 hops, over 5 Meters.

The opposition mustve been disadvantaged, as the ball had no opportunity to spill out the side.

I expect to see this removed from scrummaging 'armoury" soon, via clarification , from someone !?! ......... The alternative is ludicrous over usage if the elite guys think this is a law loopholl to bunny hop through.

I suspect that it simply caught the ref by surprise.

 

[OB..]

In regards to your obstruction comment, I interpret that you're saying that every obstruction is material and therefore should be called? Isn't that getting on a slippery slope? The are regular obstructions in broken play, and if we called them all we'd be stopping the game a lot?

I do not subscribe to the view that it can only be obstruction if players attempt to get to the ball carrier. It must be likely that they could get to him but for the obstruction, but I see no legal requirement for a token effort.

I though that was a pretty clear requirement for materiality.