[Law] Obstriction

vimpe22


Referees in Sri Lanka
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
92
Post Likes
0
[video]https://ytcropper.com/cropped/ba5c757b7217ef2[/video]


In this case the referee disallowed the try . Reason was obstruction .

My View Obstruction

Reason . There was a maul that broke down and the ball is on ground . No ruck open play ??
Defense is not able to get to ball carrier , Negative play standing there

Would appreciate views
 

Christy


Referees in Ireland
Joined
May 25, 2016
Messages
527
Post Likes
60
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
Try for me ..
I would be more concerned with 30 players basically wearing same colours ..
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,621
Post Likes
499
Can't tell with my screen resolution, but I could believe that the penalised player was holding/obstructing the two defenders
 

oliver

Getting to know the game
Joined
Oct 8, 2016
Messages
41
Post Likes
7
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I think he was holding way beyond the ball so ostruction imo. Also, the winger with the blue arm guard (11?) looked like he was held to me and didn't release the ball, so PK anyway.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,104
Post Likes
2,365
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
First offence was the winger getting tackled and then getting to his feet without releasing the ball, or if he did momentarily release he wasn't on his feet when he did so.

That makes any subsequent obstruction irrelevant.
 

DocY


Referees in England
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
1,809
Post Likes
421
50:50 call for me. The 'obstructor' was very close to going too far beyond the ball in his ruck clearout. I can see how some would say he went too far and some would say he's okay.
 

vimpe22


Referees in Sri Lanka
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
92
Post Likes
0
50:50 call for me. The 'obstructor' was very close to going too far beyond the ball in his ruck clearout. I can see how some would say he went too far and some would say he's okay.

Was there a ruck . It was more like A maul to ground,
 

mcroker

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 11, 2018
Messages
362
Post Likes
113
Current Referee grade:
Level 10
They are both well infront of the ball and clearly preventing a defender crossing to make a covering tackle. I'm fine with obstruction.

For me the winger was not-held.
 

Arabcheif

Player or Coach
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
680
Post Likes
74
Current Referee grade:
Level 1
For me the was a Maul that went to ground. He's driven over to make the ball available, pretty much immediately. He stayed in the vicinity of the grounded player and was bound onto his opponent legally, who was attempting to drive him back, so was also bound to him too. The 2nd player couldn't get passed his own player to make the tackle. I'd have given the try.
 
Top