Obstruction - Article in SAReferees

[crossref]

Rather disappointing article in SAreferees today

When is being in the way obstruction?

Morné Steyn Stade Français kicks off to start the second half. Leicester Tigers catch the ball, a ruck forms and scrumhalf Ben Youngs kicks downfield. Sergio Parisse of Stade Français cannot control the ball and knocks it backwards to Julien Tomas of Stade Francis who knocks it on. Brendon O'Connor of Leicester Tigers picks up the bell just inside the Leicester Tigers half and races 51 metres straight downfield about a metre in from the touchline on his right with Adam Thompstone of Leicester Tigers on his left and level with him. Steyn is coming across to tackle O'Connor but cannot get past Thompstone to get to O'Connor. Eventually he pushes Thompstone out of the way but O'Connor goes on to score in the right corner. Steyn and Parisse appeal eagerly for obstruction.

The referee refers the incident to the TMO and then awards a try to Leicester tigers.

When the incident is replayed it is clear that Thompstone is in Steyn's way. It is also clear that he is not in front of O'Connor but at most level with him and at times slightly behind him.

Obstruction?

[LAWS]Law 10.1 OBSTRUCTION
(b) Running in front of a ball-carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]
O'Connor is the ball-carrier.
Thompstone is not in front of O'Connor
Thompstone is not committing obstruction.

The referee was right to award the try.
If Thompstone had been in front of O'Connor, it would have been a penalty for obstruction.

Yes, well, that all sounds OK under 10.1(b) ..... but hang on --- what about 10.1(c)?:

[LAWS]
10.1(c)
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]


Article

 

[Phil E]

Rather disappointing article in SAreferees today

Yes, well, that all sounds OK under 10.1(b) ..... but hang on --- what about 10.1(c)?:

[LAWS]10.1(c)
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Article

But Thompstone did not move or stand in front of the would be tackler.
The referee (in a rare moment of clarity) stated (after watching it with the TMO) that he didn't alter his run or line to block the Stade players. He ran a supporting line for the offload and at no time did he alter his line to obstruct.

Tigers did however have their first try wiped off for obstruction.

 

[crossref]

But Thompstone did not move or stand in front of the would be tackler..

10.1(c) doesn't say anything about being in front.... thomsptone was clearly moving in a way to block the tackler... he glances and even drops his shoulder slightly.. as the commentator say, he knows what he is doing..

Now it may be that 10.1(c) doesn't apply, but I think that the SA referees article really needs to mention it, and explain why they don't think it applies...

Here's the incident ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=2751


EDIT
Crossref; I fixed your timecode

#t=nnnn doesn't work any more for cueing a YouTube video to a specific time... use &t=nnnn

Alternatively, pause the You Tube video where to want to cue it to, hover the mouse somewhere over the video, right click and select "Copy video URL at current time", then paste that into the post

 

[Phil E]

Now it may be that 10.1(c) doesn't apply, but I think that the SA referees article really needs to mention it, and explain why they don't think it applies...

Do you want them to list every other law that doesn't apply and explain why not?

 

[crossref]

Do you want them to list every other law that doesn't apply and explain why not?

don't be silly.

 

[Ian_Cook]

10.1(c) doesn't say anything about being in front.... thomsptone was clearly moving in a way to block the tackler... he glances and even drops his shoulder slightly.. as the commentator say, he knows what he is doing..

Now it may be that 10.1(c) doesn't apply, but I think that the SA referees article really needs to mention it, and explain why they don't think it applies...

Here's the incident ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=2751

No but it has a key word that you are forgetting..."intentionally"

[LAWS]10.1(c)
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

IMO, the SAReferees article gets this exactly right. If Thomstone did not move into or stand in a position where his intent was to block the tackler, then he hasn't obstructed that tackler.

If you are really going to rule instances like this is obstruction, then you will eliminate support runners from the game.

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I watched it live in the pub and before the TMO decision explained to all and sundry that it was a clear try and thomsptone was completely in his rights to run straight supporting the ball carrier.
Lots of no way, he blocked him, obstruction comments followed by ........................Smart arse!!

 

[crossref]

No but it has a key word that you are forgetting..."intentionally"

[LAWS]10.1(c)
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

IMO, the SAReferees article gets this exactly right. If Thomstone did not move into or stand in a position where his intent was to block the tackler, then he hasn't obstructed that tackler.

If you are really going to rule instances like this is obstruction, then you will eliminate support runners from the game.

well, he was clearly, intentionally moving so that he was blocking the tackler. The commentators say so themselves.
and when the tackler gets close he drops his shoulder.

The Law says

[LAWS]10.1(c)
Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

and on the face of it this is exactly what he is doing.

The situation is that - by unspoken convention - we don't apply this Law in this sort of scenario.

SA referees are wrong in Law (which is why they don't mention this Law, it's too difficult to explain why they ignore it) but right by custom.

 

[chbg]

Ibid ad nauseum that we should not read the Laws literally as if they are a legal document.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

No but it has a key word that you are forgetting..."intentionally"

The law concerning playing the man without the ball doesn't mention intentionally, but does apply to obstruct

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball

He did obstruct him didn't he? It was intentional, now does it eliminate a player from supporting a ball carrier? Only if a tackle is prevented from behind, and the only possible tackle is from behind. That supporting player had numerous angles and locations to support his pace devoid team-mate. he chose the one to obstruct an opponent

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

The situation is that - by unspoken convention - we don't apply this Law in this sort of scenario.

I believe that is known as tacit approval

 

[didds]

I think its known as bloody obvious normal play.

didds

 

[Taff]

well, he was clearly, intentionally moving so that he was blocking the tackler. The commentators say so themselves. and when the tackler gets close he drops his shoulder.

I reckon some Refs would have penalised him and some wouldn't.

Personally, I reckon Crossref has a point. I reckon the intention was more to block than to support; he is virtually flat with the BC when pushed, so he's not offside but if he was genuinely intent on just "supporting" he would have been a step or two further back surely.

A similar thing happened in a charity England game at The Stoop about a year ago (I commented on it here) but from memory I got slated for arguing the same thing that Crossref pointed out. If someone's good with Youtube, I'm pretty sure it was the try where the prop ran practically the full length of the pitch and scored.

 

[Ian_Cook]

well, he was clearly, intentionally moving so that he was blocking the tackler. The commentators say so themselves.

That supporting player had numerous angles and locations to support his pace devoid team-mate. he chose the one to obstruct an opponent

Utter poppycock the pair of you!!

FFS, I wish referees would study the game a bit more instead of just their ****ing Law books, to get a better understanding of how the game is actually played... by the players.

Here is the ball carrier picking up the ball, and the player who will
become his support runner is top-centre of the image.

NOTE: the support player is on the ball carrier's INSIDE, ie. to his LEFT.

When a ball carrier is running in the touch channel, the support runner
runs the INSIDE LINE, looking for the possibility of an inside pass should
the cover defence get to him from in front of his running line.
​

In this case, not only does the support player run the same line that ANY other support player would run, and one that the ball carrier will be EXPECTING HIM TO RUN, he actually keeps to the same line, he does not change it or deviate from that line!

If you think there are other lines he could have run perhaps you can point them out to me, because I cannot see a valid one.

If you are expecting the support player to cross behind the ball carrier and run the outside channel, then you have either never played the game or you don't watch much rugby. A support player will never do that with so little room between the ball carrier and the sideline, and even if there was room, he would have to run further so he will be unlikely to be able to get in position to receive an outside pass in any case.

I would imagine that didds, our resident coach (and poet, apparently), would coach players to run just about that exact line.

and when the tackler gets close he drops his shoulder.

Looks more to me like the the actions of a player bracing himself against contact from a player who is about to infringe Law 10.4 (e) and play him without the ball, a fact that is made pretty obvious by the tackler changing direction sharply to push the support runner. IMO, he was trying to push the support player into the ball carrier to try to knock him into touch.

 

[talbazar]

Front my point of view, no problem with the try.
Support runner runs his line and gets the advantage of keeping in the way: smart *rse...

I just hope that if the push on the support runner would have resulted in the ball carrier stepping into touch, nothing more would have come out from it.
I mean, you can't fairly get a try in that situation and/or get a penalty try for playing the man without the ball if the defender push the support runner out of the way...

My two cents,
Pierre.

 

[Dickie E]

Utter poppycock the pair of you!!

FFS, I wish referees would study the game a bit more instead of just their ****ing Law books, to get a better understanding of how the game is actually played... by the players.

This is the kind of ad hominem attack that upsets people. I thought we had agreement to keep it about the argument, not about the posters.

 

[Womble]

This is the kind of ad hominem attack that upsets people. For the umpteenth time, please stop doing it or I will moderate your posts.

Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!

 

[menace]

Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!

Whoa! Hang on a second....this site should be about more experienced referees and rugby heads to help those understand about the game and what players are aiming to do within the laws of the game. Of course there's people on here writing that don't fully understand the game, that's why they're here...to try an learn something. Why not take the polite approach to teach them empathy and why there is a better way/other to interpret a situation. They should not be maltreated and maligned so abrasively as they have been just because they might not see the nuances of those that have 30-50 years rugby knowledge.
Those that are putting out there their take on it and may have a lot less experience and understanding shouldn't be shot down and told that they're "f@cken hopeless know nothing's".

Btw...I agree with Ian...other than this bit of poor literature

Utter poppycock the pair of you!!

FFS, I wish referees would study the game a bit more instead of just their ****ing Law books, to get a better understanding of how the game is actually played... by the players."

 

[Womble]

Menace, its late here in the UK, may have overstepped the mark, but when peeps who are very regular on here are wide of the mark by a country mile you have to ask why !!!! They speak with such assertion that newer peeps would get the wrong idea !! Why have they not learnt in the last 7 years ?????????????