Obstruction - Article in SAReferees

[menace]

I understand that... But after following the game for 30+ years....I'm still learning knew things about it every week as my refereeing experience grows and I come into contact with players of higher ability. That doesn't make me stupid. (Gee I've opened the door there for someone to walk through!)

Think back about what you knew after 7 years of rugby....was it everything?? Job done? Were you the expert you are now?

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is was NO ad hominem attack on anyone in my post. Saying Poppycock to someone is NOT an ad-hominem attack!!

Those who claim that it was need to make sure they first familiarise themselves with what "Ad Hominem" actually means

ad hominem

ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/

adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

• 1.
  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
  
  "an ad hominem response"
• 2.
  relating to or associated with a particular person.
  "the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

Like womble, I get tired and pissed-off with reading referees talk about the application of Law with NO FEEL FOR HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED.

"This is not soccer!"

 

[Dickie E]

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!

I. too, would not penalise what I saw because it isn't C&O obstruction, but I can also see that others may have a different PoV (the support player certainly made a point of holding his running line and didn't avoid the contact [not that he has too]).

But is my argument strengthened by belittling them?

 

[Dickie E]

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.

directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Looks like snap to me.

But instead of arguing latin definitions, why don't you just respond with "sorry, crossref, no offence intended - its just that I have strongly different views to you". Much nicer

 

[Ian_Cook]

Sounds like snap to me.

Not even the same game. You should come over to ISF, then you might find out what a real ad-hominem attack looks like!

My comments were general ones, about "some referees", and as womble pointed out, there are plenty of them right here on this forum.

Dickie, you know me well enough by now to know that if I was directing those comments at crossref and NKW, I would have made that plain by actually telling them that I thought they needed to study the game more.

But never mind, you won't believe me, and I know that you will just read into my comments whatever you need to fit your personal agenda, as usual!

(See, that's a comment directed at YOU!)

 

[Dickie E]

your personal agenda,

My personal agenda is to help you evolve into a civilised human being. You'll thank me one day.

 

[Ian_Cook]

My personal agenda is to help you evolve into a civilised human being. You'll thank me one day.

Oh, you must have looked up "ad hominem" since you now seem to understand what it means

Never mind, water off a ducks back pal!

 

[Dickie E]

Oh, you must have looked up "ad hominem" since you now seem to understand what it means

Never mind, water off a ducks back pal!

It isn't supposed to be water off a duck's back. I'm appealing to you to consider the sensibilities of others before you make your posts. Your content is always (usually) good, the packaging sometimes needs a polish. Mods, in particular, need to be sensitive to this and be above reproach. Happy to discuss via PM if more appropriate.

 

[crossref]

For the record I am happy with the try being awarded because, as is pointed out, by convention and tacit approval that's the way the game is played. We have a convention that we ignore 10.1(c) which clearly applies.
I thought the SA Refs article was poor because it discusses 10.1(b) which clearly doesn't apply (easy) but finds 10.1(c) so difficult it is ignored

Here are the board some posts are confused talking about 'in front' (not relevant ) and intention (it was intentional) rather than admitting.. Yes he was blocking the tackler but we don't always apply that law.

 

[The Fat]

He knew his support running line would also make it more difficult for a defender to get to the ball carrier i.e. the defender would either need to run in front of him or run around the back of him. The thing is, he was perfectly entitled to run the support line that he did. Had he changed his line to block a defender we would have had an obstruction. Steyn knew he was unlikely to stop the ball carrier and did what 90% of defenders would do in his situation which is push the support player to make it look like he is being obstructed.
Fair try.

 

[crossref]

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!

So, exactly, the Laws Discussion that is needed is to explain to any interested ref WHY we wouldn't apply 10.1(c) to that incident.
That's a question which SA Refs just dodged, and on this board we have seen a lot of hand waving (and some insults) but no one has really got to grips with an answer...

Edit.. Apart from The Fat who has a good go in the previous post

 

[OB..]

We have a convention that we ignore 10.1(c) which clearly applies.

That is where we disagree. The primary intention was to support the runner. The secondary consequence was that he made life difficult for the defenders. It is necessary to take that view in order to allow support running - it would be unrealistic to demand that support runners made sure they kept out of the way of defenders.

SArefs could have made the specific point, but making it clear that he is entitled to hold his line is effectively doing just that.

 

[crossref]

we don't really disagree.

I didn't start this thread querying the decision.

I was saying what a rubbish article it was on SA Referees.

The incident shows someone blocking a tackler, and SA referees are writing a Law Discussion on that.

The Law discussion covers why it wasn't general obstruction (fair enough) but fails to mention the specific Law that forbids a player from a blocking a tackler !

What sort of a Law discussion is that, which fails to mention the Law that is at the heart of the incident.

10.1(c) is actually a Law that really deserves a discussion, as by common agreement it's not refereed as it's written - - so it would actually be good article to discuss what convention is, how it's refereed and why they think it was correct not apply it in that incident.

They could have discussed what it means to be running a support line - eg does that mean being in a position to receive a pass? or is that not necessary, does it mean running in a straight line, or following the line of the ball carrier? or could a support line be independent of the course of the bc?)

All of the above would be a lot more interesting than merely discarding 10.1(b) as he wasn't in front, which was pretty obvious.


[Seeing as the article is a Law discussion they could also have paused to briefly consider 10.4(f), playing a man without the ball, and explaining why that doesn't apply, although I don't hold that as a major omission]

 

[OB..]

by common agreement it's not refereed as it's written

You are insisting on a particular literal interpretation. The one actually used is different.

 

[crossref]

You are insisting on a particular literal interpretation. The one actually used is different.

which would make for an interesting Law discussion!

 

[RobLev]

That is where we disagree. The primary intention was to support the runner. The secondary consequence was that he made life difficult for the defenders. It is necessary to take that view in order to allow support running - it would be unrealistic to demand that support runners made sure they kept out of the way of defenders.

SArefs could have made the specific point, but making it clear that he is entitled to hold his line is effectively doing just that.

The problem is, is this correct? I see a player running alongside his BC team-mate (indeed slightly ahead at point of contact by would-be tackler, notwithstanding what others have said), with no threat of any tackler approaching from in front. The only threat was either from directly behind the BC, or through the "support player". If the runner had been overhauled from behind and brought down, the "support player" have been in no position to take an off-load, since he'd have been in front of the BC; he has to be slightly behind for this (given that the tackle would slow the BC down). So, serious question: how is he "supporting" the BC by running alongside him? Apart, of course, from making it more difficult for the tacklers to get to him.

It may be that this is something that referees and players across the sport are prepared to let go; but let's be honest about it; the support the player was offering was obstructing any credible would-be tackler.

 

[didds]

but I can also see that others may have a different PoV (the support player certainly made a point of holding his running line and didn't avoid the contact [not that he has too]).

Indeed - because what else is he supposed to do? If those that believe the support running line is obstruction, I'd really like a reasoned explanation of the support runner's expected actions. the video provided is a perfect example to work with because there is no realistic line to the ball carrier's right. Allied to if the would be tackler was front on instead of covering back, the support runner's line would otherwise be no issue whatsoever - and the 100% correct one.

didds

 

[OB..]

It may be that this is something that referees and players across the sport are prepared to let go; but let's be honest about it; the support the player was offering was obstructing any credible would-be tackler.

There will always be borderline cases, but for me this is not one. While it is a fact that the supporting runner is in the way of a defender, he has no obligation to get out of the way as long as his supporting line is credible.

 

[crossref]

While it is a fact that the supporting runner is in the way of a defender, he has no obligation to get out of the way as long as his supporting line is credible.

that's the discussion I'd like to see -- what does it mean to be credible? for instance do you have to be in a good position to receive a pass?

 

[RobLev]

There will always be borderline cases, but for me this is not one. While it is a fact that the supporting runner is in the way of a defender, he has no obligation to get out of the way as long as his supporting line is credible.

Please unpack "supporting line".