Obstruction - Article in SAReferees

[RobLev]

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

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should have run a line to the BC's right.

I too would like a reasonable explanation of the"support runner's" expected actions. Exactly what support was he offering to the BC taking the position he was relative to the BC? He couldn't take a pass, since he was at best level with, and at relevant times marginally ahead of, the BC. He couldn't take an offload - ditto. And in either event, why would the BC pass/offload the ball; he wasn't going to be tackled... So what is the nature of this "support" he was offering?

 

[Phil E]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should have run a line to the BC's right.

I too would like a reasonable explanation of the"support runner's" expected actions. Exactly what support was he offering to the BC taking the position he was relative to the BC? He couldn't take a pass, since he was at best level with, and at relevant times marginally ahead of, the BC. He couldn't take an offload - ditto. And in either event, why would the BC pass/offload the ball; he wasn't going to be tackled... So what is the nature of this "support" he was offering?

If he wasn't going to be tackled then there can't have been any obstruction.

 

[Taff]

If he wasn't going to be tackled then there can't have been any obstruction.

I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled, because there was a team mate between him and potential tackler.

 

[crossref]

I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled, because there was a team mate between him and potential tackler.

I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled because there was a team mate carefully between him and potential tackler

 

[Phil E]

I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled, because there was a team mate between him and potential tackler.

I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled because there was a team mate carefully between him and potential tackler

Then perhaps Roblev should have said that?

 

[RobLev]

Then perhaps Roblev should have said that?

Unfortunately my inner 12 year old got loose with the crayons.

Since the point made in my previous email was that the only way he could be tackled was through the "support runner" (or by going around him and chasing from behind - as if) I thought that was pretty clearly my point.

But perhaps you can tell me what support the "support runner" was providing?

 

[OB..]

I have no intention of trying to define a "credible supporting line" because I suspect it is impossible, at least in simple terms. It has to be down to the referee's judgement.

Viewing clips is one way to seek consistency, provided it is agreed that the mere fact of being in the defender's way is not in itself enough to constitute obstruction.

 

[RobLev]

I have no intention of trying to define a "credible supporting line" because I suspect it is impossible, at least in simple terms. It has to be down to the referee's judgement.

Viewing clips is one way to seek consistency, provided it is agreed that the mere fact of being in the defender's way is not in itself enough to constitute obstruction.

I'm certainly not asking you to define a "credible supporting line". I am asking you what support the player in the clip was providing to the ball carrier by running where he was running, alongside and/or slightly ahead of the BC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The support runner needs to be there to receive a pass or offload if the ball carrier is tackled, or if the ball carrier cannot get a pass away, he is there to ensure his team-mate is not isolated, i.e. he wants to be first to the breakdown.

This support runner was in a very good position to do either of these all the way from the time the player picked up the ball to the time the claimed obstruction occurred . While Roblev points out that he was slightly ahead near the end, that was only after the ball carrier slowed down (the support runner didn't have time to react) and the opponent pushed him in an attempt to "plant" the ball carrier into touch as well as to highlight his spurious claim that he was obstructed. The fact that the opponent sharply changes direction in order to push the support player severely undermines any case he thought he might have had.

For those who still think that this support runner was intentionally blocking the tackler, tell me where else he could have run? Note that as far as we can see, at no time does he look around to see the chasers and where they are coming from. He will be able to see the SF player coming across in front of the goalposts and will realise that this player has no chance of getting there, but the opponent who ends up pushing him comes from a 45° angle behind him; completely out of even his peripheral vision. He will have only an approximate idea where this player is; somewhere behind and to the left.

• A support line to the right is out of the question (no space)
• Running directly behind the ball carrier won't put him in a good position to receive a pass, yet he could still end up getting in the way if there is a chaser running the ball carrier down from behind.

In fact, if he really wanted to block the opponent, he would have been better half a metre further back, keeping himself between the ball carrier and the approaching opponent.

As I said earlier, if you want to apply 10.1 (c) to this situation, then you might as well make support runners illegal, because this really becomes a "Joseph Heller" situation, there is nowhere that a support runner can run that he won't potentially get in the way of a would be tackler, and we won't know if that potential is realised until the would be tackler arrives.

So, I ask again, where would you have this guy run so that he can still be in the best position to support his ball carrier, but cannot possibly get in the way of a potential tackler?

 

[crossref]

so now I think we are beginning to have the Law Discussion that I think SA Referees should have started --

What about Law 10.1(c) Blocking the Tackler

That Law says

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

which Thompstone certainly did -- the commentators themselves say 'he knew exactly what he was doing'.
But it's not as simple as that -- by convention we don't penalise players for blocking the tackler as long as they are a support runner running a credible support line.
What's a support runner ? what's credible support line ? It's not defined in Law or convention, but one definition from a leading commentator is

The support runner needs to be there to receive a pass or offload if the ball carrier is tackled, or if the ball carrier cannot get a pass away, he is there to ensure his team-mate is not isolated, i.e. he wants to be first to the breakdown.

Was that what Thompstone was doing ?
Well, to receive a pass or offload - or to be a support after a tackle you'd need to be behind the ball carrier. Thompstone was level (at times in front) was he running a credible support line ? or was he running a line intended simply to block the ball carrier ?

It's a judgement call.

It was a close one, and the TMO and referee gave Thompstone the benefit of the doubt.


That's the sort of thing I would have expected a proper Law discussion to cover.


However

 

[Ian_Cook]

so now I think we are beginning to have the Law Discussion that I think SA Referees should have started

What about Law 10.1(c) Blocking the Tackler

That Law says

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

which Thompstone certainly did -- the commentators themselves say 'he knew exactly what he was doing'.

You're ignoring "intentionally" again.

10.1 (c) applies when a player intentionally gets between the ball carrier and a tackler for the express purpose of preventing the ball carrier being tackled. This happens when a player deliberately changes his position or changes his running line to get into a position to prevent the ball carrier being tackled. Thomstone did neither of these. He started on a running line that did not block any tacklers, and he continued on that same line without ever changing direction or speed, all the way until he was illegally pushed in the back.

What the commentator says is not irrelevant!!

But it's not as simple as that -- by convention we don't penalise players for blocking the tackler as long as they are a support runner running a credible support line.
What's a support runner ? what's credible support line ? It's not defined in Law or convention, but one definition from a leading commentator is

The referee uses his judgement

And again, what the commentator says is not irrelevant!!

Was that what Thompstone was doing ?
Well, to receive a pass or offload - or to be a support after a tackle you'd need to be behind the ball carrier at the moment the pass/tackle is made

FTFY

It only takes one step to slow down enough to be in a position to take a pass or come through the gate at a tackle once it becomes apparent that either of them is going to happen. Until then you make sure that you are as far up the field as you can be and running as fast as the ball carrier.

Thompstone was level (at times in front) was he running a credible support line ? or was he running a line intended simply to block the ball carrier ?

At no time was he ever in front until the end. He was running the just about the exact support line I would expect him to run, indeed, that I would coach him to run. To that end, I will be showing that footage to my juniors as a text book example of how to support a ball carrier who has made a line break or an intercept.

It's a judgement call.

[It was a close one, and the TMO and referee gave Thompstone the benefit of the doubt.

Well, IMO, it wasn't even close. It was a no-brainer. There was never any obstruction, nor was there intent.

 

[Camquin]

The key point is that if you are on side 10.1 applies and with it intent
If you are ahead of the ball carrier you are off-side and 11.1 applies - you MUST not obstuct an opponent.

Now, without a TMO if I saw someone run that line, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they are onside, after all I would be shifting to keep up with the winger. So I would need to see a clear and obvious move to obstruct.

The TMO has a better view, but surely it still has to be clear and obvious.

 

[menace]

Again I find myself agreeing with Ian (through a well executed argument ) except for the bit that he wasn't obstructing with intent.
I personally think that is exactly what he was doing....and perfectly run shepard well within the laws of the game and the spirit of the game and tacticly perfectly executed. He held his line throughout but still allowed enough space for any defender to go round the back to tackle the BC if they were good enough or fast enough but none of them were because the support player made sure of it.
As Ian said...it doesn't get any better than that for support play.

 

[chbg]

To a certain extent it is the same argument when a referee gets in the way - we have to be somewhere. Go round us not through us! The support runner was occupying one linear space, from which he did not divert. It was, in that situation, up to the would-be tackler to use another line to the ball carrier. Same as a 'post' on the side of a ruck. If he stands still he may well be 'obstructing' an opponent's direct line to the SH, but we will not penalise him, will we? If he moves to deliberately/intentionally block another line to the SH then that is an infringement. Also a team mate ahead of a kick catcher: he has to be somewhere and allow opponents to go around him to get to the catcher. Isn't it the same with 'dummy runners'?

 

[crossref]

Ian so you are saying it wasn't intentional, but if it had been intentional it was a PK?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian so you are saying it wasn't intentional, but if it had been intentional it was a PK?

If Thomstone had been running that line, and as the approaching player went to run around him (to his right or his left) he changed his running line to get in the way of the player, then that is "intentionally moving into a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier."


PING!

 

[OB..]

Ian so you are saying it wasn't intentional, but if it had been intentional it was a PK?

Your interpretation of "intentionally" is not the one Ian and I and the officials are using. (I think I may have mentioned that before.)

 

[chrismtl]

I think that the way I look at this and the way that the law should be understood and refereed is the following. If the player is running his natural support line, play on. If the player at any point slows down dramatically or changes direction and blocks a potential tackler because of it then PK. The supporting player did neither of those 2 things in the clip so no issue with the try for me.

A point Ian brought up and was quickly brushed aside or ignored is that we need to referee the game for the players and need to know what the players themselves are trying to achieve on the field of play. Too many refs referee the game to show how knowledgeable they are of the law book. I won't lie, I can sometimes be guilty of this myself and when I look back at those games I always think I had a bad game.

That being said, in my view, the referee who would call obstruction on that play is refereeing with the law book instead of refereeing for the players.

 

[crossref]

As I said before I wasn't criticising the decision, I was criticising the sa referee Law Discussion of that incident, which didn't even mention this interesting Law, and the completely unwritten conventions that govern the way that we ref it in practice.

 

[RobLev]

Your interpretation of "intentionally" is not the one Ian and I and the officials are using. (I think I may have mentioned that before.)

I'll come back on Ian's reply to me, but this I agree with. The definition you usually use for intentional includes "reckless"; indeed a version of "reckless" that borders on "negligent". By that definition, accelerating to be alongside the BC - which the "support" did - when the tackler tries to get to him looks intentional.

And to chrismtl; I don't think anyone can look at that clip and believe that the "support" wasn't "trying to achieve" a block on the incoming tackle.

One final point in this interim response; to those who'd penalise the tackler's push. Would you penalise an obstruction where the tackler made no attempt to get to the BC? Because if not, that puts an attempted tackler confronted with an obstructing "support player" with a Catch-22.