Obstruction - Article in SAReferees

[Ian_Cook]

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".

Neither "reckless" nor "negligent" appear in the Laws of the Game, so that is really of no consequence. I think you are just playing with words Roblev.

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.

Well, I am not seeing what you are seeing. I have gone back and looked at all the angles shown in that video. I have done so several times, and no matter how hard I try to find a PK in there, I just can't. All I see is a player running a support line for his ball carrier.

 

[didds]

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.

CF lineout defenders not jumping for the ball because the attacking throws have all been squint beforehand? As oft discussed?

didds

 

[Phil E]

There is an obstruction that is given (in the act of scoring) in that same game here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=924

I know it's not exactly the same situation but it illustrates the point.

 

[crossref]

Well, I am not seeing what you are seeing. I have gone back and looked at all the angles shown in that video. I have done so several times, and no matter how hard I try to find a PK in there, I just can't. All I see is a player running a support line for his ball carrier.

What I see is a player with a good understanding of how the game is reffed, legally blocking the tackler, by skillfully choosing a line which does the necessary, blocking the tackler, while also being a more or less credible support line.
He pulls it off - fair play to him. Try awarded.


But this thread shows that's actually quite difficult to explain in black and white exactly why 10.1(c) doesn't apply.

In general the more detail people have used the bigger the hole. - I certainly don't think the answer lies in the meaning of the word 'intentionally' ! the best answers are perhaps the vaguer ones : you're basically allowed to block a tackle if are running a credible support line, it's not in the Laws exactly, but that's the way we roll.

I have asked SA Referees Duty Ref to give their explanation of why 10.1(c) doesn't apply, it will be interesting to see if he does a better job.

For record again - as not everyone seems to have grasped - I am happy to award that try. That's the way the game is played. I agree.

My only point was that if we are going to have a Law Discussion about the incident, then the Law Discussion needs to explain why we wouldn't penalize under 10.1(b) (easy, the answer is in the Law itself, he's not in front) or 10.1(c) (trickier, as the answer is not to found in the Law book, but from convention)

 

[RobLev]

Neither "reckless" nor "negligent" appear in the Laws of the Game, so that is really of no consequence. I think you are just playing with words Roblev.

I was pointing out OB's definition of "intentional"; you were on the side of the angels (ie my side) in the thread in which this comment from OB appeared.

Well, I am not seeing what you are seeing. I have gone back and looked at all the angles shown in that video. I have done so several times, and no matter how hard I try to find a PK in there, I just can't. All I see is a player running a support line for his ball carrier.

I'll respond to that in a separate comment on your earlier comment.

 

[RobLev]

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 hesitate to cross swords with you, but (possibly apart from me) everyone on this thread does understand the game. They understand that the "support runner" was placing himself very deliberately so as to prevent a tackler getting to the BC, while maintaining plausible deniability on the basis that he was there as a "support runner". That is refereed, certainly at your level of the game, as acceptable; but the issue is whether that can be justified in Law.

PS The line was fine; the reason I say that he was, in Law, obstructing is where he was running on that line...should he have been in a position to take an offload or a pass without breaking stride or backtracking, or is he allowed to take a position (alongside or slightly ahead of the BC) that is more protective of the BC at the expense of being in quite so good a position to actually legitimately support him.

 

[RobLev]

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.

He didn't just keep up with him, he overtook him as the tackler came across...

 

[RobLev]

Acksherly, having looked again, this wasn't directly a reply to me, it merely followed me. Post hoc ergo propter hoc can be a fallacy - who knew...

Nevertheless, I'll treat it as a reply to me.

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.

Agreed.

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 .

Here we begin to part company.

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.

There is now clear daylight between us.

The ball carrier only slowed down as the push happened, so as to avoid his "support" who'd been pushed across him.

Rewatching it, I'm not sure the would-be tackler changed direction.

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.

Incorrect. He is running alongside the "support" at 47:10 on the video, just before the push. If the "support" couldn't see him at that point, he couldn't see the BC either.

The "support" also turns his head away just before impact (watch from 46:56). He saw the tackler coming.

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.

Except that being half a meter further back, he'd have given the tackler a clear run on the BC; look again at the video at 47:10.

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?

It's unnecessary to "not possibly get in the way of a potential tackler". Probably a meter back, on the same line. Where he was as they approached the 22m line. Before he moved up upon seeing the tackler converging from their left.

 

[chrismtl]

There is an obstruction that is given (in the act of scoring) in that same game here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=924

I know it's not exactly the same situation but it illustrates the point.

I'm not exactly sure how it illustrates a point when it's not at all the same situation. A dummy runner taking out a potential tackler is C&O obstruction. Look at the image below and ask yourself if it's the same as a player running next to his teammate who could potentially receive a pass or ruck if needed.

- - - Updated - - -

There is an obstruction that is given (in the act of scoring) in that same game here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=924

I know it's not exactly the same situation but it illustrates the point.

I'm not exactly sure how it illustrates a point when it's not at all the same situation. A dummy runner taking out a potential tackler is C&O obstruction. Look at the image below and ask yourself if it's the same as a player running next to his teammate who could potentially receive a pass or ruck if needed.

 

[Phil E]

I'm not exactly sure how it illustrates a point when it's not at all the same situation.

I said it wasn't the same.

It illustrates the point that the obstructing player is in front of the ball carrier and alters his line to block the would be tackler.

It's interesting that you say it's " C&O obstruction". Clearly the OP situation isn't "C&O obstruction". If it was we wouldn't be up to 70 posts and counting.

 

[Womble]

I said it wasn't the same.

It illustrates the point that the obstructing player is in front of the ball carrier and alters his line to block the would be tackler.

It's interesting that you say it's " C&O obstruction". Clearly the OP situation isn't "C&O obstruction". If it was we wouldn't be up to 70 posts and counting.

5/6 posts would have done ! I believe that all of you guys have lost your marbles ! epper:epper: How you can discuss the possibility of an onside support runner obstructing is beyond me!

 

[crossref]

for the earlier incident (try disallowed) the Law is very straightforward - clearly both 10.1(b) and 10.1(c) apply. There are two reasons why it's a PK.

 

[crossref]

5/6 posts would have done ! I believe that all of you guys have lost your marbles ! epper:epper: How you can discuss the possibility of an onside support runner obstructing is beyond me!

womble - - yes so you have said - but why not bear with it for one post and explain what's your definition of a 'support runner' - it's kind of important - what is it that makes a player a bona fide 'support runner' , so that obstruction cannot apply ?

 

[OB..]

For years a hand-off was technically illegal since by definition you were playing a player without the ball.

Nobody ever penalises a scrum half for picking the ball out of a ruck even though it is technically illegal.

So why are we picking on 10.1 (c) and claiming that (a) it is capable of only one meaning; and (b) therefore we need a reason not to obey it?

I can see that this is a borderline case, so people will disagree about it being a credible supporting line, but that is the way the law is used currently, as it seems to make more sense then requiring any supporting team-mate to get out of the way of a defender.

 

[RobLev]

5/6 posts would have done ! I believe that all of you guys have lost your marbles ! epper:epper: How you can discuss the possibility of an onside support runner obstructing is beyond me!

Onside/offside is irrelevant for 10.1(c).

And what crossref said.

 

[didds]

..
should he have been in a position to take an offload or a pass without breaking stride or backtracking,

Mind you, i constantly see players at all levels unable to achieve that with no defenders approaching from behind...

didds

 

[Womble]

Onside/offside is irrelevant for 10.1(c).

And what crossref said.

10.1(c) has the word INTENTIONALLY, that is very relevant, if players cant support a ball carrier then we may as well switch codes !

 

[crossref]

So why are we picking on 10.1 (c) and claiming that (a) it is capable of only one meaning; and (b) therefore we need a reason not to obey it?
.

I didn't start the thread to pick on 10.1(c) I started the thread to pick on SA Referees who wrote a Law Discussion about a player blocking a tackle without mentioning 10.1(c) Player blocking a tackle. I think that's a pretty rubbish Law Discussion!

whoever said it was capable of only one meaning? A Law discussion is to tease out what the conventional wisdom really is.

the answer is that a player won't be done for blocking a tackler if he is running a credible support line

Ian defines a support runner like this -- I'd go along with it, seems pretty good to me..

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.

 

[SimonSmith]

Acksherly, having looked again, this wasn't directly a reply to me, it merely followed me. Post hoc ergo propter hoc can be a fallacy - who knew...

Aaron Sorkin and President Bartlett

 

[RobLev]

10.1(c) has the word INTENTIONALLY, that is very relevant, if players cant support a ball carrier then we may as well switch codes !

It is indeed very relevant. Which is why the meaning of "support" is important. After all, if the support consists solely of getting in the way of tacklers that looks very like a law 10.1(c) infringement. So where is the balance struck between that and genuinely being there only to take a pass/offload? At what point does the getting in the way element trump the pass/offload element?

And, going back a stage - at the point of contact the "support runner" in this instance was actually offside. He was marginally ahead of the BC.