Obstruction - Article in SAReferees

[chrismtl]

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.

Your exact wording was "not exactly the same" which to me at least indicates that there is some similarity between the 2 incidents. As for the C&O that I mentioned, it is only in reference to your dummy runner video. I've always said that the OP video is definitely not obstruction.

 

[didds]

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.

Is this the leicester try?

If so, I can;t see that the supporter was ever in front of the BC until AFTER he was shoved?

didds

 

[Ian_Cook]

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.

I disagree with both of those statements.

The ball carrier takes a short step before the support runner was pushed and then accelerates through the gap in front of the would be tackler and behind his support runner, who is only ever in front of him because he was pushed there.

The would be tackler clearly changes direction (steps off his left foot) to push the support runner. This is the only act that is a C&O infringement. If the push had succeeded in planting the ball carrier into touch, then, as TMO, I would recommend a YC for the would be tackler under 10.4 (e) and a PT.

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 runner has been just behind and to the left of his ball carrier for 40m by that point so he must know where his ball carrier is. On the other hand, the would be tackler has come up from behind him and to his left and has only just got to the point where he suddenly swerves into the support runner to push him. He was catching the ball carrier, and had he kept his line, he might have been able to take the ball carrier into touch in the corner, or prompted the support runner into actually obstructing him. Instead he took a card from the "Chance" deck and got "Go Back Three Spaces" instead of the one he wanted... "Get Out of Jail Free".

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

The support runner turned his head to look at his ball carrier. 5m from the goal line with the defence possibly closing, that's what I would be doing; looking at the ball in the ball carrier's hands, ready to receive a pass or offload.

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.

OR, the would be tackler thought he didn't have a chance of catching the ball carrier, so he ran at the support runner in order to try to create an apparent obstruction scenario.


.... you see, you're not the only one who can play that game.

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.

He was moving up steadily throughout the entire run, NOT suddenly at the end as you are implying.

There was plenty of room for the would be tackler to run behind the support runner and tackle the ball carrier, but he wasn't smart enough, fast enough or skilful enough to do so. Why should the officials hand him his "Get out of Jail Free" card to compensate for his lack of skill, game nous and speed?


The difference between you and I here Roblev is that you are trying to be clever with words, and your reading of the Laws, and your micro-analysis of the video, to find away to create an infringement where none exists, in order to justify your stance. I'm looking for a way to let the players play the game without me getting in their way!

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 ?

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LINE THAT A SUPPORT RUNNER CAN RUN WHERE THERE IS A 100% CERTAINTY THAT HE WILL NOT GET IN THE WAY OF AN OPPONENT.

You will only know whether or not the line he has chosen gets him in the way of an opponent when, and if, that opponent arrives. So long as the support runner maintains his line (so that the opponent can go around him) and does not INTENTIONALLY block the opponent BY ALTERING HIS RUNNING LINE, then the support runner has NOT committed obstruction. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

(And yes, I do have to shout because you are not listening!!!!)

If you want to see an example of what the would be tackler SHOULD have done, watch this

Yes, there was no support runner, but even if there was, THIS is the line you need to run to chase down and take out a ball carrier in the corner.

Beauden Barrett has the speed and the skills, but he also has the game nous to know that he wasn't going to be able to stop the ball carrier by tackling him, so he did the next best thing, got close enough to ankle tap him on the off-chance he could unbalance him enough to get a foot in touch... and it paid off.

 

[Camquin]

No attempt to wrap => PT and YC

But he is in a black shirt so it is OK.

Seriously what is the difference between this and the incident in the Uruguay Fiji match?

Camquin

 

[Ian_Cook]

No attempt to wrap => PT and YC

But he is in a black shirt so it is OK.

Seriously what is the difference between this and the incident in the Uruguay Fiji match?

Camquin

So, you PK ankle taps?

 

[RobLev]

I disagree with both of those statements.

The ball carrier takes a short step before the support runner was pushed and then accelerates through the gap in front of the would be tackler and behind his support runner, who is only ever in front of him because he was pushed there.

Poppycock. Watch the video from 47:07. At the point of contact between tackler and "support runner" the latter is marginally ahead of the BC.

The would be tackler clearly changes direction (steps off his left foot) to push the support runner. This is the only act that is a C&O infringement. If the push had succeeded in planting the ball carrier into touch, then, as TMO, I would recommend a YC for the would be tackler under 10.4 (e) and a PT.

I agree the would-be tackler steps off his left foot, to execute the push. You might call that a change of direction...

The support runner has been just behind and to the left of his ball carrier for 40m by that point so he must know where his ball carrier is. On the other hand, the would be tackler has come up from behind him and to his left

I repeat myself.

Watch the sequence from 47:07 again. The would-be tackler is ahead of the Leicester pair until the last few strides before the push. He is never behind the "support runner" - still less 45 degrees behind.

and has only just got to the point where he suddenly swerves into the support runner to push him. He was catching the ball carrier, and had he kept his line, he might have been able to take the ball carrier into touch in the corner, or prompted the support runner into actually obstructing him. Instead he took a card from the "Chance" deck and got "Go Back Three Spaces" instead of the one he wanted... "Get Out of Jail Free".

We have different definitions of "actually obstructing". Mine involves being in the way of the tackler when he wants to try to tackle him, rather than at a point when the BC's momentum will take him over the line.

The support runner turned his head to look at his ball carrier. 5m from the goal line with the defence possibly closing, that's what I would be doing; looking at the ball in the ball carrier's hands, ready to receive a pass or offload.

And dropping his shoulder into the tackler?

OR, the would be tackler thought he didn't have a chance of catching the ball carrier, so he ran at the support runner in order to try to create an apparent obstruction scenario.


.... you see, you're not the only one who can play that game.

I'm I'm not playing games - I'm calling it as I see it.

He was moving up steadily throughout the entire run, NOT suddenly at the end as you are implying.

Not my implication. He is indeed moving up to alongside the BC as they run, and as he sees the potential tackler closing.

There was plenty of room for the would be tackler to run behind the support runner and tackle the ball carrier, but he wasn't smart enough, fast enough or skilful enough to do so. Why should the officials hand him his "Get out of Jail Free" card to compensate for his lack of skill, game nous and speed?

The difference between you and I here Roblev is that you are trying to be clever with words, and your reading of the Laws, and your micro-analysis of the video, to find away to create an infringement where none exists, in order to justify your stance. I'm looking for a way to let the players play the game without me getting in their way!

Nope; we're clearly seeing different things. I see a tackler tracking across the 22m area towards the BC, in full sight of the BC and "support runner". I see a "support runner" who is running a perfectly legitimate line, but who moves up that line (relative to the BC) as he sees the potential tackler approaching, forcing him to either go through him, or to go the long way round with no chance of changing direction again and cacthing the BC.

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LINE THAT A SUPPORT RUNNER CAN RUN WHERE THERE IS A 100% CERTAINTY THAT HE WILL NOT GET IN THE WAY OF AN OPPONENT.

The line isn't the issue; it is where on that line he chooses to place himself that is the issue. He chose a position that meant he was not in a good position to take a pass or offload, but was optimised for getting in the way of the tackler he saw approaching.

You will only know whether or not the line he has chosen gets him in the way of an opponent when, and if, that opponent arrives. So long as the support runner maintains his line (so that the opponent can go around him) and does not INTENTIONALLY block the opponent BY ALTERING HIS RUNNING LINE, then the support runner has NOT committed obstruction. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

The line isn't the issue.

(And yes, I do have to shout because you are not listening!!!!)

Errm: pot, kettle. I'm not arguing with the line. I've never argued with the line., I've gone out of my way to point out that I have no issue with the line. Why are you still arguing the line?

If you want to see an example of what the would be tackler SHOULD have done, watch this

Yes, there was no support runner, but even if there was, THIS is the line you need to run to chase down and take out a ball carrier in the corner.

Beauden Barrett has the speed and the skills, but he also has the game nous to know that he wasn't going to be able to stop the ball carrier by tackling him, so he did the next best thing, got close enough to ankle tap him on the off-chance he could unbalance him enough to get a foot in touch... and it paid off.

I note and agree with Camquin's comment. It wasn't an ankle tap, which are normally dleivered with hand to ankle. It was an elbow, sliding up to the shoulder, to the knee. Some might claim that a no-wrap tackle.

 

[Ian_Cook]

crossref and you are looking at the video and seeing something entirely different from the rest of us, and from the people who really matter in this case, the Referee and the TMO.

We are miles apart on this Roblev, and doubt we will ever agree. There is no point in going back and looking at the video for the umpteenth time, because you are seeing something that the rest of us don't. Suffice to say that the support for your position here is, fortunately, very small.

I will however, address this one...

We have different definitions of "actually obstructing". Mine involves being in the way of the tackler when he wants to try to tackle him, rather than at a point when the BC's momentum will take him over the line.

We sure do. When it comes to the Law you two are trying to apply - 10.1 (c) - I take my understanding from the Law itself...

[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.[/LAWS]

"Actually obstructing" under the wording of this Law would require that the support runner intentionally move into a position to obstruct the would be tackler for the purpose of obstructing that tackler, and not for any other purpose. So long as the support runner runs straight and does not swerve or veer into an opponent, he has NOT committed obstruction. This is the way the game has been refereed for all the time I have been a player, a coach and a referee.

 

[chbg]

It wasn't an ankle tap, which are normally dleivered with hand to ankle. It was an elbow, sliding up to the shoulder, to the knee. Some might claim that a no-wrap tackle.

[LAWS]Dangerous Play and Misconduct: 10.4a Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the ... arm, including the elbow.[/LAWS]



NOT!

 

[ddjamo]

This thread takes the cake.

 

[crossref]

crossref and you are looking at the video and seeing something entirely different from the rest of us, and from the people who really matter in this case, the Referee and the TMO.

Ian you aren't listening to me, and you haven't grasped my position at all. As I said a few times, I actually agree that this was a try.

But I think you are tying yourself into terribly complicated knots trying to to justify the decision in terms of Law

I do sympathise. It's not straightforward, SA Referees didn't even attempt the task. But the more you analyse the Law the more you make it sound like a PK!

 

[RobLev]

crossref and you are looking at the video and seeing something entirely different from the rest of us, and from the people who really matter in this case, the Referee and the TMO.

We are miles apart on this Roblev, and doubt we will ever agree. There is no point in going back and looking at the video for the umpteenth time, because you are seeing something that the rest of us don't.

Can you really not see that as the Leicester players cross into the SF 22, the tackler is in their plain sight? Can you really not see that the tackler is never behind the "support runner", but approaching from the side?

Suffice to say that the support for your position here is, fortunately, very small.

I will however, address this one...


We sure do. When it comes to the Law you two are trying to apply - 10.1 (c) - I take my understanding from the Law itself...

[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.[/LAWS]

"Actually obstructing" under the wording of this Law would require that the support runner intentionally move into a position to obstruct the would be tackler for the purpose of obstructing that tackler

This bit I entirely agree with.

and not for any other purpose.

Why?

So long as the support runner runs straight and does not swerve or veer into an opponent, he has NOT committed obstruction. This is the way the game has been refereed for all the time I have been a player, a coach and a referee.

Maybe so; but we are discussing whether, or how, that refereeing convention is supported in Law. Why is a change of line required, for example? It seems to me that runing exactly the same line can be perfectly legtimately in support of the ball-carrier, if a little behind him so as to be able to take a pass or offload, and potentially illegitimate if alongside him or slightly ahead, where he can't take a pass but is between the tackler and the BC. The line isn't the issue - the position is.

I appreciate that your position is that if there is any possibility of the suppoort runner being able to take a pass from the BC, even if he has to slow down or go back to take it, that negatives any intention to obstruct - what I would be interested in knowing is why.

 

[Ian_Cook]

[LAWS]Dangerous Play and Misconduct: 10.4a Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the ... arm, including the elbow.[/LAWS]



NOT!

This thread takes the cake.

100%. There really is some off the wall and out-of-left-field stuff being posted here.

The support runner is not obstructing, and Barretts ankle tap wasn't an infringement in any way shape or form

Those are just examples of people trying to outsmart themselves as they try try to show they have read the Law Book. This forum is not supposed to be about micro-analysis and smart-arsed, legalese interpretations of the wording of Laws. Any new referee reading this thread will be thoroughly confused.

 

[Womble]

This thread takes the cake.

Took till post 89 to get anything remotely meaningful ! Ian's posts excluded ............

 

[Ian_Cook]

Can you really not see that as the Leicester players cross into the SF 22, the tackler is in their plain sight? Can you really not see that the tackler is never behind the "support runner", but approaching from the side.

I can see that. I just don't think it is either important or relevant

So he can see that player. What if there are two other opponents also steaming up behind him that he cannot see. What line does he run so that he doesn't get in their way?

 

[RobLev]

...

Those are just examples of people trying to outsmart themselves as they try try to show they have read the Law Book. This forum is not supposed to be about micro-analysis and smart-arsed, legalese interpretations of the wording of Laws. Any new referee reading this thread will be thoroughly confused.

Excuse me?

I am looking at the footage, and seeing two Leicester players, one with the ball and one doing everything he can to stay between an approaching tackler and his team mate. It looks wrong; I wonder why it isn't penalised.

It is you who is coming up with smart-arsed legalese interpretations of the meaning of "intentionally" as meaning something other than what it would mean in common parlance. It is you who is arguing that if he is in some vague way in a positon to take a pass/offload, provided he slows down or goes backward to take it, that that justifies staying in a position in which he is not able to take a pass/offload - but just happens to be in the tackler's path to the ball-carrier.

- - - Updated - - -

I can see that. I just don't think it is either important or relevant

So he can see that player. What if there are two other opponents also steaming up behind him that he cannot see. What line does he run so that he doesn't get in their way?

LINE ISN'T THE ISSUE.

You have finally accepted that the "support player" knew where the tackler was. Thank you.

There weren't two other opponents starting from many metres back with the gas to overtake his winger.

He stays in a positon where he can legitimately take a pass/offload from the BC if the BC is tackled. If that's in the tackler's way, so be it. But if he moves from that position so as to get in the tackler's way - why not PK for obstruction under 10.1(c)?

 

[Paule23]

Well, what an interesting discussion thread in more way than one!

I've read all the arguments, and I will state straight off that I would award the try and not give obstruction. However, I do not for one second believe the support player did not intentionally run the line he chose . He was perfectly entitled to run that line, but certainly towards the end appeared to run the line to obstruct rather than support.

Now, as I said, I don't think we should interpret the law as that is obstruction, I just want point out the support player knew what he was doing, was running that line for a reason, and therefore could be considered to be intentionally blocking the tacker.

I'll get my coat......:deadhorse:

 

[RobLev]

Well, what an interesting discussion thread in more way than one!

I've read all the arguments, and I will state straight off that I would award the try and not give obstruction. However, I do not for one second believe the support player did not intentionally run the line he chose . He was perfectly entitled to run that line, but certainly towards the end appeared to run the line to obstruct rather than support.

Now, as I said, I don't think we should interpret the law as that is obstruction, I just want point out the support player knew what he was doing, was running that line for a reason, and therefore could be considered to be intentionally blocking the tacker.

I'll get my coat......:deadhorse:

Thank you.

 

[Womble]

RobLev, out of curiosity, do you play ,coach or referee?

 

[Ian_Cook]

LINE ISN'T THE ISSUE.

RUNNING LINE IS THE ISSUE!

So long as he doesn't deviate from it, he does not infringe any obstruction Law

He stays in a position where he can legitimately take a pass/offload from the BC if the BC is tackled. If that's in the tackler's way, so be it. But if he moves from that position so as to get in the tackler's way - PK for obstruction under 10.1(c).

AT NO STAGE WAS HE EVER IN FRONT OF THE BALL CARRIER UNTIL AFTER HE WAS PUSHED, therefore he WAS ALWAYS in a position to legitimately take a pass from the ball carrier; the last time I looked at Law 12, flat passes were still allowed!!!!!!


HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCK-SHITE, this is worse than posting on a Conspiracy Theory forum!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

RobLev, out of curiosity, do you play ,coach or referee?

My guess would be, none of the above