Obstruction - Article in SAReferees

Status
Not open for further replies.

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
RobLev, out of curiosity, do you play ,coach or referee?

As I have made clear in the past; I last played decades ago, and neither coach nor referee rugby. I presided/refereed fencing for as long as I fenced, about 25 years. It is because I don't have a rugby background that I hesitate to crossswords with you; but I note that you haven't responded to my queries directly.

- - - Updated - - -

My guess would be, none of the above

I have made no secret of that fact.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Took till post 89 to get anything remotely meaningful ! Ian's posts excluded ............
WADR Womble you have not helped. I have reread the thread and you have offered not a single word of explanation for your view...

Perhaps all these new refs you worry about would benefit from hearing your description of what you see , your explanation of what 10.1.c means and your definition of a support runner?
 

Paule23


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
394
Post Likes
153
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
RUNNING LINE IS THE ISSUE!

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



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!!!!!!


JESUS H. CHRIST, this is worse than posting on a Conspiracy Theory forum!!

That's a lot of punctuation and blasphemy. Do you want a glass of wine?

Iain - Do you think he ran that line with the dual purpose of support and also helping reduce the change of his player being tackled? If the answer is yes, then he was intentionally blocking the tackler.

Now as I've said I don't think we should then give this as obstruction, as it opens a whole can of worms, however by strict (too strict in my view) interpretation he did intentionally obstruct. I think he was within his rights to do so, but it was intentional.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
RUNNING LINE IS THE ISSUE!

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

Nope. So long as he doesn't deviate from the line, he is unlikely to be penalised. Different question.


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!!

I know what you currently think you saw. It isn't what happened. You used to think that the tackler was approaching from behind and that the "support player" had no idea he was there... Eventually (it might take some time), you'll accept that at the moment of contact, the "support player" was (marginally, I grant) ahead of the BC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
That's a lot of punctuation and blasphemy. Do you want a glass of wine?

Iain - Do you think he ran that line with the dual purpose of support and also helping reduce the change of his player being tackled? If the answer is yes, then he was intentionally blocking the tackler.

Now as I've said I don't think we should then give this as obstruction, as it opens a whole can of worms, however by strict (too strict in my view) interpretation he did intentionally obstruct. I think he was within his rights to do so, but it was intentional.

Again, thank you.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
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:

I agree with every word.
 

menace


Referees in Australia
Joined
Nov 20, 2009
Messages
3,657
Post Likes
633
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
This thread takes the cake.

Bwaa haa haa..

Actually I thought the 'leggings' one had taken and eaten the cake?:shrug:


I would further add that green had dominated that phase of play, they made a line break such that the defenders that were once in front of them were now behind them. They earnt the right for their support player to be where ever he wanted to be in that legal onside position holding his line. It's now up to the defenders team who are under pressure to find a legal way to stop them. They couldn't.

Crossref- And IMO that's why SA refs didn't need to go scouring the laws to try and justify an obstruction/blocking law. This was not an occasion to look for a reason to remotely even try and PK the attacking team.
 
Last edited:

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,106
Post Likes
2,131
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
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 agree with you but isn't the implication, then, that a ball carrier's team mates could form a protective semi circle around the ball carrier provided that:
1. they stay behind the ball carrier, and
2. they don't deviate their running lines?
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
That's a lot of punctuation and blasphemy.

Change so as to not offend Christians

Do you want a glass of wine?

Just a beer will do

Iain - Do you think he ran that line with the dual purpose of support and also helping reduce the change of his player being tackled? If the answer is yes, then he was intentionally blocking the tackler.

No. I believe he would see that this is his No. 7 and he may not make it to the goal-line before being run down so he better run in support.

Its not the job of a referee to try to second guess player's motives, I would just whistle what I see. Especially, I have never been one to look for reasons to blow the whistle.

I do not see any attempt by the support runner to intentionally block the tackler, so no PK. Despite Roblev's attempt to shift the goalposts by claiming that its not about his running line, I maintain that it is about the running line. I would need to see the support runner CHANGE HIS RUNNING DIRECTION to block the tackler's access before I would consider a PK under 10.1 (c).
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
WADR Womble you have not helped. I have reread the thread and you have offered not a single word of explanation for your view...

Perhaps he thinks it is so blindingly obvious that this is not obstruction, he doesn't think it worth his time refuting the BS that is being posted here.
 

Paule23


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
394
Post Likes
153
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Change so as to not offend Christians



Just a beer will do



No. I believe he would see that this is his No. 7 and he may not make it to the goal-line before being run down so he better run in support.

Its not the job of a referee to try to second guess player's motives, I would just whistle what I see. Especially, I have never been one to look for reasons to blow the whistle.

I do not see any attempt by the support runner to intentionally block the tackler, so no PK. Despite Roblev's attempt to shift the goalposts by claiming that its not about his running line, I maintain that it is about the running line. I would need to see the support runner CHANGE HIS RUNNING DIRECTION to block the tackler's access before I would consider a PK under 10.1 (c).

A beer it is then.

you make some good arguments here, Although I would challenge the bit about a referee not second guessing a players motives. Several laws refer to intent or deliberate actions, which require a referee to apply judgement on a players motives (deliberate knock on for example). We'll just have to agree to disagree on the importance of a change in running line.

i think the general consensus is most people would not give this as obstruction, although we have different reasons for our decision.

And all I thought I had to do when I became a referee was learn the laws.......
 

Paule23


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
394
Post Likes
153
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
Perhaps he thinks it is so blindingly obvious that this is not obstruction, he doesn't think it worth his time refuting the BS that is being posted here.

Ian, just because someone has a different opinion or view doesn't make it BS. As we saw with the thread on the Scotland / Australia knock on there can be many different views and interpretations of the same incident. If someone is incorrect on a point of law, we could call it BS (well, if we wanted to be impolite) but opinions, as long as supported, are points for debate not insult.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Crossref- And IMO that's why SA refs didn't need to go scouring the laws to try and justify an obstruction/blocking law. This was not an occasion to look for a reason to remotely even try and PK the attacking team.
The whole point of the article was a Law Discussion to explain why this incident wasn't a PK. They obviously thought it interesting question
They then discussed 10.1b (obviously doesn't apply) but not 10.1c (much more difficult to explain why it doesn't apply)
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Ian, just because someone has a different opinion or view doesn't make it BS. As we saw with the thread on the Scotland / Australia knock on there can be many different views and interpretations of the same incident. If someone is incorrect on a point of law, we could call it BS (well, if we wanted to be impolite) but opinions, as long as supported, are points for debate not insult.

Paule23

If you look back some way...

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread...-in-SAReferees&p=308006&viewfull=1#post308006

...you will see that Womble thought there was some "utter rubbish" being posted in this thread. Utter rubbish is just another way to say BS and vice versa

FTR, I thought it was unfair of crossref to say that Womble had "offered not a single word of explanation" for his view." I thought he made his view abundantly clear in that post!
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
Womble just says its not a PK. Well we all agree with that, the puzzle is how to explain that in Law, when 10.1c seems to say it is.
 

Blackberry


Referees in England
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
1,120
Post Likes
199
OK, can I wind this thread up?
A player's right to run a genuine support line trumps any obligation on him to move so a tackler can take his space.
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Womble just says its not a PK. Well we all agree with that, the puzzle is how to explain that in Law, when 10.1c seems to say it is.

Try re-reading post #2 We could have stopped this thread right there.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:
 

Paule23


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
394
Post Likes
153
Current Referee grade:
Level 7
But then we wouldn't have 12 pages of fun Phil :)

there was quite bit of debate and disagreement on this topic, but also some really good reasoned arguments on both sides. I got a lot out of it (and a bit of fun too, love the dead horse emoticon!)
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,805
Post Likes
3,145
OK, can I wind this thread up?
A player's right to run a genuine support line trumps any obligation on him to move so a tackler can take his space.

I agree with that.
That's not in the Laws, it's a de facto exception to 10.1.c , which is just the way the game is played.

It also means we have a judgement call for the referee is : is the player running a 'genuine support line' -- and that's the test that we would apply to the actual incident.

A genuine support line must mean staying in a position to receive a pass, or to receive a offload, or to be first at the breakdown.
 

didds

Resident Club Coach
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
12,033
Post Likes
1,775
Well, I think the best way to approach this is to say

1) if when reffiing you think the support runner has obstructed then PK.
2) if when reffing you don;t think a support runner has not obstructed then play on.

If you a new ref, I'd suggest ignoring the rest of the thread because it won;t answer any questions you have regarding what constitutes a support runner's legal actions. You'll need to use your gut instinct.

Didds
PS I beleive there has been sensible advice proffered above. But no consensus is being reached, despite that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top