Referees in England
- Jan 22, 2008
- Post Likes
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 8
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.
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.
In a nutshell. So long as he runs his support line, he gives any opponent a fair opportunity to run around him to get to the tackler. Its when the support runner changes his line to block the tacklers that he runs afoul of Law 10.1 (c)
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.
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).
It is through discipline, control and mutual respect that the Spirit of the Game flourishes and, inthe context of a Game as physically challenging as Rugby, these are the qualities which forge thefellowship and sense of fair play so essential to the Game’s ongoing success and survival.Old fashioned traditions and virtues they may be, but they have stood the test of time and, at alllevels at which the Game is played, they remain as important to Rugby’s future as they have beenthroughout its long and distinguished past. The principles of Rugby are the fundamentalelements upon which the Game is based and they enable participants to immediately identifythe Game’s character and what makes it distinctive as a sport.
Quote from the Law book. Why are you all trying to add something that has never been there ! I am not gong to give you the answers you want because your trying to make me describe a unicorn !
If the support carrier in the original post had drifted infield, moved into an offside position or slowed significantly or unpredictably to intercept the ball carrier, then you'd have a credible argument as to his intent to obstruct. He did none of those things an a manner that I'd describe as clear and obvious and was always in a position to receive a pass until he was pushed.
If I was trying to coach a new ref to give them a take away from the subject, that's what I'd get them to look at. Was intent positive (support ball carrier) or negative (obstruct tackler). Unless it's clear and obvious, benefit of doubt towards positive, play on...
Absolutely right, and despite what Roblev and crossref have been saying, the support runner does not have to stay in, or maintain some fixed, relative position to the ball carrier to always be in a position to receive a non-forward pass or offload, or to go into a tackle through the gate. All he needs to do is be in that position AT THE TIME THE PASS, OFFLOAD OR TACKLE IS MADE, and it only takes a single check step for a player who is running beside his ball carrier to achieve that.
A support runner in the situation shown in the video might just slow down and cross behind his ball carrier if he thinks, anticipates (or if his ball carrier has indicated) that he is about to cut infield, so that he can receive ans outside pass or offload.
Spot on, again, and the other thing to consider, of course, is materiality. Have a look at the direction the would be tackler was running in the first few frames of this clip...
He was initially running in a direction that would have taken him in front of the support runner. IMO, had he continued running in that direction, there may have been a small possibility that he could catch and stop the ball carrier, or at least try to put him into touch. That chance evaporated (along with any materiality that might apply if you thought the support runner was obstructing) when he chose to change his running line to push/charge into the support runner. Again despite what Roblev will have you believe, it is clear and obvious that the player steps off his left foot and changes direction towards the support runner. This is the only C&O infringement - 10.4 (e) - in this play, and one in which there would have been a very good case for a PT and YC had he succeeded in pushing the support runner to plant the ball carrier into touch.
Try looking at the long shot from behind, which I've referred you to before in this thread. And look at the whole sequence, not just the few frames in the GIF you've selected.
I hear that sort of question at just about every pre-match briefing: "Sir, when is the ball out of a ruck?" Players ask because it happens a lot, and they get different answers.Which is exactly what makes it an interesting discussion. If we are reffing to conventions that are not in the Law book, what are those conventions...
All he needs to do is be in that position AT THE TIME THE PASS, OFFLOAD OR TACKLE IS MADE, and it only takes a single check step for a player who is running beside his ball carrier to achieve that.