Obstruction - Article in SAReferees

[Ian_Cook]

Some still pictures:

Start of the run - 1½-2m behind:

Approaching the 22 - approaching tackler seen - 1m behind:

Tackler closing - virtually level:

Just before contact - marginally (and I mean only marginally) ahead:

Still pictures can be cherry picked

Moving pictures tell the real story

So, ian:

Your animated .gif of the long shot demonstrated that the tackler could not have gone around the support runner.

No, quite the opposite. I believe it demonstrates that he could have. Had he not changed direction to push the support runner, he may have been able to pass in front of him, and at least attempted to tackle or ankle tap the ball carrier. If you watch the front on video, the ball carrier's right foot gets very close to the touch line, so it may not have taken much to get him to step over. Also, by running in front of the support player, he might have prompted that player to play him, and that WOULD be a PK.

You accept that running alongside your ball carrier is not the place to be to take a pass/offload:

No I do not, because, the last time I looked, flat passes were still legal!

and you ignore the fact that being tackled does slow you down (or the tackler isn't doing it right) so the support runner you had alongside you is now a couple of metres ahead and struggling to get back to take an off-load.

No. I do not ignore that, because your "fact" is, quite simply not relevant.... read on

And the sequence of stills I have posted shows that the support runner was moving up from a good position to take a pass/offload from the time the would-be tackler was in view.

TBH, whether he was level or marginally ahead makes little difference - in either position, he wasn't going to take a pass/offload if the BC was tackled.

I disagree entirely with this.

Being a person who enjoys watching and analysing the game, I recognise that a player will be able to see that a tackle is about to be made, and a possible offload is about the be thrown, and will slow down in anticipation of that happening.

I entirely agree that the tackler steps off his left foot to push the support runner out of the way - but given the size differential, don't see this as relevant to the price of fish.

Its the only C&O offence committed! Its not irrlevant!

I agree with the summaries of OB, crossref, Blackberry and paule of the principles to be applied. You don't.

I agree with OB and Blackberry

I do not agree with crossref

We also disagree over what exactly happened - but that is a subsidiary issue.

I see the video evidence and understand what actually happened.

 

[RobLev]

Still pictures can be cherry picked

Of course. But if the objective is to show relative positions at specific moments in a passage of play, stills are the way to go.

Moving pictures tell the real story

Selection of start- and end-points of sequences can distort.

No, quite the opposite. I believe it demonstrates that he could have. Had he not changed direction to push the support runner, he may have been able to pass in front of him, and at least attempted to tackle or ankle tap the ball carrier. If you watch the front on video, the ball carrier's right foot gets very close to the touch line, so it may not have taken much to get him to step over. Also, by running in front of the support player, he might have prompted that player to play him, and that WOULD be a PK.

We aren't going to agree on this. The tackler had c4m to go laterally, and on your view could have overtaken the support player and go across in front of him. Conservatively, he's got to make 10m more than the BC; and they're less distance than that from the line. You're arguing that the tackler could have run twice as fast as the BC, and even more than that than the support runner.

No I do not, because, the last time I looked, flat passes were still legal!

On your quoted words, the support player would have had to put in a check step to get into a position to take a pass/offload. Read your own words.

...

Being a person who enjoys watching and analysing the game, I recognise that a player will be able to see that a tackle is about to be made, and a possible offload is about the be thrown, and will slow down in anticipation of that happening.

...whereas a player who knows that he is doing will be runnigng a meter or two back so he can accelerate onto the offload, rather than slowing down into it, and being caught by the cover defence.

Its the only C&O offence committed! Its not irrlevant!

Do keep up; the issue is whether the "change of direction" is relevant.

I agree with OB and Blackberry

Then you agree with me that "a support player, without deviating from his line, [would] be liable to penalty if they speed up or slowed down, and blocked a tackler?" That isn't what you've been saying to me before, and that has the only point of contention (on principle) between us.

I do not agree with crossref

Since crossref agrees with Blackberry, with whom you agree, I'm not quite sure how this works.

I see the video evidence and understand what actually happened.

Then why pretend to the contrary? :biggrin:

 

[crossref]

In fact I wasn't really focused on that particular incident, what I think is interesting is to try and tease out what are the principles here.

Ian, I think your analysis is terrible, tbh.
IMO that particular incident was not a PK, but if I was to follow the logic in everything Ian writes, it would poibt to the opposite!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Selection of start- and end-points of sequences can distort.

The start and end points were selected to encompass all of the time during which you claim that the support runner was at some point in front of the ball carrier, and as has been clearly demonstrated, that never actually happened. The time outside of the start and end points wasn't relevant because you were making no claims about what happened there.

We aren't going to agree on this. The tackler had c4m to go laterally, and on your view could have overtaken the support player and go across in front of him. Conservatively, he's got to make 10m more than the BC; and they're less distance than that from the line. You're arguing that the tackler could have run twice as fast as the BC, and even more than that than the support runner.

Nonetheless, I would at least expect him to try in case he can prompt an infringement from the support runner. Simply pushing the support runner is not acceptable in my view, though I am beginning to understand that it might be acceptable in yours.

We are two people looking at the same video and seeing something different., This happens all the time. I am not changing my view on what I saw, and you will not be changing yours, apparently. So be it.

On your quoted words, the support player would have had to put in a check step to get into a position to take a pass/offload. Read your own words.

When you quote someone, please do so in good faith and not snip out the inconvenient bits that change the meaning of what was quoted so that you can then argue against the out of context part of the quote. This is called "The Fallacy of Quote Mining"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

"Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying."

What I said was

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.

It seems so blindingly obvious to me that a support runner in that position would need to slow down to enter a tackle through the gate or take an offload given in a tackle, that I didn't need to state it. I'll know better next time, I will state everything to the nth degree so that you don't need to use any comprehension skills.

I maintain, and will continue to maintain, that running right next to a ball carrier is a valid support line so long as flat passes remain legal and are not considered forward. Of course, to state the blindingly obvious, a player in such a position would not need to take a check step to be in position for a flat pass.

...whereas a player who knows what he is doing will be running a meter or two back so he can accelerate onto the offload, rather than slowing down into it, and being caught by the cover defence.

That is not a technique I will be coaching my lads anytime soon. "Go hard, go fast, make sure you keep up... when you are running near flat out, slowing down is easy, speeding up is hard!

Do keep up; the issue is whether the "change of direction" is relevant.

I have, and it is.

Then you agree with me that "a support player, without deviating from his line, [would] be liable to penalty if they speed up or slowed down, and blocked a tackler?"

If I thought he intentionally did so for the sole purpose of blocking the tackler, then yes.

Since I think Thomstone's primary intent was to support his ball carrier, IMO, he committed no infringement.

That isn't what you've been saying to me before, and that has the only point of contention (on principle) between us.

Err, I think you might want to go back and have another look at Post #51

"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."

From the 22m line onwards, when Thomstone drew level with the ball carrier, he stayed at the same speed, and in the same relative position.

Since crossref agrees with Blackberry, with whom you agree, I'm not quite sure how this works.

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.

This is what I agree with

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)

This is what I disagree with. It is easy to explain why it doesn't apply,

It doesn't apply because none of what Thomstone did was an infringement under that Law.

Then why pretend to the contrary? :biggrin:

I'm not

 

[Ian_Cook]

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!

Ian, I think your analysis is terrible, tbh.
IMO that particular incident was not a PK, but if I was to follow the logic in everything Ian writes, it would point to the opposite!

Two referees look at the same analysis and come to polar opposite views about its quality and veracity. Nothing new there then!

All I can say is that Rugby Union is a complex game to play, referee and understand. Some people play, referee and understand it differently from others!!

 

[winchesterref]

I've just read this whole thread and wished I hadn't

Obstruction? Not a tap tackle? Blimey.

 

[winchesterref]

To contribute:
For me, "intention" denotes primary motivation.

If the player's primary motivation appears to be to block a defender rather than offer support, then it's a whole different scenario to a legitimate support line.

 

[RobLev]

...

When you quote someone, please do so in good faith and not snip out the inconvenient bits that change the meaning of what was quoted so that you can then argue against the out of context part of the quote....

I know all about quotemining - I spent years on talk.origins, where that was some creationists' sole MO. If I changed the meaning of what you said, I apologise. I cannot see how you can read the full quote, however, and not come to the conclusion that you felt that running alongside the ball-carrier, and slowing down to take the offload/pass was a sensible tactic - particularly given your subsequent remarks:

It seems so blindingly obvious to me that a support runner in that position would need to slow down to enter a tackle through the gate or take an offload given in a tackle, that I didn't need to state it. I'll know better next time, I will state everything to the nth degree so that you don't need to use any comprehension skills.

I maintain, and will continue to maintain, that running right next to a ball carrier is a valid support line so long as flat passes remain legal and are not considered forward. Of course, to state the blindingly obvious, a player in such a position would not need to take a check step to be in position for a flat pass.

If the support is running two metres away means that the "flat" pass has to go forward out of the hand...

That is not a technique I will be coaching my lads anytime soon. "Go hard, go fast, make sure you keep up... when you are running near flat out, slowing down is easy, speeding up is hard!

Tell SBW and Fekitoa. Two offloads, both taken running at pace from several metres back from the ball-carrier. Or try this one; or there's a few more here.

 

[RobLev]

I've just read this whole thread and wished I hadn't

Obstruction? Not a tap tackle? Blimey.

A tap tackle using the hand to the ankle of the ball-carrier is, if one were to be pedantic, an infringement under two separate laws - 10.4(a) and 10.4(g). But it is permitted, and that si generally agreed to be "a good thing". On the other hand, a tackle using the shoulder to the knee, with no wrap, will not be excused, and will be visited with a PK and possible YC/RC depending on the angle at which the tackler arrives (a front-on shoulder to the standing kneecap should be an instant RC).

Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?

 

[Ian_Cook]

If the support is running two metres away means that the "flat" pass has to go forward out of the hand...

That is patently and obviously wrong. A flat pass is flat, or it wouldn't be called flat

Tell SBW and Fekitoa. Two offloads, both taken running at pace from several metres back from the ball-carrier. Or try this one; or there's a few more here.

Cherry picking a few examples is not convincing. If I want to spend the next few hours trawling though youtube videos I am sure I will find some that support my view.

 

[crossref]

Ian, this is where I disagree with you

Since I think Thomstone's primary intent was to support his ball carrier, IMO, he committed no infringement"

In my view his primary purpose was indeed to block the tackler.... But I still don't think it was a PK. Because it was pretty much a credible support line.

 

[Ian_Cook]

A tap tackle using the hand to the ankle of the ball-carrier is, if one were to be pedantic, an infringement under two separate laws - 10.4(a) and 10.4(g). But it is permitted, and that si generally agreed to be "a good thing".

On the other hand, a tackle using the shoulder to the knee, with no wrap, will not be excused, and will be visited with a PK and possible YC/RC depending on the angle at which the tackler arrives (a front-on shoulder to the standing kneecap should be an instant RC).

Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?

You really are clutching at straws now aren't you?

You really believe that Barrett's tap tackle...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAWlsblxNE

....was a PK under foul play Laws, yet three elite referees saw it clearly, saw nothing wrong and said nothing. How do you explain that?

Roblev, you apparently have a lawyer's view of the game. You have posted some real off the wall stuff in this thread. Frankly, some of it is so completely wrong on its face, and so far out of left field that I have to wonder if you are just on the wind up.

However, this one on the tap tackle really takes the piss. I do wonder how much your intransigent denial of the obvious confuses new referees who are here looking for guidance.

Nothing personal here, but all I can say is thank heavens that (by your own admission) you are not a referee. I would warn new referees not to take any notice of your your unique and overly legalistic interpretations of the Laws of the Game which IMO, serve to show a complete lack of understanding and empathy for how the game is played.

 

[Rushforth]

You really are clutching at straws now aren't you?

Nothing personal here, but all I can say is thank heavens that (by your own admission) you are not a referee. I would warn new referees not to take any notice of your your unique and overly legalistic interpretations of the Laws of the Game which IMO, serve to show a complete lack of understanding and empathy for how the game is played.

Ian, just before the RWC we were asked to be less adversarial by Mr. Burns. I haven't invested anything in this thread, but my investment in these forums is very much in "new referees" (I remain one myself).

The vast majority of your contributions here are widely valued by all of us, but using terms such as "clutching at straws", "off-the-wall" (hyphens added), "wind up", "takes the piss" are far more likely to scare off new referees looking for guidance than simply "being wrong" ever will be.

As a player I was legalistic myself. I doubt I am unique in that respect. As a referee, I find the laws an encumberance if both sides actually just want to play according to their best understanding of them. But knowing the full legalistic details is a worthwhile exercise for forums which is not deserving of personal (yes it was) insult.

 

[RobLev]

That is patently and obviously wrong. A flat pass is flat, or it wouldn't be called flat

You used the term to mean a pass from the ball-carrier to a team-mate who is running level with him; because of air-resistance, such a pass would have to go forward out of the hand.

A flat pass, however, starting East-West (or vice versa) out of the hand (but going forward because of his momentum) would normally be taken by a team-mate that started behind level with the ball-carrier.

Cherry picking a few examples is not convincing. If I want to spend the next few hours trawling though youtube videos I am sure I will find some that support my view.

Cherry-picking? The compilation video is just that - the off-load tries from the first week of the RWC 2015. I assume it's all of them - I didn't actually watch it all the way through before linking it. There are though a couple where the receiver is fairly close to level with the BC - generally where the move wasn't set up.

The Fekitoa and SBW off-loads, however, illustrate the advantage of not starting level with your BC if you want to take an off-load.

Can you remember an off-load try scored by a player who was running level with the ball-carrier as the tackle came in during this last RWC?

 

[RobLev]

Ian

Your answer to this:

Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?

is?

Barrett's tackle was a PK under foul-play law applied to the letter - all tap-tackles are. They are however given a degree of latitude, in that the classic example - hand to ankle - is permitted. Whether Barrett's tackle should benefit from that latitude is a matter of judgment for the individual referee; but it's fair to say that executed by a player from a Tier 2 or 3 nation (see other threads on this topic) it might well have been PK'd.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, this is where I disagree with you

In my view his primary purpose was indeed to block the tackler.... But I still don't think it was a PK. Because it was pretty much a credible support line.

Let me see if I can get you to where I am coming from; one step at a time. Look again at this clip

Look at the point where I have first paused the video (both Green players side by side on the 22m line).

1. Do you think the support runner (Thomstone) is blocking the tackler at this point? (I need a "Yes" or "No" answer, no explanations or qualifications) - if your answer is "yes" then don't bother reading the rest of the post, because there is no way to convince you otherwise.

2. Did Thomstone do anything (change speed or direction) in order to change his primary objective from supporting his ball carrier to blocking the tackler? (if so, when did he do that?)?

3. Do you believe that Thomstone was obligated to move out of the way to give the opponent access to his ball carrier?

If you answer "no" to all three questions then you agree with me.... that at the very least, his primary objective was support runner. He was not blocking the tackler at the 22m and he does nothing subsequetly to change that (no additional change in position, direction or speed) and he doesn't have to get out of the way.

 

[RobLev]

Ian:

Would you agree with this:

Support players
We’ve already noted above that the ball carrier should not deliver the pass unless a call is heard, which is obviously a key task for the supporter. Another critical aspect, however, is the positioning of the supporter. Support players looking to receive an offload must come from depth. Support players who are too lateral can create the following problems:

1. Their lateral positioning is too far away creating further pressure on the already difficult pass
2. If the ball carrier is unable to deliver the pass and is tackled, then the supporter is in no position to be able to cleanout and secure possession at the breakdown.

By supporting narrow and in depth, the supporter increases his effectiveness in being able to either receive the offload, hammer on, or clean out.

This is from here. It's not the only resource on the Web stressing that a supporting player should come from depth onto the off-load. Do you really want to carry on arguing to the contrary just to win an argument on the Internet with someone you don't even know?

 

[RobLev]

Let me see if I can get you to where I am coming from; one step at a time. Look again at this clip

Look at the point where I have first paused the video (both Green players side by side on the 22m line).

1. Do you think the support runner (Thomstone) is blocking the tackler at this point? (I need a "Yes" or "No" answer, no explanations or qualifications) - if your answer is "yes" then don't bother reading the rest of the post, because there is no way to convince you otherwise.

2. Did Thomstone do anything (change speed or direction) in order to change his primary objective from supporting his ball carrier to blocking the tackler? (if so, when did he do that?)?

3. Do you believe that Thomstone was obligated to move out of the way to give the opponent access to his ball carrier?

If you answer "no" to all three questions then you agree with me.... that at the very least, his primary objective was support runner. He was not blocking the tackler at the 22m and he does nothing subsequetly to change that (no additional change in position, direction or speed) and he doesn't have to get out of the way.

This is where my first still is relevant. Thomstone spotted the danger outside the 22 (if you look at the sequence from which that still was taken you can even see him looking at the cover-tackler)and moved up alongside before they even reached the 22.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The vast majority of your contributions here are widely valued by all of us, but using terms such as "clutching at straws", "off-the-wall" (hyphens added), "wind up", "takes the piss" are far more likely to scare off new referees looking for guidance than simply "being wrong" ever will be.

So, you don't like colourful metaphors? Your choice I suppose.

I'll tell you what, I'll rephrase it for you

You really are wrong?

You really believe that Barrett's tap tackle...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAWlsblxNE

....was a PK under foul play Laws, yet three elite referees saw it clearly, saw nothing wrong and said nothing. How do you explain that?

Roblev, you apparently have a lawyer's view of the game. You have posted some incorrect stuff in this thread. Frankly, some of it is so completely wrong on its face, and so unusual that I have to wonder if you are just having me on.

However, this one on the tap tackle is wrong. I do wonder how much your intransigent denial of the obvious confuses new referees who are here looking for guidance.

Nothing personal here, but all I can say is thank heavens that (by your own admission) you are not a referee. I would warn new referees not to take any notice of your your unique and overly legalistic interpretations of the Laws of the Game which IMO, serve to show a complete lack of understanding and empathy for how the game is played.

Its a bit bland for my liking, and it would be a pretty boring world if we all talked like that.

As a player I was legalistic myself. I doubt I am unique in that respect. As a referee, I find the laws an encumberance if both sides actually just want to play according to their best understanding of them. But knowing the full legalistic details is a worthwhile exercise for forums which is not deserving of personal (yes it was) insult.

Knowing the full legalistic details is fine; suggesting that referees apply them in that manner is not.

This forum should be about educating referees how to interpret the Laws to let a game take place, not a legalese pissing contest to show how we can impart clever spins to the wording of the Law to show off how smart we are.

Throughout this thread I have done nothing but express my views on how I believe this Law has been interpreted in the past, how it should be interpreted in the future, and how this incident was ruled on correctly by the match officials. The vast majority have agreed with that view, but a small number have tried to bog it down in a legalistic mire of strict Law interpretations. I get cross when I see this, and yes, I jump down peoples throats from time to time. I call BS when I see it.

BTW: Saying someone's post is BS refers to the post not the poster; it is attacking the argument NOT the arguer.

 

[OB..]

A tap tackle using the hand to the ankle of the ball-carrier is, if one were to be pedantic, an infringement under two separate laws - 10.4(a) and 10.4(g). But it is permitted, and that si generally agreed to be "a good thing". On the other hand, a tackle using the shoulder to the knee, with no wrap, will not be excused, and will be visited with a PK and possible YC/RC depending on the angle at which the tackler arrives (a front-on shoulder to the standing kneecap should be an instant RC).

I presum all referees would agree.

Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?

As I see it the distinction is that driving with the shoulder is in itself likely to cause damage, whereas tap tackles merely cause a player to fall. Any subsequent injury would be indirect.