Obstruction in-goal

[chrismtl]

So this situation happened to me a couple weeks ago in a club game (I was playing). I get the ball off an offload closeish to the sideline and once I had crossed the goal line I turned so I could ground the ball closer to the posts so my kicker would have an easier time (he was having a pretty bad off day). I had a teammate following me about 3-4 meters away straight behind me. As I turned to run sideways, he drifted along with me, so we both kind of ran the same curving line but a few meters apart. A defender then pushed my teammate and the ref awarded a penalty 5m out to the defending team for obstruction by my teammate. He was a prop or at least a big boy and imo would never have caught me or prevented me from grounding the ball. I proceeded to give the ref a few nice words about how he messed up the call. Was I right? Was he right? It ended up not affecting the outcome as we won by over 30 pts, but at the time the match was within 2 tries. I should also point out that my teammate was merely following me and had no clue there was an opponent close to him. We had clearly broken the defensive line and most of the other team was scrambling to get back/had given up on defending.

I've done my best to try to draw the scenario in paint, and please note that it isn't perfectly to scale and my drawing skills are shoddy. The 2 parallel lines are the goal line and dead ball line. TM = teammate, P=prop, me is self explanatory.

View attachment 2924

 

[Toby Warren]

For me - that's a harsh call.

'A few nice words however.......'

 

[ChrisR]

Was it a harsh call as TM was onside and in a position to receive a pass? (not that you would have given one).

To my mind it rests on the action of TM turning with you. Was it to put himself between you and P? If that was how the referee saw it his PK was justified.

 

[Browner]

IF your teammate deliberately obstructed the defenders access to you , then it might be argued that you and he deserved to lose the opportunity ie..... What other reason did he have for tracking you AFTER you'd crossed the Goal Line?

If I saw this, then I would only be interested in calling a PK IF the blocking attacker made a deliberately obstructing movement into/toward the defender.

Your desire to make kickers job easier doesn't outrank the defenders right to try and prevent you, both of which are dependent on your teammates honest intentions and the risk of referee misinterpretation increases the more he looks at the arriving defender.

The simply solution for him, is not to keep running between A&D once you've crossed the line, then the TRY likelyhood remains in your hands alone.

I rarely see it ( not in last two seasons) , so I suspect the referee must have considered it a C&O Obstruction.

Lessons for all.

 

[chbg]

You were entirely wrong to "give the ref a few nice words about how he messed up the call". With some of our colleagues that could have (rightly) earned you a YC for dissent. Keep it for discussion, if you feel that strongly, with him after the match over a pint, bought by you. That way you have a chance of influencing how he refs it in future.

Otherwise Browner sums up the call nicely.

 

[Dixie]

This is always a tough one. In general play, the typical scenario is that the defence is head of the attack, and so any team mate of the attacking side obstructing a defender is a) ahead of the ball and the ball carrier, and thus offside; and b) has run a line that cannot be justified as a genuine attacking option. However, when the attack has broken through the defensive line, both attackers and defenders are chasing the ball. Both then have a legitimate reason to run the line they are running - the attacker to support the ball carrier, and the defender to tackle the ball carrier. It then becomes a more nuanced judgement call, based on the applicable law:

[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.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

So if your team mate's positioning was entirely consistent with supporting the ball carrier, then the ref's call was harsh and quite possibly wrong. If, however, he discerned that the team mate deviated from a normal support nline in order to position himself between the would-be tackler and yourself, then he was absolutely right to at least consider the penalty. For myself, I think I'd be unlikely to award it even then, because I've no doubt that if you saw the would-be tackler getting close, you'd have immediately grounded the ball before the tackle could be made - so the offence was arguably immaterial. But if it took place wide out and you scored under the posts, then with your kicker being off form that offence then becomes material because it gave you more points than you'd have collected if the tackler had been able to force a grounding further out.

In short, it's a call that runs counter to expectation, but which may nonetheless be correct. As others have commented, you need to button your lip in such cases. At worst you could have spent either 10 minutes or the rest of the game on the sidelines, depending on how strong your words of disapproval were; at best, you make the ref pay attention to you as an undesirable element in the game. While he will do his best to avoid any form of bias, by your actions you have done your best to prejudice him against you. You can hardly then complain if human nature causes him (unconsciously) to single you out in future. You may find 50/50 decisions tend not to go your way. There is only one law in the book that hopeless amateurs can be expected to comply with as comprehensively as international players. That law is 10.4(s):

[LAWS] All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle except at a kick-off or at a penalty kick following admonishment, temporary suspension, or send-off.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

 

[Phil E]

I proceeded to give the ref a few nice words about how he messed up the call. Was I right?

About speaking to the ref? NO! :nono:

The decision itself would appear harsh.

 

[RobLev]

This is always a tough one. In general play, the typical scenario is that the defence is head of the attack, and so any team mate of the attacking side obstructing a defender is a) ahead of the ball and the ball carrier, and thus offside; and b) has run a line that cannot be justified as a genuine attacking option. However, when the attack has broken through the defensive line, both attackers and defenders are chasing the ball. Both then have a legitimate reason to run the line they are running - the attacker to support the ball carrier, and the defender to tackle the ball carrier. It then becomes a more nuanced judgement call, based on the applicable law:

[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.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

So if your team mate's positioning was entirely consistent with supporting the ball carrier, then the ref's call was harsh and quite possibly wrong. If, however, he discerned that the team mate deviated from a normal support nline in order to position himself between the would-be tackler and yourself, then he was absolutely right to at least consider the penalty.

Given that the ball carrier was already in in-goal, what support would the team mate be proposing to give him? As you point out below, the BC's response to any attempted tackle would not be to try to pass the ball or offload out of the tackle (at least, not if he wanted to avoid being torn off a strip by his coach after the match), but to touch down. Were I a referee, that would reverse the onus such that if the team mate were between the BC and potential tackler, I'd start from the proposition that he was deliberately in the way and PK him unless persuaded otherwise.

For myself, I think I'd be unlikely to award it even then, because I've no doubt that if you saw the would-be tackler getting close, you'd have immediately grounded the ball before the tackle could be made - so the offence was arguably immaterial. But if it took place wide out and you scored under the posts, then with your kicker being off form that offence then becomes material because it gave you more points than you'd have collected if the tackler had been able to force a grounding further out.

In fact, he's made clear that the position of the grounding was highly material - he was trying to "ground the ball closer to the posts so my kicker would have an easier time (he was having a pretty bad off day)". On that basis, I'd say the the OP was wrong.

In short, it's a call that runs counter to expectation, but which may nonetheless be correct. As others have commented, you need to button your lip in such cases. At worst you could have spent either 10 minutes or the rest of the game on the sidelines, depending on how strong your words of disapproval were; at best, you make the ref pay attention to you as an undesirable element in the game. While he will do his best to avoid any form of bias, by your actions you have done your best to prejudice him against you. You can hardly then complain if human nature causes him (unconsciously) to single you out in future. You may find 50/50 decisions tend not to go your way. There is only one law in the book that hopeless amateurs can be expected to comply with as comprehensively as international players. That law is 10.4(s):

[LAWS] All players must respect the authority of the referee. They must not dispute the referee’s decisions. They must stop playing at once when the referee blows the whistle except at a kick-off or at a penalty kick following admonishment, temporary suspension, or send-off.
Sanction: Penalty kick[/LAWS]

Irrespective of what one thinks of the correctness of the decision, this must be correct.

 

[Browner]

Were I a referee, that would reverse the onus such that if the team mate were between the BC and potential tackler, I'd start from the proposition that he was deliberately in the way and PK him unless persuaded otherwise..

'guilty til you prove innocence' ! , nah ...you've moved into a new code Roblev, i suspect youd have very few supporters in this approach.

 

[Taff]

For me - that's a harsh call.

For what it's worth I agree.

... To my mind it rests on the action of TM turning with you. Was it to put himself between you and P? If that was how the referee saw it his PK was justified.

... If I saw this, then I would only be interested in calling a PK IF the blocking attacker made a deliberately obstructing movement into/toward the defender.

I'm not so sure gents.

If the TM was obstructing (and it's a big "if") the BC would have probably scored anyway. He was after all in-goal so it's as good a cast iron welded on certain try as you're going to get ... short of the ball actually being grounded.

My understanding is that if a team mate offends but a try would probably have been scored anyway, the try stands.

If I'm honest, I think the score influenced the Ref ie he wouldn't have given a PK if it had been a close game, but as you were winning anyway, he may have been tempted to give the defender the benefit of the doubt.

 

[crossref]

If I'm honest, I think the score influenced the Ref ie he wouldn't have given a PK if it had been a close game, but as you were winning comfortably anyway, he may have been tempted to give the defender the benefit of the doubt.

it's the other way around isn't it : if it's a tight game with a poor kicker then the position of the try is highly material. Imagine if you are six points behind, with a poor place kicker: you really are going to want to score under the posts if at all possible.

In that scenario if the woould-be try scorer has a team mate running tail-gunner deliberatly to block the oppo , and achieve a better position for the try then this is highly significant and you have to penalise it don't you ? Else you are saying it's legal.

if there's a thirty point margin already it's not significant and you can have a word.

 

[Taff]

it's the other way around isn't it : if it's a tight game with a poor kicker then the position of the try is highly material. Imagine if you are six points behind, with a poor place kicker: you really are going to want to score under the posts if at all possible.

Chrismtl says there was a 2 try gap at the time; I assume that gap was in his favour ie they were winning anyway. Do we know what time in the game the incident happened?

... if the would-be try scorer has a team mate running tail-gunner deliberately to block the oppo , and achieve a better position for the try then this is highly significant and you have to penalise it don't you ? Else you are saying it's legal.

I'm not saying it's legal; what I'm saying it was probably 100% immaterial to the Try being scored. I'm not sure if the lawbook actually mentions "probable" try but that's how I understand it.

When I suggested there was obstruction in post 14 of THIS thread, I was slated even though this all happened on the FoP. In that clip, IMO the TM was clearly intent of "obstructing" more than he was on "supporting" - some angles clearly show him looking over his shoulder at the defender and changing his angle. I would suggest that if anyone deserved a PK for obstructing it was that one more than Chrismtls TM.

The defending Prop pushed the TM, not the other way around. I would suggest that was more in frustration than in a genuine attempt to get at Chrismtl and prevent a try. I bet the Prop couldn't believe his luck when the Ref disallowed the try and gave them a PK instead.

 

[winchesterref]

I think it is unrealistic to expect a support runner to stop as soon as the ball carrier has crossed the try line. You all just want him to stop, turn around, jog off?

What about following in as a support runner just in case? Nothing to stop the player offloading if a defender approaches and scoring under the posts is critical. What about following up to join in celebrating a solo score? (Bah! Ban celebrating!)

No onus on the attacking player to get out of the way at all. Only thing that they cannot do is deliberately move to obstruct, such as change their line or deliberately block. But running in an on side position in a supporting line? Seriously??

A few nice words however... Take 10 minutes and learn to keep your mouth closed

 

[RobLev]

'guilty til you prove innocence' ! , nah ...you've moved into a new code Roblev, i suspect youd have very few supporters in this approach.

If the explanation for his presence between BC and tackler is that he's a support runner, isn't the issue of whether he's actually offering support highly material?

 

[ChrisR]

Not sure that you should get too much into probabilities. I think a call of obstruction would depend on the actions of TM. If TM is 10m from the BC and he changes course and runs into the path of P would you ignore it when it seemed like a deliberate move?

 

[Browner]

If the explanation for his presence between BC and tackler is that he's a support runner, isn't the issue of whether he's actually offering support highly material?

All onside players are support players, some may be in close support some more distant - players can pass long distances if they choose!

Seriously, if you wish to adopt that approach then you'd better buy & read this .......cos ur gonna need it.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0446692743/ref=redir_mdp_mobile

 

[RobLev]

All onside players are support players, some may be in close support some more distant - players can pass long distances if they choose!

...but rarely if ever choose to do so in in-goal.

The main choices for explanation of the position of the "support" player (once the BC is in in-goal) are between deliberate obstruction, and switching off once the tryline has been crossed leading to lack of awareness of where the defence is; with "to receive a pass/offload" being a very distant third. I, if refereeing, would tend to assume that professional rugby players know what they're doing and don't run lines by accident.

 

[crossref]

I, if refereeing, would tend to assume that professional rugby players know what they're doing and don't run lines by accident.

especially if the goal kicker is a flaky and it's very important to the team to get nearer the posts ....

back to the OP -- if its not PK then it was a pretty funny coincidence that there was a weak kicker and there 'just happened' to be a blocking player enabling the ball carrier to get closer to the posts.

 

[Browner]

...but rarely if ever choose to do so in in-goal.

The main choices for explanation of the position of the "support" player (once the BC is in in-goal) are between deliberate obstruction, and switching off once the tryline has been crossed leading to lack of awareness of where the defence is; with "to receive a pass/offload" being a very distant third. I, if refereeing, would tend to assume that professional rugby players know what they're doing and don't run lines by accident.

I think you gotta be careful, get a reputation as someone who cancels TRYs on those grounds might lead to a series of contrived collisions happening all over the pitch whenever the ball crosses the whitewash, with bedlam to follow.

In my mind, it'll be C&O enough to not warrant dispute, other than that- its TRY.

 

[chrismtl]

First off, I feel like many of you think I started swearing at the ref...this wasn't the case. It was more like trying to get an explanation since I really had no clue what was going on followed by "you can't be serious". I honestly thought he had preemptively blown for the try. I actually put the ball down as soon as I heard the whistle (we sometimes get angry refs who don't like cely's and players not putting the ball down as soon as they cross the try line).

Back into the laws discussion now. When he whistled, I was 1 or 2 steps from putting the ball down. I was MAYBE 2 meters outside the posts. The entire other team had given up, we were outplaying them and the match was about 15-20 mins in. The score was either 10-0 or 12-0 at the time making the convert pretty important as it would force 2 converted tries. There was a clear break made and my player offloaded when the only defender left tackled him. I wasn't actually sprinting anymore when the obstruction call was made and my teammate had no clue that there was a guy behind him. My running line was much more similar to what you see in sevens match where the player is down to almost at walking pace when he gets close to the posts. Also, this isn't premier level rugby that's being discussed. It's probably as far from it as you could imagine.