Obstruction in-goal

[Mr.Christopher]

.....I will refrain from commenting on the ruling, as I am the ref in question. :biggrin:

That being said, Chrismtl did not curse me out and was not verbally abusive. He was upset at the whistle and trying to get an explanation.... but generally behaved himself.

 

[chrismtl]

.....I will refrain from commenting on the ruling, as I am the ref in question. :biggrin:

That being said, Chrismtl did not curse me out and was not verbally abusive. He was upset at the whistle and trying to get an explanation.... but generally behaved himself.

Was wondering when you'd drop in and say hi

 

[Browner]

.....I will refrain from commenting on the ruling, as I am the ref in question. :biggrin:

That being said, Chrismtl did not curse me out and was not verbally abusive. He was upset at the whistle and trying to get an explanation.... but generally behaved himself.

So Mr C
Did you see a clear obstruction committed on the defender who hadn't given up, and had been actually blocked from making a tackle attempt ?

Chris suggests his teammate had "no clue that anyone was behind him"

Confirmation of your decision might close this thread.

 

[Mr.Christopher]

As I saw and recall it (as it was approximately a month ago, and i've done several games since then):

1. Following an open-field break and a clean run in from around the 22, the Ball carrier goes into in-goal between the 5m and 15m lines, and starts running into center for a better mark for the kicker.
2. A defender is running full pace towards the ball carrier, taking an angle such that the intent is clear to cut off the ball carrier's route to the middle.
3. A support runner from the attacking team is running a line that is curving inwards, mirroring the run of the ball carrier.
4. This supporting running is almost even (neck and neck) with the defender, as both have been trailing since the line break.
5. I recall that the support runner was looking around following the line break, trying to establish if any defenders were in tackling range.
6. As I saw the support runner's "head on a swivel", I concluded that he was both aware of the defender, and the line the defender was taking.
7. I recall the support running changing pace, so as to insure contact and "blocking" would occur with the defender, thereby giving the ball carrier clearance to make it to the middle of the in-goal.
8. The support runner didn't just make incidental contact or cut off the defender... there was significant contact between the two players.

In my reading of the play, the support runner knew the defender was there, changed his pace to ensure the contact with the defender, and prevented the defender from stopping the ball carrier running to a more optimal kicking position. I blew my whistle for obstruction and awarded the defender's team a penalty at the location the obstruction occurred, out at the 5m line.

 

[Browner]

So, the support player rather than having "no clue" was very aware and both altered his route and obstructed the determined defender. Sounds like Mr C was pretty darn sure of the deliberate obstruction.

I can see why the PK was awarded. Next time Chris shouldn't ask the referee anything, he merely needs to ask his teammate " why did you do that, I was just about to score!"

Lesson learned methinks.

 

[Mr.Christopher]

So, the support player rather than having "no clue" was very aware and both altered his route and obstructed the determined defender. Sounds like Mr C was pretty darn sure of the deliberate obstruction.

Well, I can't say what he knew or not, as I have no idea what he was thinking. Based on his behavior and actions, I concluded that he was aware and proceeded accordingly.

 

[chrismtl]

I've gone ahead and found the pictures of the situation. Not sure they help my case, but they do seem to show the incident. I actually didn't think it was #1 who got the call since I thought I had him beat and assumed there was someone else. On top of that, he's my old HS coach and I know that he didn't have a chance of getting to me (albeit that doesn't matter cause the ref doesn't know that).

View attachment 2929View attachment 2930View attachment 2931View attachment 2932

 

[RobLev]

I've gone ahead and found the pictures of the situation. Not sure they help my case, but they do seem to show the incident. I actually didn't think it was #1 who got the call since I thought I had him beat and assumed there was someone else. On top of that, he's my old HS coach and I know that he didn't have a chance of getting to me (albeit that doesn't matter cause the ref doesn't know that).

View attachment 2929View attachment 2930View attachment 2931View attachment 2932

On those photos, it looks like the call is nailed-on correct. In the first, it looks like the Black/White player to the far left has stopped and is leaning back into impact with Red #1. And the ref was right on the spot as well

 

[Phil E]

Pull your bloody socks up ref!!!! :nono:

 

[Browner]

The photos do indeed indicate a slightly different scenario than the OP (unscaled) drawing in as much as stills ever do.

The Ref gets my vote. Excellent positioning sir. Chris, your teammate owes you a pint ! Seems like sir was more aware of what was happening around you than you were.

Good photos.
Cheers

 

[chrismtl]

Ya, The photos weren't originally published and I had to request them from our photographer, so I was going off of memory. After getting the pics I can see why the ref made the call. My memory had me preparing to swan dive under the posts :biggrin:

 

[didds]

#1 hadn't a prayer of making that tackle evn if unobstructed!

You were robbed.

didds

 

[winchesterref]

#1 has definitely played for that! Habana-esque theatrics.

 

[Mr.Christopher]

Pull your bloody socks up ref!!!! :nono:

I would love to, but the wimpy material keeps running away from my manly calf muscles...

 

[Mr.Christopher]

#1 hadn't a prayer of making that tackle evn if unobstructed!

You were robbed.

didds

The photo angle is a bit misleading.... this is not shot from the opposite in-goal... this is shot from the sidelines between the 22 and 5 m lines. The black (7, i think) was running left to right and obstructed the #1 that was pretty much running north/south to cut of the ball carrier's line.

 

[Browner]

#1 hadn't a prayer of making that tackle evn if unobstructed!

You were robbed.

You were let down by your deliberately cheating teammate, not the ref. Why did he do it?!!?!

 

[chrismtl]

You were let down by your deliberately cheating teammate, not the ref. Why did he do it?!!?!

DELIBERATELY CHEATING TEAMMATE???!!! My teammate was doing what you're taught to do in rugby, and that's follow the play and keep looking ahead of you. If this situation was in the middle of the field and I had passed him the ball and he was looking backwards and all around him I'd have been pretty pissed when he would drop that ball. He never had any clue that there was a player behind him. The first pic shows him stopping because I was stepping a player on the goal line and cutting towards him. Second picture just shows that he rotated and followed me. Third and fourth are of an out of shape (he subbed out maybe 5 mins after this, which means he played under 30 minutes) prop selling a call to the ref. I don't blame the ref, but I don't blame my teammate either. I know the prop, he's fat and slow, and I can tell you he had ZERO chance of ever touching me. If I thought he might, I would have had the ball grounded before the "obstruction". Last time I checked, the law says that if the player is in an onside position, he must "intentionally" block a player. This means that the ref has to determine intent.

How about this try from the 6 nations. If the Italy #12 would have wanted, he could have easily pushed the French player, but it doesn't change the fact that he would never have gotten to the ball carrier. 1:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKUkC4Gj0zU

You can't honestly think that a prop who had to make a 90 degree change of direction is going to catch a half back at full pace...

 

[leaguerefaus]

I thought Canadians were polite...

 

[Ian_Cook]

DELIBERATELY CHEATING TEAMMATE???!!! My teammate was doing what you're taught to do in rugby, and that's follow the play and keep looking ahead of you. If this situation was in the middle of the field and I had passed him the ball and he was looking backwards and all around him I'd have been pretty pissed when he would drop that ball. He never had any clue that there was a player behind him. The first pic shows him stopping because I was stepping a player on the goal line and cutting towards him. Second picture just shows that he rotated and followed me. Third and fourth are of an out of shape (he subbed out maybe 5 mins after this, which means he played under 30 minutes) prop selling a call to the ref. I don't blame the ref, but I don't blame my teammate either. I know the prop, he's fat and slow, and I can tell you he had ZERO chance of ever touching me. If I thought he might, I would have had the ball grounded before the "obstruction". Last time I checked, the law says that if the player is in an onside position, he must "intentionally" block a player. This means that the ref has to determine intent.

How about this try from the 6 nations. If the Italy #12 would have wanted, he could have easily pushed the French player, but it doesn't change the fact that he would never have gotten to the ball carrier. 1:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKUkC4Gj0zU

You can't honestly think that a prop who had to make a 90 degree change of direction is going to catch a half back at full pace...

I agree, and I'm not surprised at your use of capitals. I thought it was a pretty off comment as well

FWIW, technically, it was obstruction, but IMO, immaterial. Red 1 didn't have an ice-cube's chance in hell of getting anywhere near you.

Check your PM inbox

 

[RobLev]

I agree, and I'm not surprised at your use of capitals. I thought it was a pretty off comment as well

It was unnecessary.

FWIW, technically, it was obstruction, but IMO, immaterial. Red 1 didn't have an ice-cube's chance in hell of getting anywhere near you.

...

We've moved (pace chrismtl) on from whether it was obstruction to whether the obstruction was material.

The ref was perfectly positioned, and took the view that (i) the prop was keeping up with the support runner and (ii) that the obstruction was material; and in any event I'd ask myself why the "support runner" obstructed the prop if he didn't think the prop could get there. I don't think that there's anything in the photos to contradict him.