[Law] Quinns vs Bath - obstruction

[mcroker]

What do we think?

https://out.reddit.com/t3_9g34xi?ur...RA2HhzS4Tbcb8wfmTV3LgtMz4iUal&app_name=mweb2x

 

[Taff]

Personally, I would say it was obstruction, BUT I queried something very similar a few years ago and was told in no uncertain terms that the support player was entitled to support. :sad:

 

[mcroker]

• “A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.”

I think this does clearly apply to the situation

 

[Taff]

• “A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.”

I think this does clearly apply to the situation

I thought so too and that was my argument at the time, but if you manage to find the old thread - you will find that I got a right virtual kicking. :biggrin:

I'm pretty sure the incident I commented on was an England Veterans game at Twickenham; and I'm almost certain the Hooker ran virtually the length of the field to score while being "supported" by a team mate.

 

[ianh5979]

Good decision, support player changed his line to block at least 3 times

 

[crossref]

I was there . It will not feature on Matt Carley career highlights video. It took them multiple attempts and endless time to reach what was probably the right decision.
It was a senseless obstruction.. he would have scored anyway

 

[damo]

Correct decision for me. The player kept changing his line to deliberately obstruct the would be defender.

 

[dave_clark]

It was a senseless obstruction.. he would have scored anyway

so it shouldn't have been given?

at least that was the argument i was making in the pub yesterday.

 

[crossref]

He was so determined to obstruct, for so long, I think the pk was justified

 

[crossref]

Another interesting discussion about that incident was whether Carley was influenced by the crowd.
The crowd certainly thought he was

 

[OB..]

Another interesting discussion about that incident was whether Carley was influenced by the crowd.
The crowd certainly thought he was

Highly unlkely. It was blatant and he knows the video will be reviewed.

 

[crossref]

It was more about whether to check it.
He seemed to dismiss the TMo intially, then repented and looked

 

[ChrisR]

Disallow and PK for me. He took a peek, twice, and moved into the would be tackler's channel.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

As per all the above. Suportting the runner is one thing Ruunning like a drunk on New Year's Eve is very different.

The two issues are:

Support = Good
Blocking = Bad

 

[Zebra1922]

I thought so too and that was my argument at the time, but if you manage to find the old thread - you will find that I got a right virtual kicking. :biggrin:

I'm pretty sure the incident I commented on was an England Veterans game at Twickenham; and I'm almost certain the Hooker ran virtually the length of the field to score while being "supported" by a team mate.

I recall a previous debate where the support player did not move at least three times (as in this case) so I don’t think the cases/examples are comparable, hence you can get a different result.

in this case it is clear obstruction. The support player has deliberately changed lines on several occasions to obstruct, further evidenced by his looking behind him to locate the defender prior to changing his line. If this isn’t obstruction then I don’t know what is!

there is an argument it was not material as the defender is unlikely to have caught up anyway, but in my view this was correctly disallowed.

 

[didds]

It was a senseless obstruction.. he would have scored anyway

So iot was actually totally immaterial then?

so what's the problem then if its not material ? (a bit of a wigging to the "supporter" for sure!)

didds

 

[Taff]

.... there is an argument it was not material as the defender is unlikely to have caught up anyway ...

To me the next question should be "So if the "supporter" genuinely thought the defender wouldn't have caught the BC, why did he do it then"?

The "supporter" obviously thought there was a chance his team mate would have been caught, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered.

 

[VM75]

Do players invent this unilaterally, or does anyone have any evidence that it's coached ?

 

[didds]

To me the next question should be "So if the "supporter" genuinely thought the defender wouldn't have caught the BC, why did he do it then"?

presumably for similar reasons why non material offside players do it but aren't penalised as their actions were not material?

didds

 

[Camquin]

If you are onside you can hold your line you do not need to get out of the way.
But even if you are onside you cannot deliberately obstruct a potential tacker - 9.3
If you are offside, you have a duty not to interfere with play - 9.2.