Referee blocks a would-be tackler

[crossref]

Interesting one on SA Referees -

1. Name: Charlton Nicolas

Question: Hello Mr Legoete, In general play, if the referee obstructs a defender from making a clear one-on-one tackle and the attacking player gains an advantage, what happens next? Your answer to an earlier question had to do with the ball touching the referee, and so I was wondering if there is a law that applies in this other case. Thank you!

Lesego Legoete: Good day, Mr Nicolas,

There is no law that makes allowance for this - only for the ball or the ball-carrier touching the referee. In your case where neither ball nor ball-carrier touches the referee play goes on.

The same happens if the padding on a post gets in the way.

Kind regards
Pro

I was surprised by that answer... I would have said yes: you treat it the same as ball-carrier touching referee.

 

[Phil E]

I'm not surprised at all.
As they say, the law makes no allowance for the referee making contact with other players.
It's always been like that.

 

[didds]

we discussed this not so long ago with a defender being blocked by the referee and the attacker scoring as a direct result, try stands.

the overwhelming opinion was "try". Clearly law does come above equity - but then its about enjot#yment apparently not equity.

Not sure how the defender can claim to find that enjoyable.

Tho the scorer undoubtedly would so maybe it is supposed to balance it out?

didds

 

[RobLev]

I'm not surprised at all.
As they say, the law makes no allowance for the referee making contact with other players.
It's always been like that.

So presumably the smart thing to do, as the would-be tackler, is accidentally to dump the referee on his arras so that he has to blow up to stop play?

 

[Phil E]

So presumably the smart thing to do, as the would-be tackler, is accidentally to dump the referee on his arras so that he has to blow up to stop play?

It's a hazard along with ball carriers running at the referee as a shield.
The referee needs to be nimble on his feet.

Happy feet :hap:

 

[OB..]

It's a gap in the law that needs to be plugged.

The situation does not occur very often, but when it does the unfairness is blatant.

 

[crossref]

So presumably the smart thing to do, as the would-be tackler, is accidentally to dump the referee on his arras so that he has to blow up to stop play?

to stop play and get his RC out, in fact.

 

[TheBFG]

It's a hazard along with ball carriers running at the referee as a shield.
The referee needs to be nimble on his feet.

Or drop his shoulder :=

 

[SimonSmith]

So presumably the smart thing to do, as the would-be tackler, is accidentally to dump the referee on his arras so that he has to blow up to stop play?

Players have received very very lengthy bans for doing just that and grievously injuring the referee

 

[RobLev]

Players have received very very lengthy bans for doing just that and grievously injuring the referee

The risk of injury was rather my point.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Interesting that this point has been discussed before, so apologies if this is old ground. I have on two occasions in my career (that I can recall) stopped play and awarded a scrum to the team in possession when I was 100% aware that due to my own poor positioning I had clearly blocked a critical 1-on-1 tackle. The last occasion was probably three years ago. Whether the law provides for it or not, I would do exactly the same right now as I cannot see any other outcome as fair and, to my mind, that is (and remains) more important than the law. Another example of coming up with a "fair" solution: Very quick Green winger makes a spectacular break from his 22 and puts the pedal down, steadily increasing the distance to the referee and the chasing AR. By the time he dives to ground the ball in the corner, both ref and AR are probably between 10 and 15 metres behind. Two Blue defenders combine to make a tackle in the corner, one around the ankles which are pulled towards (but definitely not into) touch, and the other at the level of the ball. At the moment the ball is "grounded", both the ref and the AR are unsighted, but it is clear that the ball also goes forward. The key point was that neither ref nor AR could be certain whether the Green player lost control of the ball before the grounding or whether the ball was grounded and then shot forward. After a brief discussion, the decision was taken to apply the most pertinent (though certainly not directly on point) law - 22.15. The ref called over both captains and explained that the game was going to restart with an attacking scrum to green on the 5 metre like. The ref even stated that this was the "most equitable" decision he could make. Both teams (even the try "scorer") accepted this without a moment's bad grace. To me, as an observer on the day, this was an excellent example of the referee using his nous to apply the available laws to a situation not expressly covered by the written laws, and I would expect a referee to do the same if he blocks a critical tackler.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

Re the above - apologies for the long unbroken para. For some reason my "Enter" key doesn't like this website!

 

[Ciaran Trainor]

I don't recall the old thread but I have stopped play and awarded attacking scrum when I have clearly blocked would be tackler but I have also let play go more often when these occasions arise.

 

[didds]

The fact thge try scorer was so accepting of dave's ruling suggests to me that either his side was allready easily winning, he was on for a hat trick and a fortune in drinks bill to buy a jug, or he knew he hadnlt actually scored it ny way.

If i'd just run 60 m and scored I really don't think it woud be a *shrug* fair does ref response.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

It's a hazard along with ball carriers running at the referee as a shield.
The referee needs to be nimble on his feet.

Happy feet :hap:

I have, and would again, penalise players for using me as a shield.

Bit like crossing the road in Ho Chi Minh City - act predictably and the players will (usually) go around you.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have, and would again, penalise players for using me as a shield.

Good old 10.4 (m) eh?

I have no problem whatsoever with this approach!

 

[FlipFlop]

Dave - in your case - the law has a doubts about grounding rule. This applies here. Scrum attacking ball. So legally the right outcome as well as the "fair" outcome.

The answer from the SA refs seems a bit "legally". I.e. the law says this, so this it is. Sorry but that is BS. We are there to allow players to play, and not to prevent them playing. If players get banned if they contact us, we also need to be out of the way, and provide a necessary safety valve in case we are in the wrong place. We also need to prevent players using us as a shield. So scrum down, attacking ball.

 

[Dave Sherwin]

The "doubt about grounding" law in 22.15, though, is not on all fours with the scenario since it talks about doubt as to who grounded the ball first. My point was that I thought the ref (not me - I was observing/coaching him on that day) did well to take a law that was pretty close to the actual scenario and apply it.

 

[talbazar]

Back to the OP, I would tend to disagree...

The law covers this very well (in my opinion):

[LAWS]6.A.4.(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.[/LAWS]
[LAWS]20.4.(d) Scrum after any other stoppage. After any other stoppage or irregularity not covered by Law, the team that was moving forward before the stoppage throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.[/LAWS]

I have no problem to use the above to stop the game and restart with a scrum with attacking team throwing in if I accidentally block a clear-and-obvious would be tackle.
I have done it before and would do it again...

Even if, the goal is clearly not to get in the way :biggrin:

My 2 cents,
Pierre.

 

[crossref]

So, it happened to Wayne Barnes in Ireland v France, WB blocked a tackler, and he gave a scrum to team in possession