SA - Aus (2012-09-29)

[damo]

Just for good measure I present Samo the Offensive Tackle:

 

[Davet]

Hmm - looks very much a pre-planned move.

Gold 9 instructs Gold 8 to move and stand on the margin of offside at the ruck, and it would appear that he did so in order to proviode himself with protection - by ensuring that gold 8 was in the way of the Green player who was standing off the ruck, onside, waiting to attack the 9 as soon as the ball came out.

I think its as clear a case of deliberate obstruction as you wish to see.

 

[damo]

It is the best advertisement for the new 5 second law that you will ever see.

 

[OB..]

I think its as clear a case of deliberate obstruction as you wish to see.

[LAWS]10.1 (c) (c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.
[/LAWS]

I suppose the defence to that would be that when he took up that position there was no ball carrier. What if he had been there to start with when the ruck formed? Standing your ground can be obstruction.

The IRB has made it clear that you are not allowed to form a line in front of a player waiting to catch the ball. Surely this isthe same sort of thing?

 

[RugbyFish]

Hmm - looks very much a pre-planned move.
I
Gold 9 instructs Gold 8 to move and stand on the margin of offside at the ruck, and it would appear that he did so in order to proviode himself with protection - by ensuring that gold 8 was in the way of the Green player who was standing off the ruck, onside, waiting to attack the 9 as soon as the ball came out.

I think its as clear a case of deliberate obstruction as you wish to see.

I agree. I generally struggle to understand the way they interpret obstruction on TV - I think, if the only purpose of a block-runner or guard is to end up in an offside position and not "having to go away" it amounts to obstruction. I can't see a legitimate reason for Samo to be where he is. Therefore he should at least make himself as small as possible as soon as he is offside.

 

[Ian_Cook]

To suggest Samo was obstructing is a reach.. a very long reach.

I could suggest that the green player played him without the ball... just as long a reach.

There could be a good argument that he was offside (marginally so), but as I stated earlier, he does not have to get out of the way. There is no requirement for a player to merely evaporate. He can't move into the line that the opposing player wants, but if he is already standing there, he doesn't have to step aside.

 

[Davet]

Ian - I have some sympathy - but in this case the 9 made a clear gesture to tell Samo where to stand, and the reason for that was crystal clear - he wanted him there as a protection from the green player - what other reason could there be? And in order to protect the 9 from the green player Samo would have to be in his way, and stood offside in front of the 9. And he wasn't "marginally offside" - he was offside in front of the 9 by several feet.

It is a clear and deliberate tactic to get a player in between the 9 and a potential tackler.

 

[OB..]

He can't move into the line that the opposing player wants, but if he is already standing there, he doesn't have to step aside.

That is not entirely true. If a player is waiting to catch a kick, you are not entitled to just stand there in front of him.

Of course a player is not expected to evaporate, but he is expected to make a reasonable effort to avoid obstruction.

Davet is quite correct that once the scrum half picks up the ball behind them, they are offside even if they wer onside at te ruck, and it is undeniable that there was interference with play.

 

[Womble]

IRB big 5? pillars and posts anyone!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian - I have some sympathy - but in this case the 9 made a clear gesture to tell Samo where to stand, and the reason for that was crystal clear - he wanted him there as a protection from the green player - what other reason could there be? And in order to protect the 9 from the green player Samo would have to be in his way, and stood offside in front of the 9. And he wasn't "marginally offside" - he was offside in front of the 9 by several feet.

It is a clear and deliberate tactic to get a player in between the 9 and a potential tackler.

I say its legal. Just like any other player, the SH is entitled to tell his players to position themselves where he wants them to be. They could just as easily have had a "call" like a line-out call which only they would know, that would have done the same thing, and no-one else would have been any the wiser.

You can see that just before the kick, the gold player with the headband unbinds and leans into Samo just as the Green player tries to come through the gap. While I agree that its a deliberate tactic, I do not have a problem with it. Its one that you see at just about every box kick from a ruck. Perhaps you would prefer to see the players playing tunnel ball to give the SH a little more protection?

Also, if you look at the video, the SH does not go directly behind Samo to make the kick. He is still standing well to one side (and still behind the ruck players), so he is not standing directly between the SH and the Green player, he's just making sure there is not enough room for him to go between himself and the ruck players, and he doesn't have to leave that space.

If he had bound onto and slightly behind the gold player so as to create a wall behind which the SH is protected, no one would have a problem with it, and I don't see any material difference between this and what actually happened.

 

[chbg]

And it wasn't even a tackle that led to Slipper's YC - Gold should have got around the Green man on the ground.

 

[The Fat]

Slipper had hands on the ball for approximately 2.5 seconds before AR calls for him to let go. a good portion of that time was while the ball carrier was not releasing to the man on his feet. Should have been a PK to gold.

Samo did not bind to the ruck. He ran to a position forward of last man's feet and then makes a slight move to his left with the upper body to get the shoulder into the SA player. PK to SA.

 

[Davet]

While I agree that its a deliberate tactic,

So we agree that the tactic is to interpose an offside player between a potential tackler and the 9, specifically to prevent him getting at the 9.

I do not have a problem with it.

If you agree it is a deliberate planned move to use the a player who is offside to obstruct the opposition then I cannot see how you can claims it's OK.

It is directly comparable to a crossing offence - perhaps worse since in this case it was clearly intended, and wasn't down to poor timing.

It took time and space away from the opposition, and is a penalty all day long.

As Womble points out - iRB Big 5 - includes cracking down on Pillars.

 

[Dixie]

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the contentious incident at 10'45". At 10'30", Curtly Beale has received a pass from a ruck by his own 10m line, and kicks deep. Kirchner fields the ball about 18m from his goalline, and makes an excellent clearance kick, which goes into touchback on the Aussie 10m line, with an Aussie catchng it 1m in touch at 10'39". He takes an immediate QTI, to Beale (still on his own 10m line) at which point Green 6 is 5m insid the green half - so 15m away. Green 6 is just about to impinge on Beale when Rolland calls Offside and sticks out his arm (10'43"). Beale passes back to the thrower Phipps - #9). No advantage accrues so AR comes back to the penalty for 6 offside, which he awards 15m in. By way of explanation to the bemused flanker, he says at 11:00: #6 offside from the kick. You were never put onside and - you are not allowed to. The commentators were yakking over the feed, but this was a clear incidence of an elite ref NOT considering that the ball in touch resets offside lines,contrary to Craig Joubert's view in response to my question on SA Refs.

 

[Phil E]

Interesting that no-one has mentioned the contentious incident at 10'45". At 10'30", Curtly Beale has received a pass from a ruck by his own 10m line, and kicks deep. Kirchner fields the ball about 18m from his goalline, and makes an excellent clearance kick, which goes into touchback on the Aussie 10m line, with an Aussie catchng it 1m in touch at 10'39". He takes an immediate QTI, to Beale (still on his own 10m line) at which point Green 6 is 5m insid the green half - so 15m away. Green 6 is just about to impinge on Beale when Rolland calls Offside and sticks out his arm (10'43"). Beale passes back to the thrower Phipps - #9). No advantage accrues so AR comes back to the penalty for 6 offside, which he awards 15m in. By way of explanation to the bemused flanker, he says at 11:00: #6 offside from the kick. You were never put onside and - you are not allowed to. The commentators were yakking over the feed, but this was a clear incidence of an elite ref NOT considering that the ball in touch resets offside lines,contrary to Craig Joubert's view in response to my question on SA Refs.

But it fits in perfectly with what we were told by Steve Savage and Andrew Small.

 

[Davet]

No idea what is happening in that description.

I have no idea which team Beale plays for, nor Kirchener

Cant we use colour and number so that those of us who don't actually watch the SH competitions (no SKY - for a mix of cost and a refusal to pay immoral business owners such as the Murdochs a penny - note to Murdochs, feel free to sue - you'll lose) can have a clue?

 

[Dixie]

Gold kick ahead, Green return it to the same point, just in touch. Gold take a QTI, Green 6 deemed offside from the kick.

 

[Davet]

OK - sounds like that's good, then.

 

[Cave Dweller]

No idea what is happening in that description.

I have no idea which team Beale plays for, nor Kirchener

Cant we use colour and number so that those of us who don't actually watch the SH competitions (no SKY - for a mix of cost and a refusal to pay immoral business owners such as the Murdochs a penny - note to Murdochs, feel free to sue - you'll lose) can have a clue?

Kirchener aka Side Show Bob you can't miss him haha

I have no idea what is Kirchener doing in the team.....

 

[Cave Dweller]

I say its legal. Just like any other player, the SH is entitled to tell his players to position themselves where he wants them to be. They could just as easily have had a "call" like a line-out call which only they would know, that would have done the same thing, and no-one else would have been any the wiser.

You can see that just before the kick, the gold player with the headband unbinds and leans into Samo just as the Green player tries to come through the gap. While I agree that its a deliberate tactic, I do not have a problem with it. Its one that you see at just about every box kick from a ruck. Perhaps you would prefer to see the players playing tunnel ball to give the SH a little more protection?

Also, if you look at the video, the SH does not go directly behind Samo to make the kick. He is still standing well to one side (and still behind the ruck players), so he is not standing directly between the SH and the Green player, he's just making sure there is not enough room for him to go between himself and the ruck players, and he doesn't have to leave that space.

If he had bound onto and slightly behind the gold player so as to create a wall behind which the SH is protected, no one would have a problem with it, and I don't see any material difference between this and what actually happened.

Yes but there is a difference between standing there and driving into the man trying to get to the player with the ball. The fact is he did not bound to anything he was just standing there and blocked the player trying to reach the ball carrier.