The soccer style wall

[crossref]

normally it is a PK, the taker taps and passes back through a gap in the wall to a receiver. the gap then closes up.

 

[RobLev]

...If the ball is passed to the wall, and passed to runners behind (moving forwards), then provided they don't interfere with opposition physically getting to BC, then play on.

...

How does the wall not interfere with opposition physically getting to the ball-carrier? Obstruction does not require contact.

 

[crossref]

this is exactly the point. the wall are all 12, folllowing instructions from a 'clever' coach. it probably hasn't even occured to them they risk a high-speed shoulder in the kidneys.

 

[RobLev]

normally it is a PK, the taker taps and passes back through a gap in the wall to a receiver. the gap then closes up.

Thanks, crossref.

 

[winchesterref]

How does the wall not interfere with opposition physically getting to the ball-carrier? Obstruction does not require contact.

Are you serious??

The player doesn't stand behind the wall... The ball is passed, to running players... If the wall opens up and a player runs through, deceiving the opposition and creating a big hole, then by all means consider obstruction. But the typical way this is played out does not cause obstruction as the ball doesn't stay behind the wall and is passed to runners going round the outside of the wall.

 

[RobLev]

Are you serious??

Entirely so.

The player doesn't stand behind the wall... The ball is passed, to running players... If the wall opens up and a player runs through, deceiving the opposition and creating a big hole, then by all means consider obstruction. But the typical way this is played out does not cause obstruction as the ball doesn't stay behind the wall and is passed to runners going round the outside of the wall.

Access to - indeed sight of - those runners being obstructed for the whole time they are behind the wall.

 

[winchesterref]

The same as the ball in a maul - where is it?

The 9 at the back of a large ruck - where are they going?

The ball at the back of the scrum, where is it?

All non issues. They don't erect a 10 foot wall. They aren't opaque, they don't fully obscure and most of the time there is less chance of an obstruction than a forward pass being involved.

 

[TheBFG]

best we start "pinging" the centres that run miss moves

:deadhorse:

 

[crossref]

I feeling I am discerning a pattern here
- those with current experience of actually reffing u12/u13 have concerns about managing this tactic.
- those who only ref adults don't see the problem.

 

[winchesterref]

I don't only ref adults. I regularly ref kids on Sundays for practice!

1. Within the laws of the game there isn't a problem at any level or age
2. Within guidelines and instructions laid down by individual CBs there might be a problem, and indeed for the safety and development of children's rugby there might be too

 

[Taff]

...by obstructing their view of what is happenign so they can't see where the ball is coming out?

But where does it say an opponent is entitled to a view of the ball?

... b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.

If the wall actually prevents a tackle (or a real chance of potential tackle) fair enough - penalise it. If it's not preventing anything apart from a clear unobstructed view of the ball, play on IMO. And don't forget this is all happening in open play, ie there are no opposition offside lines - so there's nothing stopping them being on the "wrong" side of the wall if they wanted to. Imagine it as a sort of Maginot Line as the opposition can just go round the sides, just as the Germans never attacked it, preferring instead to invade France by going round the side and through Belgium. Merde - didn't see that coming did you Francois? In fact it's even less effective than the Maginot Line, because in our example the opposition are allowed behind it while the line was being built. :redface:

... To be honest, I can't see the similarity; one is hiding the ball in plain sight with any physical obstruction incidental, the other is hiding the ball behind a wall, with physical obstruction inevitable.

Very eloquent. You sir should be in Parliament. :biggrin:

 

[RobLev]

best we start "pinging" the centres that run miss moves

:deadhorse:

Since the situations are entirely different, I'm not quite sure why, but perhaps you can enlighten me?

 

[TheBFG]

Since the situations are entirely different, I'm not quite sure why, but perhaps you can enlighten me?

Not entirely different, we're talking about shielding the ball from defenders to run dummy lines etc to try and gain an advatage over the defenders, not a lot of difference.

 

[TheBFG]

I feeling I am discerning a pattern here
- those with current experience of actually reffing u12/u13 have concerns about managing this tactic.
- those who only ref adults don't see the problem.

Saturdays I ref "mens" rugby

Sundays I ref "kids" rugby (13's upwards, but they were u12's :wink: )

 

[RobLev]

But where does it say an opponent is entitled to a view of the ball?

Nowhere, but you were trying to draw an analogy with selling a dummy; I was pointing out the fundamental difference between a dummy and this tactic.

Originally Posted by RobLev
... b) Running in front of a ball carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.

:norc:That was not what I originally posted.

If the wall actually prevents a tackle (or a real chance of potential tackle) fair enough - penalise it.

And how does it not do so? The opposition are prevented from taking a direct route to the ball-carrier, or potential recipient of a pass, by players standing in an offside position, who are thereby interfering with play and should therefore be pinged for offside.

If it's not preventing anything apart from a clear unobstructed view of the ball, play on IMO.

If there is a line of people stood between me and a shop doorway they are obstructing my access to the shop. They may stand aside if I approach - but until they do so, they are, in common English, obstructing me. The Laws define obstruction without requiring the obstructed player to hurl himself against the obstructing player to demonstrate the obstruction.

And don't forget this is all happening in open play,/QUOTE]

Or not, as the case may be - see crossref's comment.

ie there are no opposition offside lines - so there's nothing stopping them being on the "wrong" side of the wall if they wanted to.

Players on the "wrong" side would not be obstructed - but I would imagine that the team would not pull this tactic in those circumstances. Even if they do, however, players on the other side of the wall are being obstructed.

Imagine it as a sort of Maginot Line as the opposition can just go round the sides,

An obstructed player (almost) always has that option; you'd still ping the obstructor, surely?

 

[RobLev]

Not entirely different, we're talking about shielding the ball from defenders to run dummy lines etc to try and gain an advatage over the defenders, not a lot of difference.

A centre running a miss move is between potential tacklers and the ball-carrier for fractions of a second, and only incidentally to his actual function of making the opposition think he is going to receive a pass. The wall is there specifically to be between the ball-carrier and the opposition - both visually and physically. The players in it are not going to receive a pass, since they are offside.

 

[Taff]

... And how does it not do so? .... If there is a line of people stood between me and a shop doorway they are obstructing my access to the shop. They may stand aside if I approach - but until they do so, they are, in common English, obstructing me.

But they're only obstructing you if you actually wanted to go into the shop, or had a realistic chance of getting there. Eg If you started off in Windsor to get to your shop in London, they wouldn't really be obstructing you until you got close to the doorway in London. Until you get close enough for them to affect you, they're just a collection of wierdos hanging around shop doorways.

If you wanted to go into a different shop or just hang around outside (open play) or it was actually easier for you to get to the same shop by a different entrance or congregated around the shop doorway while you were still in Windsor, they're not obstructing you then are they? See my point?

 

[crossref]

They're only obstructing you if you actually wanted to go into the shop. See my point?

If you wanted to go into a different shop or just hang around outside (open play) they're not obstructing you then are they?

um you have allowed yourself to distracted by the simile.

the shop represents the ball.

there's only one ball, and both teams want it. Always.

 

[TheBFG]

A centre running a miss move is between potential tacklers and the ball-carrier for fractions of a second, and only incidentally to his actual function of making the opposition think he is going to receive a pass. The wall is there specifically to be between the ball-carrier and the opposition - both visually and physically. The players in it are not going to receive a pass, since they are offside.

How are the players in the wall offside? They're stood next to the ball carrier (which ever one it is).

Can i just ask (this is a serious Q) have you actually seen this happen in a game?

 

[Taff]

um you have allowed yourself to distracted by the simile. the shop represents the ball.

I guessed that. :biggrin:

... there's only one ball, and both teams want it. Always.

But not every single player is chasing the ball - so only the ones who wanted to get in are being obstructed. If there was only one entrance to this imaginary shop and you were phyically stopped from getting in - fair enough, that's obstruction.

Don't forget that in the OP nobody even tried to get into the shop - they just hung around outside looking "surprised" and confused.