The soccer style wall

[RobLev]

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

Right up until he passes it back to one of the players behind the wall. If the ball never goes back behind the wall, then this whole discussion is moot; the whole point of the OP and subsequent discussion is that the ball(-carrier) goes behind the wall

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

No; I am commenting on the situation as described.

 

[RobLev]

I guessed that. :biggrin:


But not every single player is chasing the ball. 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 confused.

But I am obstructed whether or not I attempt to enter the shop. If the offside players dissuade the opposition from attempting to tackle by standing in the way, they are obstructing.

To go back to another point; do you really want 12-year olds hurling themselves against the wall to demonstrate that there is obstruction, or do you ping it before mayhem ensues?

 

[TheBFG]

No; I am commenting on the situation as described.

That explains something! :wink:

The ball carrier is in the wall.

I've been trying to find a clip on Youtube, but without any luck till now.

 

[RobLev]

That explains something! :wink:

The ball carrier is in the wall.

Then the OP isn't talking about the situation you know about - the relevant part reads:

one side form a line with ball carrier in middle facing away from opposition then two runners cross behind with one taking the ball to confuse other team

In the situation you describe, while the ball carrier is in the wall, what does he do with the ball?

I am looking at the position from the point at which the ball goes back to one of the runners.

I've been trying to find a clip on Youtube, but without any luck till now.

It would help.

 

[winchesterref]

If you penalise potential obstruction you might as well penalise every kick ahead and defenders in front. Or do you tell them to move, wait and see if they cause an obstruction or offend? I know which one I would do, you may choose a different option. Either way this is going round in circles so I will go back to being an observer on this one!

 

[crossref]

I have seen this sort of thing -- -- and at u11/u12, that sort of age. Not at older levels.
As I said above I think it's basically lazy or misguided coaching. Coaches should be developing running/tackling/passing/kicking skills more than thinking up ruses that will fool twelve year olds, but be useless at older ages.

It's not dissimilar to an u12 coach whose entire game plan is a crash ball for the team's giant, over and over again. Yes, well, that will work, and in your local club games will deliver tries and wins. But there must be more to coaching u12 than that.

 

[TheBFG]

here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X3ZMEMwPU5A

 

[RobLev]

here you go

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X3ZMEMwPU5A

No obstruction (at no point is the ball-carrier behind the wall), perfectly good try. BUT - not what the OP described.

 

[RobLev]

If you penalise potential obstruction you might as well penalise every kick ahead and defenders in front. Or do you tell them to move, wait and see if they cause an obstruction or offend? I know which one I would do, you may choose a different option. Either way this is going round in circles so I will go back to being an observer on this one!

I think our disagreement is whether this is actual or potential obstruction; and I don't accept your analogy. But so be it.

I'd still like to know though (i) who you'd penalise (if anyone) if the defence's biggest forward were to crash through the wall knocking players flying but couldn't get to the ball-carrier. The forward for playing a player without the ball (and if not why not), or the wall players for obstruction?

And (ii), if the latter, why force the defence to risk a penalty for playing the player without the ball, given the likelihood of physical harm to the wall players.

 

[Taff]

.. The ball carrier is in the wall. I've been trying to find a clip on Youtube, but without any luck till now.

Here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=X3ZMEMwPU5A

That try was superb; nobody laid a finger on him. As Quinnel says "You wonder why [the wall] doesn't get used".

What RobLev etc have an issue though BFG is where the ball is passed back from the wall to a player or two behind it - eg imagine a ball being passed to a SH from a maul, and the forwards then forming a wall. Personally, I still don't have an issue with it, especially when you bear in mind that the new BC and possibly a decoy runner will be running and so will only be behind the wall for a fraction of a second. They're not going to be static - the question for the opposition is which side of the wall are they going to emerge from?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Drivel!

Ruck. Ball emerges from the rear. Immediately ping the obstructing ex-ruckers? I think not.

But in the OP the opposition made no attempt to even get to the ball, so I fail to see how that is obstruction. What are they obstructing? And in the post which prompted my reply, DavidGH suggested that it was an offence regardless of whether there was an "attack".

I repeat

[LAWS]LAW 10.1 OBSTRUCTION

(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.
Sanction: Penalty kick

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

Read what it says.

A potential tackler does not actually have to attempt a tackle in order for the obstructor to be committing obstruction. The mere fact that the obstructor intentionally positions himself to obstruct is an infringement.

This means that Dixie's ex-ruckers are not obstructing because they do not intentionally place themselves where they end up; their positions are a natural consequence of normal play. However, when players form a wall for the ball carrier to run behind, that is an intentional act on their part to place themselves between the opposition and their ball carrier and potential ball carriers, and as such is obstruction under Law 10 .1

 

[Dixie]

Ian, your view is controversial.

"thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball
carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick"

To me, "Thereby Preventing" demands that the prevention actually occurs.

 

[OB..]

A potential tackler does not actually have to attempt a tackle in order for the obstructor to be committing obstruction. The mere fact that the obstructor intentionally positions himself to obstruct is an infringement.

This means that Dixie's ex-ruckers are not obstructing because they do not intentionally place themselves where they end up; their positions are a natural consequence of normal play. However, when players form a wall for the ball carrier to run behind, that is an intentional act on their part to place themselves between the opposition and their ball carrier and potential ball carriers, and as such is potentially obstruction under Law 10 .1

Ian, your view is controversial.

"thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball
carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball carriers when they gain possession.
Sanction: Penalty kick"

To me, "Thereby Preventing" demands that the prevention actually occurs.

I have added a crucial word in Ian's post.

If there is no one anywhere near, then it is not obstruction. However I agree that a player does not have to run into an opponent in order to be able to claim obstruction. Judgement call.

 

[crossref]

do you think that a u12 realises that in order for a PK to be given for obstruction he needs to make it clear to the ref that he'd like to get to the ball, but is actually being obstructed? does that make any difference?

 

[OB..]

do you think that a u12 realises that in order for a PK to be given for obstruction he needs to make it clear to the ref that he'd like to get to the ball, but is actually being obstructed? does that make any difference?

It depends entirely on what his coach has taught him.

I do not want to encourage U12s deliberately running into an opponent to draw an obstruction call, so I don't want coaches to teach that.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I have added a crucial word in Ian's post.

If there is no one anywhere near, then it is not obstruction. However I agree that a player does not have to run into an opponent in order to be able to claim obstruction. Judgement call.

Thanks OB.. and yes I agree. Referees should always use their judgement in situations such as this. I was just trying to highlight the essential diffeence between setting up a wall and an ex-ruck/maul/scrum situation

Ex-ruckers/ex-maulers etc between ball carrier and potential tacklers is a natural consequence of normal play, whereas setting up a wall of players between ball carrier and potential tacklers is an intentional ploy that can have but one purpose, to make it difficult for the tacklers to reach the ball carrier or potential ball carrier.

 

[RobLev]

Thanks OB.. and yes I agree. Referees should always use their judgement in situations such as this. I was just trying to highlight the essential diffeence between setting up a wall and an ex-ruck/maul/scrum situation

Ex-ruckers/ex-maulers etc between ball carrier and potential tacklers is a natural consequence of normal play, whereas setting up a wall of players between ball carrier and potential tacklers is an intentional ploy that can have but one purpose, to make it difficult for the tacklers to reach the ball carrier or potential ball carrier.

Exactly.

 

[thepercy]

Thanks OB.. and yes I agree. Referees should always use their judgement in situations such as this. I was just trying to highlight the essential diffeence between setting up a wall and an ex-ruck/maul/scrum situation

Ex-ruckers/ex-maulers etc between ball carrier and potential tacklers is a natural consequence of normal play, whereas setting up a wall of players between ball carrier and potential tacklers is an intentional ploy that can have but one purpose, to make it difficult for the tacklers to reach the ball carrier or potential ball carrier.

I think the purpose of the tactic is to confuse the oppo as to who and/or where the ball is, not to block the oppo from a ball carrier. A bit of slight of hand.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I think the purpose of the tactic is to confuse the oppo as to who and/or where the ball is, not to block the oppo from a ball carrier. A bit of slight of hand.

Use decoy runners then.

 

[Taff]

I think the purpose of the tactic is to confuse the oppo as to who and/or where the ball is, not to block the oppo from a ball carrier. A bit of slight of hand.

Exactly.

Use decoy runners then.

Are we limited to one?