Uruguay try disallowed for obstruction

[Locke]

Start video at 5:00 to see Uruguay try called back for obstruction by #13 in the midfield.

I didn’t notice it in real time and, on replay, still feel it was harsh. #13 is initially behind the ball and clearly a realistic option to receive the pass. From my view, he maintains his running line and makes contact with the defender almost immediately after play goes behind him. However, he does seem to know it’s a potential concern because he puts his arms up to try to signal he’s not holding the defender back.

Thoughts on Ben O’Keefe’s decision vs my thought process here? On replay, I would not given the penalty for obstruction. Am I too far off the mark?

 

[crossref]

not avaialble in my country :-(

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Can't see the video.

 

[Dickie E]

not avaialble in my country :-(

let me youtube that for you It's at 1:04

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Nor that one.

 

[Locke]

Rugby World Cup news | Felipe Etcheverry’s try for Uruguay disallowed

Uruguay were stripped of a try when Tomas Inciarte took out defender Antoine Hastoy, disallowing Felipe Etcheverry’s effort in the 33rd minute.

wwos.nine.com.au

This Australian website has a video of the try and the ref/TMO review.

 

[Decorily]

Seems like a correct decision to me.

 

[Locke]

Multiple referees and the commentators agree with you, so I’m likely wrong here but would like to get more context.
I feel Uruguay #13 held his line and had very little opportunity to avoid that contact. Why couldn’t it be a penalty against the defender for playing a man without the ball? I don’t think that’s the correct call either, to be clear, but I’m not seeing what actions by attacking 13 show intent to obstruct or are otherwise illegal. He’s made a legitimate run through the line and I don’t see anything suggesting he’s adjusted his angle or has overrun the line to make contact.

 

[didds]

the semi blocked French player almost ,made the tackle as it is. Had he not been semi blocked he may well have done so.
Had Uruguayan player bnot actually touched him it may have been successful as a decoy - but he did impeed him.

Decision fine. And TBH no more or less harsh than the french kicking through the ruck call.

 

[Dickie E]

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

This is what the law says. Did #13 intend to block the would-be tackler or is it happenstance?
Interestingly, there is no law saying the ball carrier can't use an unsuspecting team mate as a shield.

 

[buff]

The referee explained to the Uruguay captain that had 13 run at the defender's inside shoulder he would have been fine. Making contact on the outside shoulder prevented the defender from moving towards the ball carrier.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Why couldn’t it be a penalty against the defender for playing a man without the ball?

Ido hope that is an attempt at a joke.

Clearl and obvious call. Well done the referee.

 

[Locke]

Clearl and obvious call. Well done the referee.

Help me understand what rights orange #13 has. What if the defender was two steps closer and we all agreed that #13 didn’t change his line and contact was unavoidable. Would it still be penalty? Or is it a penalty because you feel the contact was avoidable?

The referee explained to the Uruguay captain that had 13 run at the defender's inside shoulder he would have been fine. Making contact on the outside shoulder prevented the defender from moving towards the ball carrier.

This is the most confusing part to me. Where is this idea supported in law?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Help me understand what rights orange #13 has. What if the defender was two steps closer and we all agreed that #13 didn’t change his line and contact was unavoidable. Would it still be penalty? Or is it a penalty because you feel the contact was avoidable?


This is the most confusing part to me. Where is this idea supported in law?

Making contact on the outside shoulder prevented the defender from moving towards the ball carrier.
This was always going to prevent the defenderattempting a tackle. The inside shoulder may not have..

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Help me understand what rights orange #13 has. What if the defender was two steps closer and we all agreed that #13 didn’t change his line and contact was unavoidable. Would it still be penalty? Or is it a penalty because you feel the contact was avoidable?

He did not have to make contact.

 

[Stu10]

Help me understand what rights orange #13 has. What if the defender was two steps closer and we all agreed that #13 didn’t change his line and contact was unavoidable. Would it still be penalty? Or is it a penalty because you feel the contact was avoidable?


This is the most confusing part to me. Where is this idea supported in law?

Contact was avoidable... it was his choice to run that line at the defender rather than at a gap between the defenders. You should then consider whether it was material... we often play on if that pass behind was pulled back very deep or was a long pass behind the dummy runner because that defender was never getting near the ball or the ball carrier, but in this case I feel the French player was prevented from making a tackle and the block opened a channel for the Uruguay player to run through.

 

[Dickie E]

I'll be interested to see how many obstruction penalties this WC. Saw 1 game recently (not sure who, maybe Wales v somebody) and there were 3 in the highlights package. I can go 5 seasons and not give an obstruction penalty

 

[Stu10]

I'll be interested to see how many obstruction penalties this WC. Saw 1 game recently (not sure who, maybe Wales v somebody) and there were 3 in the highlights package. I can go 5 seasons and not give an obstruction penalty

Even at elite level, I'm not sure how often the ref picks up open play obstruction in real time... it normally gets spotted by the TMO.

Slight tangent, I've given myself a development action to focus on obstruction at the lineout, when the lifters position themselves between the catcher and the opposition. I think elite level refs do spot this more often in real time.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Even at elite level, I'm not sure how often the ref picks up open play obstruction in real time... it normally gets spotted by the TMO.

Slight tangent, I've given myself a development action to focus on obstruction at the lineout, when the lifters position themselves between the catcher and the opposition. I think elite level refs do spot this more often in real time.

Many seasons ago Nigel O gave a talk to my society where he pointed out that Cardiff (Blues) as they were then had this ploy of the supporters stepping in to obstruct on the lift. He gave some great clips and advice. Two weeks later he was reffing at Cardiff and he "missed" it all evening.