[Law] When is obstuction not obstruction

[chutneyf]

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion--obstruction/2830550/

Interesting article. In this scenario which laws, if any, prevent American football style blocking when running side on.

 

[Phil E]

Done to death on another thread I'm afraid chutneyf.

I'm going to close this thread and add a link to the other one. If you still want to ask the question after reading the other thread, please ask it there.

Thanks
Mod

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19363-Obstruction-Article-in-SAReferees&highlight=

UPDATE: Sorry hadn't realised the other thread was closed, so I have reopened this one so chutneyf can ask his question.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't think this can be compared with, nor is it anything like, NFL style blocking.

In NFL there are a variety of blocking techniques and types, and a set of specific rules on how and when blocking is allowed. In most cases the blocker actually seeks out and targets the potential tackler. There are also differences in the blocking rules between NFL and NCAA (College) Football

If the example given were NFL, Thomstone would not be running a support line because a lateral beyond the line of scrummage is almost never given except in a very rare trick play. He would not be expecting to receive the ball nor need to arrive behind the tackled player; the play ends when the ball carrier is tackled. In an NFL style block, Thomstone would be actively seeking to go after the approaching potential tackler by veering towards him early on and then executing a "cut-off block" (or angle block) making sure that the contact was as far away from the ball carrier as possible.

 

[crossref]

There was no real need to close the first thread.
(mods I think you should develop a criteria and process on why/what circumstances cause you to curtail discussion.. )

Anyway nice to have discussion allowed again, but wouldn't it be better to reopen the first thread, where all the prior discussion is, and merge this one into it?

I am still somewhat hopeful that SA Referees will return to this subject at some point, would be interesting to see what they say.

 

[Phil E]

There was no real need to close the first thread.
(mods I think you should develop a criteria and process on why/what circumstances cause you to curtail discussion.. )

I will make this comment once and I won't be getting into a discussion on it. Like all good referees I will explain, but I won't debate a decision.
The previous thread had deteriorated into a virtual flame war and already had insults flying about. It was also going around in ever decreasing circles. That's why it was closed.

If you have an issue with the way Mods are moderating please take that up with Robbie via PM.

Thanks
Mod

 

[crossref]

.
The previous thread had deteriorated into a virtual flame war and already had insults flying about.

Yes, Sir, but that seems like a good reason for issuing warnings/suspensions to the culprits not for closing down the thread?

.
It was also going around in ever decreasing circles.

that's a better reason for closing a thread -- but really lots of threads are like that, that's the way we roll!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Well considering I got the blame for the other thread closing, I am still the only one so far who has posted on topic.

How about less whining and playing the blame game guys, and more addressing of the OP's question!

Thank you for you co-operation.


Now, most of you will know my position on this, which is

1. a team-mate is entitled to run in support of his ball carrier - this is a given.

2. it is for the support runner alone to decide how best to support his player.

3. the support runner is only guilty of obstruction if he intentionally obstructs a tackler - Law 10.1 (c) refers

4. For mine the indicator of intentionality is a sudden change in direction or speed to get into a blocking position. This simply did not happen.

I am happy that Thomstone did not obstruct the potential tackler. The referee and the TMO had a look at it and also decided it was OK.

There were arguments in the other thread about Thomstone possibly being millimetres in front of the ball carrier or not in a position to take a pass or to enter through the gate should a tackle take place, etc etc. I disgreed, but even if there was something to it, the fact that these issues required micro-analysis and repeated frame-by-frame observation of the video of this piece of play means that they fail the "clear and obvious" test at the first hurdle.

 

[crossref]

-----------

 

[Womble]

To coin an American football term, if your an "eligible receiver" as in you can take a pass from the ball carrier & yes if your 6 inches in front of the ball carrier you can take a pass by reaching backwards then I fail to see how you can be pinged for obstruction!

 

[chutneyf]

I went to the thread in question thanks PhilE and it answered my query. It did seem to get pretty heated at times. But I did pick out the answer I needed which was pointing out 10 c).

As for my NFL analogy, not well thought out I admit.

So I am happy for you close or open as many threads as you see fit

I'll get my coat

 

[crossref]

I went to the thread in question thanks PhilE and it answered my query. It did seem to get pretty heated at times. But I did pick out the answer I needed which was pointing out 10 c).

of course the whole thrust of the other thread was to explain (with varying degrees of success/clarity) exactly why we don't apply 10.1(c) in this sort of scenario

 

[OB..]

of course the whole thrust of the other thread was to explain (with varying degrees of success/clarity) exactly when we do or do not apply 10.1(c) in this sort of scenario

I think that was the nub of the argument. People had different opinions. No point in going round the same circles yet again.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I think that was the nub of the argument. People had different opinions. No point in going round the same circles yet again.

"The debate is over, climate change is a fact" B. Obama

Can we put this video clip to a poll? (I do not know how)

Simply question, IS this obstruction by green 14? Yes or no

My sincere guess is that RobLev and I are the only in the Yes graph.

 

[Dickie E]

Simply question, IS this obstruction by green 14? Yes or no

My sincere guess is that RobLev and I are the only in the Yes graph.

I thought no at first but the various video angles posted (in particular the overhead one) has swayed my view.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I thought no at first but the various video angles posted (in particular the overhead one) has swayed my view.

So, as a referee at ground level, with no TMO and no overhead replays, you didn't think it was clear and obvious and you would have allowed it?

How many replays and different angles did it take to change your mind?

Why do you think the TMO on the day didn't disallow the try for obstruction?

 

[Dickie E]

So, as a referee at ground level, with no TMO and no overhead replays, you didn't think it was clear and obvious and you would have allowed it? Yes

How many replays and different angles did it take to change your mind? 2 or 3. The overhead posted by you was the clincher

Why do you think the TMO on the day didn't disallow the try for obstruction?It wasn't C&O then and it isn't C&O now. However, I still believe there was intent

msf..

 

[The Fat]

It's like the forward pass forensic examination by TMO's when they replay 3 different angles 6 times each trying ever so hard to make sure the ball hadn't been or had been thrown forward. Apply clear and obvious test and it should only take one viewing of each angle to make a decision.
Clear & Obvious.

 

[OB..]

However, I still believe there was intent

If he was running a legitimate support line, I don't see that it matters whether or not he knew such a line would get in the way of the defence. Unless he took that line with the initial intention of obstructing, I claim he is entitled to maintain it.

Any top class player will be aware of the effect of his running line, and I do not see it makes sense for the game to insist that this awareness means he has to be careful to get out of the way.

We need a sensible balance ie let the referee judge.

 

[Crucial]

From a player's pov (which is often a good way to look at it)

As the supporting runner you would be mighty pissed off if by doing your job with no intended illegality you were penalised in that situation. First instinct is to run support if you can to the ball carrier in a position to take a pass should he want to pass it.

As the defender, you would be frustrated that a support runner was in your way, but unless a dick, also recognise that it was your own team's defense that had allowed the situation to develop.

IF, however, the supporting runner changed direction into you or cut you off, THEN you would rightly feel aggrieved.
If, as the support runner you deliberately changed direction to run into the incoming defender you would know you had done wrong without needing to know precise Law details. It would be instinctively wrong.

 

[Dickie E]

if I go postal, will someone close this thread ... please