[Law] When is obstuction not obstruction

[Ian_Cook]

In order to be any real use to the ball-carrier (other than by shielding him from being tackled), he would have had to change his position relative to the ball-carrier, from running alongside him to running where he can sensibly take a pass etc.

So, you are stating as fact, that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass?

 

[Rushforth]

So, you are stating as fact, that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass?

Normal passes - those given at speed - are typically released not much in front of the torso of the passer.

Normal passes are also typically caught reasonably well in front of the torso of the receiver.

Even, or perhaps especially, under the momentum interpretation of the forward pass it makes solid sense for a receiver to run at least a foot or two behind the passer. The only reason to be ahead of that other than being crap at rugby is to run a very slightly interfering line (NOT obstructing in my view).

 

[OB..]

...and that is not what I suggest. I suggest that a supporting runner should be told to not get in the way, unless of course he is genuinely in the way to support the ball-carrier.

So you agree that it is acceptable for a genuinely supporting line to have the side-effect of obstruction the defence. Good.

In this instance "figleaf" is justified.

I am not dealing with this instance. I am trying to establish the general principle. This instance is in the grey area. I am happy to accept the decision of some top officials because it is not sufficiently egregious to bother me.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

So, you are stating as fact, that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass?

I'll answer if RobLev doesn't That is not a fact, a level receiver does reduce the likelihood of an illegitimate pass.

So you agree that it is acceptable for a genuinely supporting line to have the side-effect of obstruction the defence. Good.

I am not dealing with this instance. I am trying to establish the general principle. This instance is in the grey area. I am happy to accept the decision of some top officials because it is not sufficiently egregious to bother me.

I, answering if Roblev doesn't, do not think the running line was genuine. The line may have been credible in that a pass could have been completed. That running line was chosen, by a high level player, to impede/obstruct the defender from the only available angle.

It was, based on level, intentional and therefore egregious in that in will be taught as acceptable an how game is to be played.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Perhaps the most important area of the game where we ignore the strict letter of the law is getting the ball out of a ruck: either the scrum half is handling the ball in the ruck, or the ball is out and the opponents can go for it. It happens many times a game, and nobody pings it at any level.

In other words - we MUST interpret the law sensibly. Taking it too literally is often bad for the game.

Can you think of a current example overlooking foul play that is interpreted sensibly? I cannot.

The fend off example, occurring and overlooked for many years, has been corrected. It is a good example of how law is corrected, I suspect at one time a fend off was penalised, but it morphed into acceptable then law.

This one is a bit different, ball carriers are on there own when it comes to avoiding a tackle. Kind of a proud part of design of game, one ball carrier acting bravely on his own for his team.

 

[Rushforth]

reduce the likelihood of an illegitimate pass.

you typed too quickly, I think. (double negative)

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

you typed too quickly, I think. (double negative)

Thanks I'll edit. Not my typing, double negative(s) are normal speak in Ohio. Irregardless of what no- one tells you.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I'll answer if RobLev doesn't That is not a fact, a level receiver does reduce the likelihood of an legitimate pass.

Unable to edit my own post, so replied to my own

Edit, turns out only 30 minutes to edit. and mine expired.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'll answer if RobLev doesn't That is not a fact, a level receiver does reduce the likelihood of a legitimate pass..

Normal passes - those given at speed - are typically released not much in front of the torso of the passer.

Normal passes are also typically caught reasonably well in front of the torso of the receiver.

Even, or perhaps especially, under the momentum interpretation of the forward pass it makes solid sense for a receiver to run at least a foot or two behind the passer. The only reason to be ahead of that other than being crap at rugby is to run a very slightly interfering line (NOT obstructing in my view).

All very interesting but it does not answer my question.

Is it a fact, that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass?

This is a question that requires only a "YES" or "NO" answer, and that is all I want

- no provisos
- no explanations
- no descriptions

Just YES or NO please!

 

[Rushforth]

- no provisos
- no explanations
- no descriptions

Just YES or NO please!

I only answer/discuss/argue to do so. I don't mind learning from my mistakes if I should err. But I don't obey commands which seem to be meant to set up for a bit of your kind of discussion afterwards.

Edit: We don't do polls here (apart from silly ones) for a reason.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

And another reason this is became egregious, is this type of play(running line) will be taught by all coaches who viewed the game. When we all know the "way to play the game" is to get the ball in the hands of speed (green 14) so he can out run the fullback. That should be taught.

Instead good ol green 7 has to split his try bonus money with good ol green 14 for his use of a credible running line. At least #7 wil get some $. Legitimate or not.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

All very interesting but it does not answer my question.

Is it a fact, that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass?

This is a question that requires only a "YES" or "NO" answer, and that is all I want


Just YES or NO please!

No



I need 5 characters, sorry.

 

[OB..]

I suspect at one time a fend off was penalised, but it morphed into acceptable then law.

I think it has always been accepted ever since running with the ball was legitimised by Thomas Hughes in 1841. I don't remember ever coming across any argument on the subject.

This one is a bit different, ball carriers are on there own when it comes to avoiding a tackle. Kind of a proud part of design of game, one ball carrier acting bravely on his own for his team.

If it is your view that a supporting runner must make sure he does not impede a would-be tackler, then we have very different views of the game.

 

[Dickie E]

All very interesting but it does not answer my question.

Is it a fact, that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass?

This is a question that requires only a "YES" or "NO" answer, and that is all I want

- no provisos
- no explanations
- no descriptions

Just YES or NO please!

The answer is clearly no.

But it is also not a fact that the girl standing under the street light in fishnet stockings is a prostitute ... but you'd have to wonder.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

I think it has always been accepted ever since running with the ball was legitimised by Thomas Hughes in 1841. I don't remember ever coming across any argument on the subject.

Nor do I, I guess our imaginations are different. It certainlly wasn't automatic to fend off the same time handeling was accepted. Someone was the first to do it, and it was probably meet with ohs and ahs, and discussion from Captains watching form the hillside

If it is your view that a supporting runner must make sure he does not impede a would-be tackler, then we have very different views of the game.

My view is that the support runner in OP intentionally obstructed the Stade player, "Credible"and "genuine" running lines and "entitled to be there" are justification for nothing in this case.

 

[Dickie E]

Nor do I, I guess our imaginations are different. It certainlly wasn't automatic to fend off the same time handeling was accepted. Someone was the first to do it, and it was probably meet with ohs and ahs, and discussion from Captains watching form the hillside

Thank God there was no rugbyref.com back then otherwise the toing & froing would still be going on

 

[RobLev]

I reject the term "figleaf" because it prejudges the issue.

There are genuine supporting lines that happen to get in the way of the defenders. There are other running lines clearly aimed solely at impeding the defenders. Between these two are myriad possibilities and my view is that the referee must decide in each individual case what the primary intention is - what we are calling a "credible" supporting line is fine. Yes, that is not easy, but making it easy by saying a supporting runner must get out of the way will harm the game.

What is your answer to the question

What is the positive aspect of allowing a player without the ball to prevent a tackler getting to the ball-carrier under the figleaf of "running a supporting line"?

 

[RobLev]

So, you are stating as fact, that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass?

So, you are stating as fact that the All Blacks will never again win a World Cup?

Or, slightly less facetiously - no, I am not stating as fact that a player who is level with his ball carrier cannot possibly receive a legitimate pass. Nothing I have said - on a fair reading - could have given that impression.

 

[RobLev]

So you agree that it is acceptable for a genuinely supporting line to have the side-effect of obstruction the defence. Good.

Is this really news to you? I have said as much more than once in this and the other thread.

I am not dealing with this instance. I am trying to establish the general principle. This instance is in the grey area. I am happy to accept the decision of some top officials because it is not sufficiently egregious to bother me.

I am pleased you agree that at least this is in the grey area - unlike Ian who seems to believe it is all black and white.

 

[RobLev]

I'll answer if RobLev doesn't That is not a fact, a level receiver does reduce the likelihood of an illegitimate pass.



I, answering if Roblev doesn't, do not think the running line was genuine. The line may have been credible in that a pass could have been completed. That running line was chosen, by a high level player, to impede/obstruct the defender from the only available angle.

It was, based on level, intentional and therefore egregious in that in will be taught as acceptable an how game is to be played.

You took the words right out of my mouth (double negatives corrected).