[Law] When is obstuction not obstruction

[OB..]

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.

For me the only significance of this case is that it gets the question examined. What I would hope to get out of the discussion is some understanding and perhaps even agreement about the general principles involved.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Nothing I have said - on a fair reading - could have given that impression.

Really?

If the support is running two metres away means that the "flat" pass has to go forward out of the hand.

 

[RobLev]

Really?

Yes, really. Returning the context of my remarks:

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.

and:

I maintain, and will continue to maintain, that running right next to a ball carrier is a valid support line so long as flat passes remain legal and are not considered forward. Of course, to state the blindingly obvious, a player in such a position would not need to take a check step to be in position for a flat pass.

If the support is running two metres away means that the "flat" pass has to go forward out of the hand...

It is perfectly possible for a player who is level with his receiver, two metres away, to receive a legitimate pass - by taking a check step. If he doesn't take a check step (or, I suppose, try to catch the pass a metre behind him) the pass would have to be thrown forward.

What I have been saying throughout is that a position running level with the ball-carrier is sub-optimal for any purpose save blocking a tackler coming from that direction, because to take a legitimate pass would involve slowing down. As a wise man once said, slowing down is easy, accelerating is hard, and slowing down to take an offload/pass means that he has to accelerate again to avoid the cover defence.

 

[crossref]

Ian, for me the problem here is that if I follow your explanations of the general principles involved, then I would giving a PK for blocking the tackler.
Your explanation of the principles is at odds with your decision.

It's your focus on determining the primary intention that is the problem, for in the OP the primary intention of the support runner clearly is to get in the way (my view is.. That doesn't necessarily matter)

 

[ddjamo]

Rugby value of this thread: zilch.

Clinical observation: priceless.

 

[Ian_Cook]

II 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.

It may be a grey area but in the end your decision will be black & white. (black - you blow the whistle for obstruction, white - you play on) There is no "grey" area with the decision; the referee cannot award a half-PK; he cannot have a bob each way. The referee has to make a decision, its a binary situation, 1 or 0, there is no transition state.

My position on this is, and always has been, that as long as the support runner ...

a. is in a position to support his ball carrier (which he was) - and he does NOT have to be in the "best" position to do so, only one that could work,
b. does not change his speed or direction after he is in that position, to get in the way of the would be tackler (and he didn't)

...then there is no intent to obstruct.

Even if you think a or b are grey areas, you cannot make a decision based on a "maybe".

If his valid running position happens to get in the way of a would be tackler, that is tough luck for the tackler, . He may not be allowed to move into such a position as the tackler arrives, but if he is already there, he does NOT have to get out of the opponent's way (and there is no Law that requires him to do so)

Rugby value of this thread: zilch.

Clinical observation: priceless.

I agree.

Positions were entrenched when the other thread was closed, and we have just gone around in circles and ended up in the same place with the same posters in the same entrenched positions. One side insists that the support runner was allowed to do what he did, the other side says he was infringing. There appears to be no middle ground in this debate, so its pointless carrying on.

This thread has only served to confuse any new referees as to what they should do when confronted with a situation like this, so if any are still reading this (and haven't yet been driven away by the pointless debate) my advice to them would be to do what the actual experienced officials did in the video. They got it right!

 

[RobLev]

...

If his valid running position happens to get in the way of a would be tackler, that is tough luck for the tackler, . He may not be allowed to move into such a position as the tackler arrives, but if he is already there, he does NOT have to get out of the opponent's way (and there is no Law that requires him to do so)

You won't - or at least shouldn't - be surprised to learn that I agree with every word of this.

...

This thread has only served to confuse any new referees as to what they should do when confronted with a situation like this, so if any are still reading this (and haven't yet been driven away by the pointless debate) my advice to them would be to do what the actual experienced officials did in the video. They got it right!

And every week, or even more often, we can watch experienced officials, on television, getting it right in relation to scrum feeds...

 

[Ian_Cook]

And every week, or even more often, we can watch experienced officials, on television, getting it right in relation to scrum feeds...

scrum feeds have no relevance to this issue

In this case, the officials got it right, and that what new referees should take out of it.

 

[Paule23]

I cannot believe this second thread has now got to 9 pages, and nothing new has been said for at least 15 pages (if we include the prior thread).

Surely it's time to shut this down and move on. It was really interesting to begin with, reading the alternative viewpoints and interpretations but nothing new has been added for sometime apart from people arguing with each other. Some people are going to have to agree to disagree, let's call it a day, thanks for the input, and move onto bigger and brighter things.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

. It was really interesting to begin with, reading the alternative viewpoints and interpretations but nothing new has been added for sometime apart from people arguing with each other.

Jamo, told us something new

Clinical observation: priceless.

Jamo.

Are you the bald guy, glasses, and beard holding the clipboard at his chest; who no-one really knows if he is a patient, a therapist, or doctor? You know the guy who disappears right before coffee break and then suddenly reappears as session begins again. You know the guy.... I saw you there, rolling your eyes, and picking your nose when you thought no-one was looking.... See ya Thursday, afternoon session.

 

[crossref]

i don't understand this urge to shut down discussion -- if people are still talking, just let them. This is a discussion forum, after all. If the thread is boring you, just stop reading it....

 

[chbg]

I cannot believe this second thread has now got to 9 pages, and nothing new has been said for at least 15 pages (if we include the prior thread).

Change your settings to 30 (or more?) comments per page and it is only 3 pages!!

(No I can't remember how I did it, but it works for me.)

 

[Phil E]

Change your settings to 30 (or more?) comments per page and it is only 3 pages!!

(No I can't remember how I did it, but it works for me.)

Settings, top right
General Settings, on the left
Thread settings

 

[SimonSmith]

First useful post in a while

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

First useful post in a while

A very American quip.

Based on your silent approval and postings on this thread/previous thread, you are in the no obstruction
cult.

 

[SimonSmith]

You really have a bee in your bonnet about this.

Each case gets judged on its own merits. There are times when a legit support line may be in the way of the putative tackler. That does not make it immediately a case of obstruction. The tackler does not have more rights than the support runner.

Absent a C&O penalty, I try to play on in most circumstances.

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

You really have a bee in your bonnet about this.

You have recovered your origin, I used the American jab to get you to respond.
If you are familiar to Ohio it is bandana not bonnet. As you know ones feelings have led to PC at every turn here in US, the bonnet comment offended me. I played the "bonnet" card.

Each case gets judged on its own merits. There are times when a legit support line may be in the way of the putative tackler. That does not make it immediately a case of obstruction. The tackler does not have more rights than the support runner.

Absent a C&O penalty, I try to play on in most circumstances.

Thank you for your answer, now to break Jamo our "Buckeye fan" for his response.

Jamo, Time to get off Secretarit and give us an answer. Simon gave his high altitude steed a rest, you can too.

 

[ddjamo]

regarding this argument?

I find it nonsensical to discuss (that is not posturing or any form of a quip - only my opinion).

sorry, I am not your guy.

 

[crossref]

regarding this argument?

I find it nonsensical to discuss (that is not posturing or any form of a quip - only my opinion).

sorry, I am not your guy.

So, it's nonsensical to suggest that 10.1(c) could apply, but you can't actually put into words why this is so?

I don't think you're trying hard enough!
Althoug to be fair, neither could SA Referees explain either, which was the jumping off point for the first thread

 

[ddjamo]

I was speaking with robbie yesterday. we plan to sit down before spring and address how we better the site so we can get more out of the frequent posters and how to make the site more of a positive influence on the referee community.

we are speaking with suppliers of boots/kit and supplies, SANZAR/RFU referee coaches and pr's, professional referees, training articles/ebooks....lots of good stuff!

again, I am sorry that I cannot be fodder for you.