PDA

View Full Version : Obstruction - Article in SAReferees



crossref
17-11-15, 15:11
Rather disappointing article in SAreferees today


When is being in the way obstruction?

Morné Steyn Stade Français kicks off to start the second half. Leicester Tigers catch the ball, a ruck forms and scrumhalf Ben Youngs kicks downfield. Sergio Parisse of Stade Français cannot control the ball and knocks it backwards to Julien Tomas of Stade Francis who knocks it on. Brendon O'Connor of Leicester Tigers picks up the bell just inside the Leicester Tigers half and races 51 metres straight downfield about a metre in from the touchline on his right with Adam Thompstone of Leicester Tigers on his left and level with him. Steyn is coming across to tackle O'Connor but cannot get past Thompstone to get to O'Connor. Eventually he pushes Thompstone out of the way but O'Connor goes on to score in the right corner. Steyn and Parisse appeal eagerly for obstruction.

The referee refers the incident to the TMO and then awards a try to Leicester tigers.

When the incident is replayed it is clear that Thompstone is in Steyn's way. It is also clear that he is not in front of O'Connor but at most level with him and at times slightly behind him.

Obstruction?

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
O'Connor is the ball-carrier.
Thompstone is not in front of O'Connor
Thompstone is not committing obstruction.

The referee was right to award the try.
If Thompstone had been in front of O'Connor, it would have been a penalty for obstruction.




Yes, well, that all sounds OK under 10.1(b) ..... but hang on --- what about 10.1(c)?:


10.1(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


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

Phil E
17-11-15, 15:11
Rather disappointing article in SAreferees today

Yes, well, that all sounds OK under 10.1(b) ..... but hang on --- what about 10.1(c)?:

10.1(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

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


But Thompstone did not move or stand in front of the would be tackler.
The referee (in a rare moment of clarity) stated (after watching it with the TMO) that he didn't alter his run or line to block the Stade players. He ran a supporting line for the offload and at no time did he alter his line to obstruct.

Tigers did however have their first try wiped off for obstruction.

crossref
17-11-15, 15:11
But Thompstone did not move or stand in front of the would be tackler..

10.1(c) doesn't say anything about being in front.... thomsptone was clearly moving in a way to block the tackler... he glances and even drops his shoulder slightly.. as the commentator say, he knows what he is doing..

Now it may be that 10.1(c) doesn't apply, but I think that the SA referees article really needs to mention it, and explain why they don't think it applies...

Here's the incident ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=2751
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=2751)

EDIT
Crossref; I fixed your timecode

#t=nnnn doesn't work any more for cueing a YouTube video to a specific time... use &t=nnnn

Alternatively, pause the You Tube video where to want to cue it to, hover the mouse somewhere over the video, right click and select "Copy video URL at current time", then paste that into the post

Phil E
17-11-15, 16:11
Now it may be that 10.1(c) doesn't apply, but I think that the SA referees article really needs to mention it, and explain why they don't think it applies...


Do you want them to list every other law that doesn't apply and explain why not?

crossref
17-11-15, 16:11
Do you want them to list every other law that doesn't apply and explain why not?

don't be silly.

Ian_Cook
17-11-15, 19:11
10.1(c) doesn't say anything about being in front.... thomsptone was clearly moving in a way to block the tackler... he glances and even drops his shoulder slightly.. as the commentator say, he knows what he is doing..

Now it may be that 10.1(c) doesn't apply, but I think that the SA referees article really needs to mention it, and explain why they don't think it applies...

Here's the incident ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=2751


No but it has a key word that you are forgetting..."intentionally"

10.1(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

IMO, the SAReferees article gets this exactly right. If Thomstone did not move into or stand in a position where his intent was to block the tackler, then he hasn't obstructed that tackler.

If you are really going to rule instances like this is obstruction, then you will eliminate support runners from the game.

ctrainor
17-11-15, 20:11
I watched it live in the pub and before the TMO decision explained to all and sundry that it was a clear try and thomsptone was completely in his rights to run straight supporting the ball carrier.
Lots of no way, he blocked him, obstruction comments followed by ........................Smart arse!!

crossref
17-11-15, 20:11
No but it has a key word that you are forgetting..."intentionally"

10.1(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

IMO, the SAReferees article gets this exactly right. If Thomstone did not move into or stand in a position where his intent was to block the tackler, then he hasn't obstructed that tackler.

If you are really going to rule instances like this is obstruction, then you will eliminate support runners from the game.

well, he was clearly, intentionally moving so that he was blocking the tackler. The commentators say so themselves.
and when the tackler gets close he drops his shoulder.

The Law says

10.1(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

and on the face of it this is exactly what he is doing.

The situation is that - by unspoken convention - we don't apply this Law in this sort of scenario.

SA referees are wrong in Law (which is why they don't mention this Law, it's too difficult to explain why they ignore it) but right by custom.

chbg
17-11-15, 21:11
Ibid ad nauseum that we should not read the Laws literally as if they are a legal document.

Not Kurt Weaver
17-11-15, 22:11
No but it has a key word that you are forgetting..."intentionally"



The law concerning playing the man without the ball doesn't mention intentionally, but does apply to obstruct

Not Kurt Weaver
17-11-15, 23:11
Playing an opponent without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player who is not in possession of the ball must not hold, push or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball

He did obstruct him didn't he? It was intentional, now does it eliminate a player from supporting a ball carrier? Only if a tackle is prevented from behind, and the only possible tackle is from behind. That supporting player had numerous angles and locations to support his pace devoid team-mate. he chose the one to obstruct an opponent

Not Kurt Weaver
17-11-15, 23:11
The situation is that - by unspoken convention - we don't apply this Law in this sort of scenario.



I believe that is known as tacit approval

didds
18-11-15, 00:11
I think its known as bloody obvious normal play.

didds

Taff
18-11-15, 00:11
well, he was clearly, intentionally moving so that he was blocking the tackler. The commentators say so themselves. and when the tackler gets close he drops his shoulder.
I reckon some Refs would have penalised him and some wouldn't.

Personally, I reckon Crossref has a point. I reckon the intention was more to block than to support; he is virtually flat with the BC when pushed, so he's not offside but if he was genuinely intent on just "supporting" he would have been a step or two further back surely.

A similar thing happened in a charity England game at The Stoop about a year ago (I commented on it here) but from memory I got slated for arguing the same thing that Crossref pointed out. If someone's good with Youtube, I'm pretty sure it was the try where the prop ran practically the full length of the pitch and scored.

Ian_Cook
18-11-15, 00:11
well, he was clearly, intentionally moving so that he was blocking the tackler. The commentators say so themselves.


That supporting player had numerous angles and locations to support his pace devoid team-mate. he chose the one to obstruct an opponent

Utter poppycock the pair of you!!

FFS, I wish referees would study the game a bit more instead of just their ****ing Law books, to get a better understanding of how the game is actually played... by the players.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF-1.png
Here is the ball carrier picking up the ball, and the player who will
become his support runner is top-centre of the image.

NOTE: the support player is on the ball carrier's INSIDE, ie. to his LEFT.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF-2.png

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF-3.png
When a ball carrier is running in the touch channel, the support runner
runs the INSIDE LINE, looking for the possibility of an inside pass should
the cover defence get to him from in front of his running line.


In this case, not only does the support player run the same line that ANY other support player would run, and one that the ball carrier will be EXPECTING HIM TO RUN, he actually keeps to the same line, he does not change it or deviate from that line!

If you think there are other lines he could have run perhaps you can point them out to me, because I cannot see a valid one.

If you are expecting the support player to cross behind the ball carrier and run the outside channel, then you have either never played the game or you don't watch much rugby. A support player will never do that with so little room between the ball carrier and the sideline, and even if there was room, he would have to run further so he will be unlikely to be able to get in position to receive an outside pass in any case.

I would imagine that didds, our resident coach (and poet, apparently), would coach players to run just about that exact line.


and when the tackler gets close he drops his shoulder.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF.gif

Looks more to me like the the actions of a player bracing himself against contact from a player who is about to infringe Law 10.4 (e) and play him without the ball, a fact that is made pretty obvious by the tackler changing direction sharply to push the support runner. IMO, he was trying to push the support player into the ball carrier to try to knock him into touch.

talbazar
18-11-15, 01:11
Front my point of view, no problem with the try.
Support runner runs his line and gets the advantage of keeping in the way: smart *rse...

I just hope that if the push on the support runner would have resulted in the ball carrier stepping into touch, nothing more would have come out from it.
I mean, you can't fairly get a try in that situation and/or get a penalty try for playing the man without the ball if the defender push the support runner out of the way...

My two cents,
Pierre.

Dickie E
18-11-15, 01:11
Utter poppycock the pair of you!!

FFS, I wish referees would study the game a bit more instead of just their ****ing Law books, to get a better understanding of how the game is [U][B]actually played... by the players.


This is the kind of ad hominem attack that upsets people. I thought we had agreement to keep it about the argument, not about the posters.

Womble
18-11-15, 01:11
This is the kind of ad hominem attack that upsets people. For the umpteenth time, please stop doing it or I will moderate your posts.

Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!

menace
18-11-15, 02:11
Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!

Whoa! Hang on a second....this site should be about more experienced referees and rugby heads to help those understand about the game and what players are aiming to do within the laws of the game. Of course there's people on here writing that don't fully understand the game, that's why they're here...to try an learn something. Why not take the polite approach to teach them empathy and why there is a better way/other to interpret a situation. They should not be maltreated and maligned so abrasively as they have been just because they might not see the nuances of those that have 30-50 years rugby knowledge.
Those that are putting out there their take on it and may have a lot less experience and understanding shouldn't be shot down and told that they're "f@cken hopeless know nothing's".

Btw...I agree with Ian...other than this bit of poor literature
Utter poppycock the pair of you!!

FFS, I wish referees would study the game a bit more instead of just their ****ing Law books, to get a better understanding of how the game is [U][B]actually played... by the players."

Womble
18-11-15, 02:11
Menace, its late here in the UK, may have overstepped the mark, but when peeps who are very regular on here are wide of the mark by a country mile you have to ask why !!!! They speak with such assertion that newer peeps would get the wrong idea !! Why have they not learnt in the last 7 years ?????????????

menace
18-11-15, 02:11
I understand that... But after following the game for 30+ years....I'm still learning knew things about it every week as my refereeing experience grows and I come into contact with players of higher ability. That doesn't make me stupid. (Gee I've opened the door there for someone to walk through!)

Think back about what you knew after 7 years of rugby....was it everything?? Job done? Were you the expert you are now?

Ian_Cook
18-11-15, 02:11
There is was NO ad hominem attack on anyone in my post. Saying Poppycock to someone is NOT an ad-hominem attack!!

Those who claim that it was need to make sure they first familiarise themselves with what "Ad Hominem" actually means


ad hominem

ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/

adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem


1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

"an ad hominem response"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"






Like womble, I get tired and pissed-off with reading referees talk about the application of Law with NO FEEL FOR HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED.

"This is not soccer!"

Dickie E
18-11-15, 02:11
Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!

I. too, would not penalise what I saw because it isn't C&O obstruction, but I can also see that others may have a different PoV (the support player certainly made a point of holding his running line and didn't avoid the contact [not that he has too]).

But is my argument strengthened by belittling them?

Dickie E
18-11-15, 03:11
FFS, I wish referees would study the game a bit more instead of just their ****ing Law books, to get a better understanding of how the game is [U][B]actually played... by the players.



directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Looks like snap to me.

But instead of arguing latin definitions, why don't you just respond with "sorry, crossref, no offence intended - its just that I have strongly different views to you". Much nicer

Ian_Cook
18-11-15, 03:11
Sounds like snap to me.

Not even the same game. You should come over to ISF (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php?), then you might find out what a real ad-hominem attack looks like!

My comments were general ones, about "some referees", and as womble pointed out, there are plenty of them right here on this forum.

Dickie, you know me well enough by now to know that if I was directing those comments at crossref and NKW, I would have made that plain by actually telling them that I thought they needed to study the game more.

But never mind, you won't believe me, and I know that you will just read into my comments whatever you need to fit your personal agenda, as usual!

(See, that's a comment directed at YOU!)

Dickie E
18-11-15, 03:11
your personal agenda,

My personal agenda is to help you evolve into a civilised human being. You'll thank me one day.

Ian_Cook
18-11-15, 04:11
My personal agenda is to help you evolve into a civilised human being. You'll thank me one day.

Oh, you must have looked up "ad hominem" since you now seem to understand what it means

Never mind, water off a ducks back pal!

Dickie E
18-11-15, 05:11
Oh, you must have looked up "ad hominem" since you now seem to understand what it means

Never mind, water off a ducks back pal!

It isn't supposed to be water off a duck's back. I'm appealing to you to consider the sensibilities of others before you make your posts. Your content is always (usually) good, the packaging sometimes needs a polish. Mods, in particular, need to be sensitive to this and be above reproach. Happy to discuss via PM if more appropriate.

crossref
18-11-15, 07:11
For the record I am happy with the try being awarded because, as is pointed out, by convention and tacit approval that's the way the game is played. We have a convention that we ignore 10.1(c) which clearly applies.
I thought the SA Refs article was poor because it discusses 10.1(b) which clearly doesn't apply (easy) but finds 10.1(c) so difficult it is ignored

Here are the board some posts are confused talking about 'in front' (not relevant ) and intention (it was intentional) rather than admitting.. Yes he was blocking the tackler but we don't always apply that law.

The Fat
18-11-15, 08:11
He knew his support running line would also make it more difficult for a defender to get to the ball carrier i.e. the defender would either need to run in front of him or run around the back of him. The thing is, he was perfectly entitled to run the support line that he did. Had he changed his line to block a defender we would have had an obstruction. Steyn knew he was unlikely to stop the ball carrier and did what 90% of defenders would do in his situation which is push the support player to make it look like he is being obstructed.
Fair try.

crossref
18-11-15, 08:11
Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!

So, exactly, the Laws Discussion that is needed is to explain to any interested ref WHY we wouldn't apply 10.1(c) to that incident.
That's a question which SA Refs just dodged, and on this board we have seen a lot of hand waving (and some insults) but no one has really got to grips with an answer...

Edit.. Apart from The Fat who has a good go in the previous post

OB..
18-11-15, 13:11
We have a convention that we ignore 10.1(c) which clearly applies. That is where we disagree. The primary intention was to support the runner. The secondary consequence was that he made life difficult for the defenders. It is necessary to take that view in order to allow support running - it would be unrealistic to demand that support runners made sure they kept out of the way of defenders.

SArefs could have made the specific point, but making it clear that he is entitled to hold his line is effectively doing just that.

crossref
18-11-15, 14:11
we don't really disagree.

I didn't start this thread querying the decision.

I was saying what a rubbish article it was on SA Referees.

The incident shows someone blocking a tackler, and SA referees are writing a Law Discussion on that.

The Law discussion covers why it wasn't general obstruction (fair enough) but fails to mention the specific Law that forbids a player from a blocking a tackler !

What sort of a Law discussion is that, which fails to mention the Law that is at the heart of the incident.

10.1(c) is actually a Law that really deserves a discussion, as by common agreement it's not refereed as it's written - - so it would actually be good article to discuss what convention is, how it's refereed and why they think it was correct not apply it in that incident.

They could have discussed what it means to be running a support line - eg does that mean being in a position to receive a pass? or is that not necessary, does it mean running in a straight line, or following the line of the ball carrier? or could a support line be independent of the course of the bc?)

All of the above would be a lot more interesting than merely discarding 10.1(b) as he wasn't in front, which was pretty obvious.


[Seeing as the article is a Law discussion they could also have paused to briefly consider 10.4(f), playing a man without the ball, and explaining why that doesn't apply, although I don't hold that as a major omission]

OB..
18-11-15, 14:11
by common agreement it's not refereed as it's writtenYou are insisting on a particular literal interpretation. The one actually used is different.

crossref
18-11-15, 14:11
You are insisting on a particular literal interpretation. The one actually used is different.

which would make for an interesting Law discussion!

RobLev
18-11-15, 14:11
That is where we disagree. The primary intention was to support the runner. The secondary consequence was that he made life difficult for the defenders. It is necessary to take that view in order to allow support running - it would be unrealistic to demand that support runners made sure they kept out of the way of defenders.

SArefs could have made the specific point, but making it clear that he is entitled to hold his line is effectively doing just that.

The problem is, is this correct? I see a player running alongside his BC team-mate (indeed slightly ahead at point of contact by would-be tackler, notwithstanding what others have said), with no threat of any tackler approaching from in front. The only threat was either from directly behind the BC, or through the "support player". If the runner had been overhauled from behind and brought down, the "support player" have been in no position to take an off-load, since he'd have been in front of the BC; he has to be slightly behind for this (given that the tackle would slow the BC down). So, serious question: how is he "supporting" the BC by running alongside him? Apart, of course, from making it more difficult for the tacklers to get to him.

It may be that this is something that referees and players across the sport are prepared to let go; but let's be honest about it; the support the player was offering was obstructing any credible would-be tackler.

didds
18-11-15, 14:11
but I can also see that others may have a different PoV (the support player certainly made a point of holding his running line and didn't avoid the contact [not that he has too]).


Indeed - because what else is he supposed to do? If those that believe the support running line is obstruction, I'd really like a reasoned explanation of the support runner's expected actions. the video provided is a perfect example to work with because there is no realistic line to the ball carrier's right. Allied to if the would be tackler was front on instead of covering back, the support runner's line would otherwise be no issue whatsoever - and the 100% correct one.

didds

OB..
18-11-15, 14:11
It may be that this is something that referees and players across the sport are prepared to let go; but let's be honest about it; the support the player was offering was obstructing any credible would-be tackler.There will always be borderline cases, but for me this is not one. While it is a fact that the supporting runner is in the way of a defender, he has no obligation to get out of the way as long as his supporting line is credible.

crossref
18-11-15, 15:11
While it is a fact that the supporting runner is in the way of a defender, he has no obligation to get out of the way as long as his supporting line is credible.

that's the discussion I'd like to see -- what does it mean to be credible? for instance do you have to be in a good position to receive a pass?

RobLev
18-11-15, 15:11
There will always be borderline cases, but for me this is not one. While it is a fact that the supporting runner is in the way of a defender, he has no obligation to get out of the way as long as his supporting line is credible.

Please unpack "supporting line".

RobLev
18-11-15, 15:11
Indeed - because what else is he supposed to do? If those that believe the support running line is obstruction, I'd really like a reasoned explanation of the support runner's expected actions. the video provided is a perfect example to work with because there is no realistic line to the ball carrier's right. Allied to if the would be tackler was front on instead of covering back, the support runner's line would otherwise be no issue whatsoever - and the 100% correct one.

didds

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should have run a line to the BC's right.

I too would like a reasonable explanation of the"support runner's" expected actions. Exactly what support was he offering to the BC taking the position he was relative to the BC? He couldn't take a pass, since he was at best level with, and at relevant times marginally ahead of, the BC. He couldn't take an offload - ditto. And in either event, why would the BC pass/offload the ball; he wasn't going to be tackled... So what is the nature of this "support" he was offering?

Phil E
18-11-15, 15:11
I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should have run a line to the BC's right.

I too would like a reasonable explanation of the"support runner's" expected actions. Exactly what support was he offering to the BC taking the position he was relative to the BC? He couldn't take a pass, since he was at best level with, and at relevant times marginally ahead of, the BC. He couldn't take an offload - ditto. And in either event, why would the BC pass/offload the ball; he wasn't going to be tackled... So what is the nature of this "support" he was offering?

If he wasn't going to be tackled then there can't have been any obstruction.

Taff
18-11-15, 15:11
If he wasn't going to be tackled then there can't have been any obstruction.
I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled, because there was a team mate between him and potential tackler.

crossref
18-11-15, 15:11
I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled, because there was a team mate between him and potential tackler.

I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled because there was a team mate carefully between him and potential tackler :)

Phil E
18-11-15, 16:11
I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled, because there was a team mate between him and potential tackler.


I think RebLevs point is that there is no chance in hell of him being tackled because there was a team mate carefully between him and potential tackler :)

Then perhaps Roblev should have said that?

RobLev
18-11-15, 17:11
Then perhaps Roblev should have said that?

Unfortunately my inner 12 year old got loose with the crayons.

Since the point made in my previous email was that the only way he could be tackled was through the "support runner" (or by going around him and chasing from behind - as if) I thought that was pretty clearly my point.

But perhaps you can tell me what support the "support runner" was providing?

OB..
18-11-15, 19:11
I have no intention of trying to define a "credible supporting line" because I suspect it is impossible, at least in simple terms. It has to be down to the referee's judgement.

Viewing clips is one way to seek consistency, provided it is agreed that the mere fact of being in the defender's way is not in itself enough to constitute obstruction.

RobLev
18-11-15, 20:11
I have no intention of trying to define a "credible supporting line" because I suspect it is impossible, at least in simple terms. It has to be down to the referee's judgement.

Viewing clips is one way to seek consistency, provided it is agreed that the mere fact of being in the defender's way is not in itself enough to constitute obstruction.

I'm certainly not asking you to define a "credible supporting line". I am asking you what support the player in the clip was providing to the ball carrier by running where he was running, alongside and/or slightly ahead of the BC.

Ian_Cook
18-11-15, 20:11
The support runner needs to be there to receive a pass or offload if the ball carrier is tackled, or if the ball carrier cannot get a pass away, he is there to ensure his team-mate is not isolated, i.e. he wants to be first to the breakdown.

This support runner was in a very good position to do either of these all the way from the time the player picked up the ball to the time the claimed obstruction occurred . While Roblev points out that he was slightly ahead near the end, that was only after the ball carrier slowed down (the support runner didn't have time to react) and the opponent pushed him in an attempt to "plant" the ball carrier into touch as well as to highlight his spurious claim that he was obstructed. The fact that the opponent sharply changes direction in order to push the support player severely undermines any case he thought he might have had.

For those who still think that this support runner was intentionally blocking the tackler, tell me where else he could have run? Note that as far as we can see, at no time does he look around to see the chasers and where they are coming from. He will be able to see the SF player coming across in front of the goalposts and will realise that this player has no chance of getting there, but the opponent who ends up pushing him comes from a 45° angle behind him; completely out of even his peripheral vision. He will have only an approximate idea where this player is; somewhere behind and to the left.

• A support line to the right is out of the question (no space)
• Running directly behind the ball carrier won't put him in a good position to receive a pass, yet he could still end up getting in the way if there is a chaser running the ball carrier down from behind.

In fact, if he really wanted to block the opponent, he would have been better half a metre further back, keeping himself between the ball carrier and the approaching opponent.

As I said earlier, if you want to apply 10.1 (c) to this situation, then you might as well make support runners illegal, because this really becomes a "Joseph Heller" situation, there is nowhere that a support runner can run that he won't potentially get in the way of a would be tackler, and we won't know if that potential is realised until the would be tackler arrives.

So, I ask again, where would you have this guy run so that he can still be in the best position to support his ball carrier, but cannot possibly get in the way of a potential tackler?

crossref
18-11-15, 21:11
so now I think we are beginning to have the Law Discussion that I think SA Referees should have started --

What about Law 10.1(c) Blocking the Tackler

That Law says

(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

which Thompstone certainly did -- the commentators themselves say 'he knew exactly what he was doing'.
But it's not as simple as that -- by convention we don't penalise players for blocking the tackler as long as they are a support runner running a credible support line.
What's a support runner ? what's credible support line ? It's not defined in Law or convention, but one definition from a leading commentator is


The support runner needs to be there to receive a pass or offload if the ball carrier is tackled, or if the ball carrier cannot get a pass away, he is there to ensure his team-mate is not isolated, i.e. he wants to be first to the breakdown.


Was that what Thompstone was doing ?
Well, to receive a pass or offload - or to be a support after a tackle you'd need to be behind the ball carrier. Thompstone was level (at times in front) was he running a credible support line ? or was he running a line intended simply to block the ball carrier ?

It's a judgement call.

It was a close one, and the TMO and referee gave Thompstone the benefit of the doubt.


That's the sort of thing I would have expected a proper Law discussion to cover.


However

Ian_Cook
18-11-15, 22:11
so now I think we are beginning to have the Law Discussion that I think SA Referees should have started

What about Law 10.1(c) Blocking the Tackler

That Law says

(c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

which Thompstone certainly did -- the commentators themselves say 'he knew exactly what he was doing'.

You're ignoring "intentionally" again.

10.1 (c) applies when a player intentionally gets between the ball carrier and a tackler for the express purpose of preventing the ball carrier being tackled. This happens when a player deliberately changes his position or changes his running line to get into a position to prevent the ball carrier being tackled. Thomstone did neither of these. He started on a running line that did not block any tacklers, and he continued on that same line without ever changing direction or speed, all the way until he was illegally pushed in the back.

What the commentator says is not irrelevant!!



But it's not as simple as that -- by convention we don't penalise players for blocking the tackler as long as they are a support runner running a credible support line.
What's a support runner ? what's credible support line ? It's not defined in Law or convention, but one definition from a leading commentator is

The referee uses his judgement

And again, what the commentator says is not irrelevant!!


Was that what Thompstone was doing ?
Well, to receive a pass or offload - or to be a support after a tackle you'd need to be behind the ball carrier at the moment the pass/tackle is made

FTFY

It only takes one step to slow down enough to be in a position to take a pass or come through the gate at a tackle once it becomes apparent that either of them is going to happen. Until then you make sure that you are as far up the field as you can be and running as fast as the ball carrier.


Thompstone was level (at times in front) was he running a credible support line ? or was he running a line intended simply to block the ball carrier ?

At no time was he ever in front until the end. He was running the just about the exact support line I would expect him to run, indeed, that I would coach him to run. To that end, I will be showing that footage to my juniors as a text book example of how to support a ball carrier who has made a line break or an intercept.




It's a judgement call.

[It was a close one, and the TMO and referee gave Thompstone the benefit of the doubt.

Well, IMO, it wasn't even close. It was a no-brainer. There was never any obstruction, nor was there intent.

Camquin
18-11-15, 23:11
The key point is that if you are on side 10.1 applies and with it intent
If you are ahead of the ball carrier you are off-side and 11.1 applies - you MUST not obstuct an opponent.

Now, without a TMO if I saw someone run that line, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they are onside, after all I would be shifting to keep up with the winger. So I would need to see a clear and obvious move to obstruct.

The TMO has a better view, but surely it still has to be clear and obvious.

menace
18-11-15, 23:11
Again I find myself agreeing with Ian (through a well executed argument ) except for the bit that he wasn't obstructing with intent.
I personally think that is exactly what he was doing....and perfectly run shepard well within the laws of the game and the spirit of the game and tacticly perfectly executed. He held his line throughout but still allowed enough space for any defender to go round the back to tackle the BC if they were good enough or fast enough but none of them were because the support player made sure of it.
As Ian said...it doesn't get any better than that for support play.

chbg
19-11-15, 00:11
To a certain extent it is the same argument when a referee gets in the way - we have to be somewhere. Go round us not through us! The support runner was occupying one linear space, from which he did not divert. It was, in that situation, up to the would-be tackler to use another line to the ball carrier. Same as a 'post' on the side of a ruck. If he stands still he may well be 'obstructing' an opponent's direct line to the SH, but we will not penalise him, will we? If he moves to deliberately/intentionally block another line to the SH then that is an infringement. Also a team mate ahead of a kick catcher: he has to be somewhere and allow opponents to go around him to get to the catcher. Isn't it the same with 'dummy runners'?

crossref
19-11-15, 00:11
Ian so you are saying it wasn't intentional, but if it had been intentional it was a PK?

Ian_Cook
19-11-15, 01:11
Ian so you are saying it wasn't intentional, but if it had been intentional it was a PK?

If Thomstone had been running that line, and as the approaching player went to run around him (to his right or his left) he changed his running line to get in the way of the player, then that is "intentionally moving into a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier."


PING!

OB..
19-11-15, 02:11
Ian so you are saying it wasn't intentional, but if it had been intentional it was a PK?Your interpretation of "intentionally" is not the one Ian and I and the officials are using. (I think I may have mentioned that before.)

chrismtl
19-11-15, 05:11
I think that the way I look at this and the way that the law should be understood and refereed is the following. If the player is running his natural support line, play on. If the player at any point slows down dramatically or changes direction and blocks a potential tackler because of it then PK. The supporting player did neither of those 2 things in the clip so no issue with the try for me.

A point Ian brought up and was quickly brushed aside or ignored is that we need to referee the game for the players and need to know what the players themselves are trying to achieve on the field of play. Too many refs referee the game to show how knowledgeable they are of the law book. I won't lie, I can sometimes be guilty of this myself and when I look back at those games I always think I had a bad game.

That being said, in my view, the referee who would call obstruction on that play is refereeing with the law book instead of refereeing for the players.

crossref
19-11-15, 07:11
As I said before I wasn't criticising the decision, I was criticising the sa referee Law Discussion of that incident, which didn't even mention this interesting Law, and the completely unwritten conventions that govern the way that we ref it in practice.

RobLev
19-11-15, 08:11
Your interpretation of "intentionally" is not the one Ian and I and the officials are using. (I think I may have mentioned that before.)

I'll come back on Ian's reply to me, but this I agree with. The definition you usually use for intentional includes "reckless"; indeed a version of "reckless" that borders on "negligent". By that definition, accelerating to be alongside the BC - which the "support" did - when the tackler tries to get to him looks intentional.

And to chrismtl; I don't think anyone can look at that clip and believe that the "support" wasn't "trying to achieve" a block on the incoming tackle.

One final point in this interim response; to those who'd penalise the tackler's push. Would you penalise an obstruction where the tackler made no attempt to get to the BC? Because if not, that puts an attempted tackler confronted with an obstructing "support player" with a Catch-22.

Ian_Cook
19-11-15, 10:11
I'll come back on Ian's reply to me, but this I agree with. The definition you usually use for intentional includes "reckless"; indeed a version of "reckless" that borders on "negligent".

Neither "reckless" nor "negligent" appear in the Laws of the Game, so that is really of no consequence. I think you are just playing with words Roblev.


By that definition, accelerating to be alongside the BC - which the "support" did - when the tackler tries to get to him looks intentional.

And to chrismtl; I don't think anyone can look at that clip and believe that the "support" wasn't "trying to achieve" a block on the incoming tackle.

Well, I am not seeing what you are seeing. I have gone back and looked at all the angles shown in that video. I have done so several times, and no matter how hard I try to find a PK in there, I just can't. All I see is a player running a support line for his ball carrier.

didds
19-11-15, 10:11
I'll come back on Ian's reply to me, but this I agree with. The definition you usually use for intentional includes "reckless"; indeed a version of "reckless" that borders on "negligent". By that definition, accelerating to be alongside the BC - which the "support" did - when the tackler tries to get to him looks intentional.

And to chrismtl; I don't think anyone can look at that clip and believe that the "support" wasn't "trying to achieve" a block on the incoming tackle.

One final point in this interim response; to those who'd penalise the tackler's push. Would you penalise an obstruction where the tackler made no attempt to get to the BC? Because if not, that puts an attempted tackler confronted with an obstructing "support player" with a Catch-22.

CF lineout defenders not jumping for the ball because the attacking throws have all been squint beforehand? As oft discussed?

didds

Phil E
19-11-15, 10:11
There is an obstruction that is given (in the act of scoring) in that same game here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=924

I know it's not exactly the same situation but it illustrates the point.

crossref
19-11-15, 10:11
Well, I am not seeing what you are seeing. I have gone back and looked at all the angles shown in that video. I have done so several times, and no matter how hard I try to find a PK in there, I just can't. All I see is a player running a support line for his ball carrier.

What I see is a player with a good understanding of how the game is reffed, legally blocking the tackler, by skillfully choosing a line which does the necessary, blocking the tackler, while also being a more or less credible support line.
He pulls it off - fair play to him. Try awarded.


But this thread shows that's actually quite difficult to explain in black and white exactly why 10.1(c) doesn't apply.

In general the more detail people have used the bigger the hole. - I certainly don't think the answer lies in the meaning of the word 'intentionally' ! the best answers are perhaps the vaguer ones : you're basically allowed to block a tackle if are running a credible support line, it's not in the Laws exactly, but that's the way we roll.

I have asked SA Referees Duty Ref to give their explanation of why 10.1(c) doesn't apply, it will be interesting to see if he does a better job. :)

For record again - as not everyone seems to have grasped - I am happy to award that try. That's the way the game is played. I agree.

My only point was that if we are going to have a Law Discussion about the incident, then the Law Discussion needs to explain why we wouldn't penalize under 10.1(b) (easy, the answer is in the Law itself, he's not in front) or 10.1(c) (trickier, as the answer is not to found in the Law book, but from convention)

RobLev
19-11-15, 14:11
Neither "reckless" nor "negligent" appear in the Laws of the Game, so that is really of no consequence. I think you are just playing with words Roblev.

I was pointing out OB's definition of "intentional"; you were on the side of the angels (ie my side) in the thread in which this comment (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19277-RWC-Aus-vs-Sco&p=306595&viewfull=1#post306595) from OB appeared.


Well, I am not seeing what you are seeing. I have gone back and looked at all the angles shown in that video. I have done so several times, and no matter how hard I try to find a PK in there, I just can't. All I see is a player running a support line for his ball carrier.

I'll respond to that in a separate comment on your earlier comment.

RobLev
19-11-15, 14:11
Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!

I hesitate to cross swords with you, but (possibly apart from me) everyone on this thread does understand the game. They understand that the "support runner" was placing himself very deliberately so as to prevent a tackler getting to the BC, while maintaining plausible deniability on the basis that he was there as a "support runner". That is refereed, certainly at your level of the game, as acceptable; but the issue is whether that can be justified in Law.

PS The line was fine; the reason I say that he was, in Law, obstructing is where he was running on that line...should he have been in a position to take an offload or a pass without breaking stride or backtracking, or is he allowed to take a position (alongside or slightly ahead of the BC) that is more protective of the BC at the expense of being in quite so good a position to actually legitimately support him.

RobLev
19-11-15, 14:11
The key point is that if you are on side 10.1 applies and with it intent
If you are ahead of the ball carrier you are off-side and 11.1 applies - you MUST not obstuct an opponent.

Now, without a TMO if I saw someone run that line, I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they are onside, after all I would be shifting to keep up with the winger. So I would need to see a clear and obvious move to obstruct.

The TMO has a better view, but surely it still has to be clear and obvious.

He didn't just keep up with him, he overtook him as the tackler came across...

RobLev
19-11-15, 15:11
Acksherly, having looked again, this wasn't directly a reply to me, it merely followed me. Post hoc ergo propter hoc can be a fallacy - who knew...

Nevertheless, I'll treat it as a reply to me.


The support runner needs to be there to receive a pass or offload if the ball carrier is tackled, or if the ball carrier cannot get a pass away, he is there to ensure his team-mate is not isolated, i.e. he wants to be first to the breakdown.

Agreed.


This support runner was in a very good position to do either of these all the way from the time the player picked up the ball to the time the claimed obstruction occurred .

Here we begin to part company.


While Roblev points out that he was slightly ahead near the end, that was only after the ball carrier slowed down (the support runner didn't have time to react) and the opponent pushed him in an attempt to "plant" the ball carrier into touch as well as to highlight his spurious claim that he was obstructed. The fact that the opponent sharply changes direction in order to push the support player severely undermines any case he thought he might have had.

There is now clear daylight between us.

The ball carrier only slowed down as the push happened, so as to avoid his "support" who'd been pushed across him.

Rewatching it, I'm not sure the would-be tackler changed direction.


For those who still think that this support runner was intentionally blocking the tackler, tell me where else he could have run? Note that as far as we can see, at no time does he look around to see the chasers and where they are coming from. He will be able to see the SF player coming across in front of the goalposts and will realise that this player has no chance of getting there, but the opponent who ends up pushing him comes from a 45° angle behind him; completely out of even his peripheral vision.

Incorrect. He is running alongside the "support" at 47:10 on the video, just before the push. If the "support" couldn't see him at that point, he couldn't see the BC either.

The "support" also turns his head away just before impact (watch from 46:56). He saw the tackler coming.


He will have only an approximate idea where this player is; somewhere behind and to the left.

• A support line to the right is out of the question (no space)
• Running directly behind the ball carrier won't put him in a good position to receive a pass, yet he could still end up getting in the way if there is a chaser running the ball carrier down from behind.

In fact, if he really wanted to block the opponent, he would have been better half a metre further back, keeping himself between the ball carrier and the approaching opponent.

Except that being half a meter further back, he'd have given the tackler a clear run on the BC; look again at the video at 47:10.


As I said earlier, if you want to apply 10.1 (c) to this situation, then you might as well make support runners illegal, because this really becomes a "Joseph Heller" situation, there is nowhere that a support runner can run that he won't potentially get in the way of a would be tackler, and we won't know if that potential is realised until the would be tackler arrives.

So, I ask again, where would you have this guy run so that he can still be in the best position to support his ball carrier, but cannot possibly get in the way of a potential tackler?

It's unnecessary to "not possibly get in the way of a potential tackler". Probably a meter back, on the same line. Where he was as they approached the 22m line. Before he moved up upon seeing the tackler converging from their left.

chrismtl
19-11-15, 15:11
There is an obstruction that is given (in the act of scoring) in that same game here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=924

I know it's not exactly the same situation but it illustrates the point.

I'm not exactly sure how it illustrates a point when it's not at all the same situation. A dummy runner taking out a potential tackler is C&O obstruction. Look at the image below and ask yourself if it's the same as a player running next to his teammate who could potentially receive a pass or ruck if needed.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3344&stc=1

- - - Updated - - -


There is an obstruction that is given (in the act of scoring) in that same game here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3A2cl-wPUd8&t=924

I know it's not exactly the same situation but it illustrates the point.

I'm not exactly sure how it illustrates a point when it's not at all the same situation. A dummy runner taking out a potential tackler is C&O obstruction. Look at the image below and ask yourself if it's the same as a player running next to his teammate who could potentially receive a pass or ruck if needed.

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3344&stc=1

Phil E
19-11-15, 15:11
I'm not exactly sure how it illustrates a point when it's not at all the same situation.

I said it wasn't the same.

It illustrates the point that the obstructing player is in front of the ball carrier and alters his line to block the would be tackler.

It's interesting that you say it's " C&O obstruction". Clearly the OP situation isn't "C&O obstruction". If it was we wouldn't be up to 70 posts and counting.

Womble
19-11-15, 16:11
I said it wasn't the same.

It illustrates the point that the obstructing player is in front of the ball carrier and alters his line to block the would be tackler.

It's interesting that you say it's " C&O obstruction". Clearly the OP situation isn't "C&O obstruction". If it was we wouldn't be up to 70 posts and counting.

5/6 posts would have done ! I believe that all of you guys have lost your marbles ! :pepper::pepper: How you can discuss the possibility of an onside support runner obstructing is beyond me!

crossref
19-11-15, 16:11
for the earlier incident (try disallowed) the Law is very straightforward - clearly both 10.1(b) and 10.1(c) apply. There are two reasons why it's a PK.

crossref
19-11-15, 16:11
5/6 posts would have done ! I believe that all of you guys have lost your marbles ! :pepper::pepper: How you can discuss the possibility of an onside support runner obstructing is beyond me!

womble - - yes so you have said - but why not bear with it for one post and explain what's your definition of a 'support runner' - it's kind of important - what is it that makes a player a bona fide 'support runner' , so that obstruction cannot apply ?

OB..
19-11-15, 17:11
For years a hand-off was technically illegal since by definition you were playing a player without the ball.

Nobody ever penalises a scrum half for picking the ball out of a ruck even though it is technically illegal.

So why are we picking on 10.1 (c) and claiming that (a) it is capable of only one meaning; and (b) therefore we need a reason not to obey it?

I can see that this is a borderline case, so people will disagree about it being a credible supporting line, but that is the way the law is used currently, as it seems to make more sense then requiring any supporting team-mate to get out of the way of a defender.

RobLev
19-11-15, 17:11
5/6 posts would have done ! I believe that all of you guys have lost your marbles ! :pepper::pepper: How you can discuss the possibility of an onside support runner obstructing is beyond me!

Onside/offside is irrelevant for 10.1(c).

And what crossref said.

didds
19-11-15, 17:11
..
should he have been in a position to take an offload or a pass without breaking stride or backtracking,

Mind you, i constantly see players at all levels unable to achieve that with no defenders approaching from behind...

didds

Womble
19-11-15, 17:11
Onside/offside is irrelevant for 10.1(c).

And what crossref said.

10.1(c) has the word INTENTIONALLY, that is very relevant, if players cant support a ball carrier then we may as well switch codes !

crossref
19-11-15, 18:11
So why are we picking on 10.1 (c) and claiming that (a) it is capable of only one meaning; and (b) therefore we need a reason not to obey it?
.

I didn't start the thread to pick on 10.1(c) I started the thread to pick on SA Referees who wrote a Law Discussion about a player blocking a tackle without mentioning 10.1(c) Player blocking a tackle. I think that's a pretty rubbish Law Discussion!

whoever said it was capable of only one meaning? A Law discussion is to tease out what the conventional wisdom really is.

the answer is that a player won't be done for blocking a tackler if he is running a credible support line

Ian defines a support runner like this -- I'd go along with it, seems pretty good to me..


The support runner needs to be there to receive a pass or offload if the ball carrier is tackled, or if the ball carrier cannot get a pass away, he is there to ensure his team-mate is not isolated, i.e. he wants to be first to the breakdown.

SimonSmith
19-11-15, 18:11
Acksherly, having looked again, this wasn't directly a reply to me, it merely followed me. Post hoc ergo propter hoc can be a fallacy - who knew...

Aaron Sorkin and President Bartlett

RobLev
19-11-15, 18:11
10.1(c) has the word INTENTIONALLY, that is very relevant, if players cant support a ball carrier then we may as well switch codes !

It is indeed very relevant. Which is why the meaning of "support" is important. After all, if the support consists solely of getting in the way of tacklers that looks very like a law 10.1(c) infringement. So where is the balance struck between that and genuinely being there only to take a pass/offload? At what point does the getting in the way element trump the pass/offload element?

And, going back a stage - at the point of contact the "support runner" in this instance was actually offside. He was marginally ahead of the BC.

chrismtl
19-11-15, 19:11
I said it wasn't the same.

It illustrates the point that the obstructing player is in front of the ball carrier and alters his line to block the would be tackler.

It's interesting that you say it's " C&O obstruction". Clearly the OP situation isn't "C&O obstruction". If it was we wouldn't be up to 70 posts and counting.

Your exact wording was "not exactly the same" which to me at least indicates that there is some similarity between the 2 incidents. As for the C&O that I mentioned, it is only in reference to your dummy runner video. I've always said that the OP video is definitely not obstruction.

didds
19-11-15, 19:11
And, going back a stage - at the point of contact the "support runner" in this instance was actually offside. He was marginally ahead of the BC.


Is this the leicester try?

If so, I can;t see that the supporter was ever in front of the BC until AFTER he was shoved?

didds

Ian_Cook
19-11-15, 20:11
The ball carrier only slowed down as the push happened, so as to avoid his "support" who'd been pushed across him


Rewatching it, I'm not sure the would-be tackler changed direction.

I disagree with both of those statements.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF.gif

The ball carrier takes a short step before the support runner was pushed and then accelerates through the gap in front of the would be tackler and behind his support runner, who is only ever in front of him because he was pushed there.

The would be tackler clearly changes direction (steps off his left foot) to push the support runner. This is the only act that is a C&O infringement. If the push had succeeded in planting the ball carrier into touch, then, as TMO, I would recommend a YC for the would be tackler under 10.4 (e) and a PT.


He is running alongside the "support" at 47:10 on the video,

just before the push. If the "support" couldn't see him at that point, he couldn't see the BC either.

The support runner has been just behind and to the left of his ball carrier for 40m by that point so he must know where his ball carrier is. On the other hand, the would be tackler has come up from behind him and to his left and has only just got to the point where he suddenly swerves into the support runner to push him. He was catching the ball carrier, and had he kept his line, he might have been able to take the ball carrier into touch in the corner, or prompted the support runner into actually obstructing him. Instead he took a card from the "Chance" deck and got "Go Back Three Spaces" instead of the one he wanted... "Get Out of Jail Free".


The "support" also turns his head away just before impact (watch from 46:56). He saw the tackler coming.

The support runner turned his head to look at his ball carrier. 5m from the goal line with the defence possibly closing, that's what I would be doing; looking at the ball in the ball carrier's hands, ready to receive a pass or offload.


Except that being half a meter further back, he'd have given the tackler a clear run on the BC; look again at the video at 47:10.

OR, the would be tackler thought he didn't have a chance of catching the ball carrier, so he ran at the support runner in order to try to create an apparent obstruction scenario.


.... you see, you're not the only one who can play that game.


It's unnecessary to "not possibly get in the way of a potential tackler". Probably a meter back, on the same line. Where he was as they approached the 22m line. Before he moved up upon seeing the tackler converging from their left.

He was moving up steadily throughout the entire run, NOT suddenly at the end as you are implying.

There was plenty of room for the would be tackler to run behind the support runner and tackle the ball carrier, but he wasn't smart enough, fast enough or skilful enough to do so. Why should the officials hand him his "Get out of Jail Free" card to compensate for his lack of skill, game nous and speed?


The difference between you and I here Roblev is that you are trying to be clever with words, and your reading of the Laws, and your micro-analysis of the video, to find away to create an infringement where none exists, in order to justify your stance. I'm looking for a way to let the players play the game without me getting in their way!






womble - - yes so you have said - but why not bear with it for one post and explain what's your definition of a 'support runner' - it's kind of important - what is it that makes a player a bona fide 'support runner' , so that obstruction cannot apply ?

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LINE THAT A SUPPORT RUNNER CAN RUN WHERE THERE IS A 100% CERTAINTY THAT HE WILL NOT GET IN THE WAY OF AN OPPONENT.

You will only know whether or not the line he has chosen gets him in the way of an opponent when, and if, that opponent arrives. So long as the support runner maintains his line (so that the opponent can go around him) and does not INTENTIONALLY block the opponent BY ALTERING HIS RUNNING LINE, then the support runner has NOT committed obstruction. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

(And yes, I do have to shout because you are not listening!!!!)

If you want to see an example of what the would be tackler SHOULD have done, watch this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAWlsblxNE

Yes, there was no support runner, but even if there was, THIS is the line you need to run to chase down and take out a ball carrier in the corner.

Beauden Barrett has the speed and the skills, but he also has the game nous to know that he wasn't going to be able to stop the ball carrier by tackling him, so he did the next best thing, got close enough to ankle tap him on the off-chance he could unbalance him enough to get a foot in touch... and it paid off.

Camquin
19-11-15, 20:11
No attempt to wrap => PT and YC

But he is in a black shirt so it is OK.

Seriously what is the difference between this and the incident in the Uruguay Fiji match?

Camquin

Ian_Cook
19-11-15, 20:11
No attempt to wrap => PT and YC

But he is in a black shirt so it is OK.

Seriously what is the difference between this and the incident in the Uruguay Fiji match?

Camquin

So, you PK ankle taps?

RobLev
19-11-15, 22:11
I disagree with both of those statements.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF.gif

The ball carrier takes a short step before the support runner was pushed and then accelerates through the gap in front of the would be tackler and behind his support runner, who is only ever in front of him because he was pushed there.

Poppycock. Watch the video from 47:07. At the point of contact between tackler and "support runner" the latter is marginally ahead of the BC.


The would be tackler clearly changes direction (steps off his left foot) to push the support runner. This is the only act that is a C&O infringement. If the push had succeeded in planting the ball carrier into touch, then, as TMO, I would recommend a YC for the would be tackler under 10.4 (e) and a PT.

I agree the would-be tackler steps off his left foot, to execute the push. You might call that a change of direction...


The support runner has been just behind and to the left of his ball carrier for 40m by that point so he must know where his ball carrier is. On the other hand, the would be tackler has come up from behind him and to his left

I repeat myself.

Watch the sequence from 47:07 again. The would-be tackler is ahead of the Leicester pair until the last few strides before the push. He is never behind the "support runner" - still less 45 degrees behind.


and has only just got to the point where he suddenly swerves into the support runner to push him. He was catching the ball carrier, and had he kept his line, he might have been able to take the ball carrier into touch in the corner, or prompted the support runner into actually obstructing him. Instead he took a card from the "Chance" deck and got "Go Back Three Spaces" instead of the one he wanted... "Get Out of Jail Free".

We have different definitions of "actually obstructing". Mine involves being in the way of the tackler when he wants to try to tackle him, rather than at a point when the BC's momentum will take him over the line.


The support runner turned his head to look at his ball carrier. 5m from the goal line with the defence possibly closing, that's what I would be doing; looking at the ball in the ball carrier's hands, ready to receive a pass or offload.

And dropping his shoulder into the tackler?


OR, the would be tackler thought he didn't have a chance of catching the ball carrier, so he ran at the support runner in order to try to create an apparent obstruction scenario.


.... you see, you're not the only one who can play that game.

I'm I'm not playing games - I'm calling it as I see it.


He was moving up steadily throughout the entire run, NOT suddenly at the end as you are implying.

Not my implication. He is indeed moving up to alongside the BC as they run, and as he sees the potential tackler closing.


There was plenty of room for the would be tackler to run behind the support runner and tackle the ball carrier, but he wasn't smart enough, fast enough or skilful enough to do so. Why should the officials hand him his "Get out of Jail Free" card to compensate for his lack of skill, game nous and speed?

The difference between you and I here Roblev is that you are trying to be clever with words, and your reading of the Laws, and your micro-analysis of the video, to find away to create an infringement where none exists, in order to justify your stance. I'm looking for a way to let the players play the game without me getting in their way!

Nope; we're clearly seeing different things. I see a tackler tracking across the 22m area towards the BC, in full sight of the BC and "support runner". I see a "support runner" who is running a perfectly legitimate line, but who moves up that line (relative to the BC) as he sees the potential tackler approaching, forcing him to either go through him, or to go the long way round with no chance of changing direction again and cacthing the BC.



THERE IS NO POSSIBLE LINE THAT A SUPPORT RUNNER CAN RUN WHERE THERE IS A 100% CERTAINTY THAT HE WILL NOT GET IN THE WAY OF AN OPPONENT.

The line isn't the issue; it is where on that line he chooses to place himself that is the issue. He chose a position that meant he was not in a good position to take a pass or offload, but was optimised for getting in the way of the tackler he saw approaching.


You will only know whether or not the line he has chosen gets him in the way of an opponent when, and if, that opponent arrives. So long as the support runner maintains his line (so that the opponent can go around him) and does not INTENTIONALLY block the opponent BY ALTERING HIS RUNNING LINE, then the support runner has NOT committed obstruction. Why are you finding this so difficult to understand?

The line isn't the issue.


(And yes, I do have to shout because you are not listening!!!!)

Errm: pot, kettle. I'm not arguing with the line. I've never argued with the line., I've gone out of my way to point out that I have no issue with the line. Why are you still arguing the line?


If you want to see an example of what the would be tackler SHOULD have done, watch this


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAWlsblxNE

Yes, there was no support runner, but even if there was, THIS is the line you need to run to chase down and take out a ball carrier in the corner.

Beauden Barrett has the speed and the skills, but he also has the game nous to know that he wasn't going to be able to stop the ball carrier by tackling him, so he did the next best thing, got close enough to ankle tap him on the off-chance he could unbalance him enough to get a foot in touch... and it paid off.

I note and agree with Camquin's comment. It wasn't an ankle tap, which are normally dleivered with hand to ankle. It was an elbow, sliding up to the shoulder, to the knee. Some might claim that a no-wrap tackle.

Ian_Cook
19-11-15, 22:11
crossref and you are looking at the video and seeing something entirely different from the rest of us, and from the people who really matter in this case, the Referee and the TMO.

We are miles apart on this Roblev, and doubt we will ever agree. There is no point in going back and looking at the video for the umpteenth time, because you are seeing something that the rest of us don't. Suffice to say that the support for your position here is, fortunately, very small.

I will however, address this one...

We have different definitions of "actually obstructing". Mine involves being in the way of the tackler when he wants to try to tackle him, rather than at a point when the BC's momentum will take him over the line.

We sure do. When it comes to the Law you two are trying to apply - 10.1 (c) - I take my understanding from the Law itself...

10.1 (c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

"Actually obstructing" under the wording of this Law would require that the support runner intentionally move into a position to obstruct the would be tackler for the purpose of obstructing that tackler, and not for any other purpose. So long as the support runner runs straight and does not swerve or veer into an opponent, he has NOT committed obstruction. This is the way the game has been refereed for all the time I have been a player, a coach and a referee.

chbg
19-11-15, 23:11
It wasn't an ankle tap, which are normally dleivered with hand to ankle. It was an elbow, sliding up to the shoulder, to the knee. Some might claim that a no-wrap tackle.

Dangerous Play and Misconduct: 10.4a Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the ... arm, including the elbow.



NOT!

ddjamo
19-11-15, 23:11
This thread takes the cake.

crossref
19-11-15, 23:11
crossref and you are looking at the video and seeing something entirely different from the rest of us, and from the people who really matter in this case, the Referee and the TMO.

Ian you aren't listening to me, and you haven't grasped my position at all. As I said a few times, I actually agree that this was a try.

But I think you are tying yourself into terribly complicated knots trying to to justify the decision in terms of Law

I do sympathise. It's not straightforward, SA Referees didn't even attempt the task. But the more you analyse the Law the more you make it sound like a PK!

RobLev
19-11-15, 23:11
crossref and you are looking at the video and seeing something entirely different from the rest of us, and from the people who really matter in this case, the Referee and the TMO.

We are miles apart on this Roblev, and doubt we will ever agree. There is no point in going back and looking at the video for the umpteenth time, because you are seeing something that the rest of us don't.

Can you really not see that as the Leicester players cross into the SF 22, the tackler is in their plain sight? Can you really not see that the tackler is never behind the "support runner", but approaching from the side?



Suffice to say that the support for your position here is, fortunately, very small.

I will however, address this one...


We sure do. When it comes to the Law you two are trying to apply - 10.1 (c) - I take my understanding from the Law itself...

10.1 (c) Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that
prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

"Actually obstructing" under the wording of this Law would require that the support runner intentionally move into a position to obstruct the would be tackler for the purpose of obstructing that tackler

This bit I entirely agree with.


and not for any other purpose.

Why?


So long as the support runner runs straight and does not swerve or veer into an opponent, he has NOT committed obstruction. This is the way the game has been refereed for all the time I have been a player, a coach and a referee.

Maybe so; but we are discussing whether, or how, that refereeing convention is supported in Law. Why is a change of line required, for example? It seems to me that runing exactly the same line can be perfectly legtimately in support of the ball-carrier, if a little behind him so as to be able to take a pass or offload, and potentially illegitimate if alongside him or slightly ahead, where he can't take a pass but is between the tackler and the BC. The line isn't the issue - the position is.

I appreciate that your position is that if there is any possibility of the suppoort runner being able to take a pass from the BC, even if he has to slow down or go back to take it, that negatives any intention to obstruct - what I would be interested in knowing is why.

Ian_Cook
19-11-15, 23:11
Dangerous Play and Misconduct: 10.4a Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the ... arm, including the elbow.



NOT!


This thread takes the cake.

100%. There really is some off the wall and out-of-left-field stuff being posted here.

The support runner is not obstructing, and Barretts ankle tap wasn't an infringement in any way shape or form

Those are just examples of people trying to outsmart themselves as they try try to show they have read the Law Book. This forum is not supposed to be about micro-analysis and smart-arsed, legalese interpretations of the wording of Laws. Any new referee reading this thread will be thoroughly confused.

Womble
19-11-15, 23:11
This thread takes the cake.

Took till post 89 to get anything remotely meaningful ! Ian's posts excluded ............

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 00:11
Can you really not see that as the Leicester players cross into the SF 22, the tackler is in their plain sight? Can you really not see that the tackler is never behind the "support runner", but approaching from the side.

I can see that. I just don't think it is either important or relevant

So he can see that player. What if there are two other opponents also steaming up behind him that he cannot see. What line does he run so that he doesn't get in their way?

RobLev
20-11-15, 00:11
...

Those are just examples of people trying to outsmart themselves as they try try to show they have read the Law Book. This forum is not supposed to be about micro-analysis and smart-arsed, legalese interpretations of the wording of Laws. Any new referee reading this thread will be thoroughly confused.

Excuse me?

I am looking at the footage, and seeing two Leicester players, one with the ball and one doing everything he can to stay between an approaching tackler and his team mate. It looks wrong; I wonder why it isn't penalised.

It is you who is coming up with smart-arsed legalese interpretations of the meaning of "intentionally" as meaning something other than what it would mean in common parlance. It is you who is arguing that if he is in some vague way in a positon to take a pass/offload, provided he slows down or goes backward to take it, that that justifies staying in a position in which he is not able to take a pass/offload - but just happens to be in the tackler's path to the ball-carrier.

- - - Updated - - -


I can see that. I just don't think it is either important or relevant

So he can see that player. What if there are two other opponents also steaming up behind him that he cannot see. What line does he run so that he doesn't get in their way?

LINE ISN'T THE ISSUE.

You have finally accepted that the "support player" knew where the tackler was. Thank you.

There weren't two other opponents starting from many metres back with the gas to overtake his winger.

He stays in a positon where he can legitimately take a pass/offload from the BC if the BC is tackled. If that's in the tackler's way, so be it. But if he moves from that position so as to get in the tackler's way - why not PK for obstruction under 10.1(c)?

Paule23
20-11-15, 00:11
Well, what an interesting discussion thread in more way than one!

I've read all the arguments, and I will state straight off that I would award the try and not give obstruction. However, I do not for one second believe the support player did not intentionally run the line he chose . He was perfectly entitled to run that line, but certainly towards the end appeared to run the line to obstruct rather than support.

Now, as I said, I don't think we should interpret the law as that is obstruction, I just want point out the support player knew what he was doing, was running that line for a reason, and therefore could be considered to be intentionally blocking the tacker.

I'll get my coat......:deadhorse:

RobLev
20-11-15, 00:11
Well, what an interesting discussion thread in more way than one!

I've read all the arguments, and I will state straight off that I would award the try and not give obstruction. However, I do not for one second believe the support player did not intentionally run the line he chose . He was perfectly entitled to run that line, but certainly towards the end appeared to run the line to obstruct rather than support.

Now, as I said, I don't think we should interpret the law as that is obstruction, I just want point out the support player knew what he was doing, was running that line for a reason, and therefore could be considered to be intentionally blocking the tacker.

I'll get my coat......:deadhorse:

Thank you.

Womble
20-11-15, 00:11
RobLev, out of curiosity, do you play ,coach or referee?

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 00:11
LINE ISN'T THE ISSUE.

RUNNING LINE IS THE ISSUE!

So long as he doesn't deviate from it, he does not infringe any obstruction Law


He stays in a position where he can legitimately take a pass/offload from the BC if the BC is tackled. If that's in the tackler's way, so be it. But if he moves from that position so as to get in the tackler's way - PK for obstruction under 10.1(c).

AT NO STAGE WAS HE EVER IN FRONT OF THE BALL CARRIER UNTIL AFTER HE WAS PUSHED, therefore he WAS ALWAYS in a position to legitimately take a pass from the ball carrier; the last time I looked at Law 12, flat passes were still allowed!!!!!!


HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCK-SHITE, this is worse than posting on a Conspiracy Theory forum!!

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 00:11
RobLev, out of curiosity, do you play ,coach or referee?

My guess would be, none of the above

RobLev
20-11-15, 00:11
RobLev, out of curiosity, do you play ,coach or referee?

As I have made clear in the past; I last played decades ago, and neither coach nor referee rugby. I presided/refereed fencing for as long as I fenced, about 25 years. It is because I don't have a rugby background that I hesitate to crossswords with you; but I note that you haven't responded to my queries directly.

- - - Updated - - -


My guess would be, none of the above

I have made no secret of that fact.

crossref
20-11-15, 00:11
Took till post 89 to get anything remotely meaningful ! Ian's posts excluded ............
WADR Womble you have not helped. I have reread the thread and you have offered not a single word of explanation for your view...

Perhaps all these new refs you worry about would benefit from hearing your description of what you see , your explanation of what 10.1.c means and your definition of a support runner?

Paule23
20-11-15, 00:11
RUNNING LINE IS THE ISSUE!

So long as he doesn't deviate from it, he does not infringe any obstruction Law



AT NO STAGE WAS HE EVER IN FRONT OF THE BALL CARRIER UNTIL AFTER HE WAS PUSHED, therefore he WAS ALWAYS in a position to legitimately take a pass from the ball carrier; the last time I looked at Law 12, flat passes were still allowed!!!!!!


JESUS H. CHRIST, this is worse than posting on a Conspiracy Theory forum!!

That's a lot of punctuation and blasphemy. Do you want a glass of wine?

Iain - Do you think he ran that line with the dual purpose of support and also helping reduce the change of his player being tackled? If the answer is yes, then he was intentionally blocking the tackler.

Now as I've said I don't think we should then give this as obstruction, as it opens a whole can of worms, however by strict (too strict in my view) interpretation he did intentionally obstruct. I think he was within his rights to do so, but it was intentional.

RobLev
20-11-15, 00:11
RUNNING LINE IS THE ISSUE!

So long as he doesn't deviate from it, he does not infringe any obstruction Law

Nope. So long as he doesn't deviate from the line, he is unlikely to be penalised. Different question.



AT NO STAGE WAS HE EVER IN FRONT OF THE BALL CARRIER UNTIL AFTER HE WAS PUSHED, therefore he WAS ALWAYS in a position to legitimately take a pass from the ball carrier; the last time I looked at Law 12, flat passes were still allowed!!!!!!


HOLY SNAPPIN' DUCK-SHITE, this is worse than posting on a Conspiracy Theory forum!!

I know what you currently think you saw. It isn't what happened. You used to think that the tackler was approaching from behind and that the "support player" had no idea he was there... Eventually (it might take some time), you'll accept that at the moment of contact, the "support player" was (marginally, I grant) ahead of the BC.

RobLev
20-11-15, 00:11
That's a lot of punctuation and blasphemy. Do you want a glass of wine?

Iain - Do you think he ran that line with the dual purpose of support and also helping reduce the change of his player being tackled? If the answer is yes, then he was intentionally blocking the tackler.

Now as I've said I don't think we should then give this as obstruction, as it opens a whole can of worms, however by strict (too strict in my view) interpretation he did intentionally obstruct. I think he was within his rights to do so, but it was intentional.

Again, thank you.

crossref
20-11-15, 00:11
Well, what an interesting discussion thread in more way than one!

I've read all the arguments, and I will state straight off that I would award the try and not give obstruction. However, I do not for one second believe the support player did not intentionally run the line he chose . He was perfectly entitled to run that line, but certainly towards the end appeared to run the line to obstruct rather than support.

Now, as I said, I don't think we should interpret the law as that is obstruction, I just want point out the support player knew what he was doing, was running that line for a reason, and therefore could be considered to be intentionally blocking the tacker.

I'll get my coat......:deadhorse:

I agree with every word.

menace
20-11-15, 01:11
This thread takes the cake.

Bwaa haa haa..

Actually I thought the 'leggings' one had taken and eaten the cake?:shrug:


I would further add that green had dominated that phase of play, they made a line break such that the defenders that were once in front of them were now behind them. They earnt the right for their support player to be where ever he wanted to be in that legal onside position holding his line. It's now up to the defenders team who are under pressure to find a legal way to stop them. They couldn't.

Crossref- And IMO that's why SA refs didn't need to go scouring the laws to try and justify an obstruction/blocking law. This was not an occasion to look for a reason to remotely even try and PK the attacking team.

Dickie E
20-11-15, 01:11
Well, what an interesting discussion thread in more way than one!

I've read all the arguments, and I will state straight off that I would award the try and not give obstruction. However, I do not for one second believe the support player did not intentionally run the line he chose . He was perfectly entitled to run that line, but certainly towards the end appeared to run the line to obstruct rather than support.

Now, as I said, I don't think we should interpret the law as that is obstruction, I just want point out the support player knew what he was doing, was running that line for a reason, and therefore could be considered to be intentionally blocking the tacker.



I agree with you but isn't the implication, then, that a ball carrier's team mates could form a protective semi circle around the ball carrier provided that:
1. they stay behind the ball carrier, and
2. they don't deviate their running lines?

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 01:11
That's a lot of punctuation and blasphemy.

Change so as to not offend Christians


Do you want a glass of wine?

Just a beer will do


Iain - Do you think he ran that line with the dual purpose of support and also helping reduce the change of his player being tackled? If the answer is yes, then he was intentionally blocking the tackler.

No. I believe he would see that this is his No. 7 and he may not make it to the goal-line before being run down so he better run in support.

Its not the job of a referee to try to second guess player's motives, I would just whistle what I see. Especially, I have never been one to look for reasons to blow the whistle.

I do not see any attempt by the support runner to intentionally block the tackler, so no PK. Despite Roblev's attempt to shift the goalposts by claiming that its not about his running line, I maintain that it is about the running line. I would need to see the support runner CHANGE HIS RUNNING DIRECTION to block the tackler's access before I would consider a PK under 10.1 (c).

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 01:11
WADR Womble you have not helped. I have reread the thread and you have offered not a single word of explanation for your view...

Perhaps he thinks it is so blindingly obvious that this is not obstruction, he doesn't think it worth his time refuting the BS that is being posted here.

Paule23
20-11-15, 07:11
Change so as to not offend Christians



Just a beer will do



No. I believe he would see that this is his No. 7 and he may not make it to the goal-line before being run down so he better run in support.

Its not the job of a referee to try to second guess player's motives, I would just whistle what I see. Especially, I have never been one to look for reasons to blow the whistle.

I do not see any attempt by the support runner to intentionally block the tackler, so no PK. Despite Roblev's attempt to shift the goalposts by claiming that its not about his running line, I maintain that it is about the running line. I would need to see the support runner CHANGE HIS RUNNING DIRECTION to block the tackler's access before I would consider a PK under 10.1 (c).

A beer it is then.

you make some good arguments here, Although I would challenge the bit about a referee not second guessing a players motives. Several laws refer to intent or deliberate actions, which require a referee to apply judgement on a players motives (deliberate knock on for example). We'll just have to agree to disagree on the importance of a change in running line.

i think the general consensus is most people would not give this as obstruction, although we have different reasons for our decision.

And all I thought I had to do when I became a referee was learn the laws.......

Paule23
20-11-15, 07:11
Perhaps he thinks it is so blindingly obvious that this is not obstruction, he doesn't think it worth his time refuting the BS that is being posted here.

Ian, just because someone has a different opinion or view doesn't make it BS. As we saw with the thread on the Scotland / Australia knock on there can be many different views and interpretations of the same incident. If someone is incorrect on a point of law, we could call it BS (well, if we wanted to be impolite) but opinions, as long as supported, are points for debate not insult.

crossref
20-11-15, 08:11
Crossref- And IMO that's why SA refs didn't need to go scouring the laws to try and justify an obstruction/blocking law. This was not an occasion to look for a reason to remotely even try and PK the attacking team.
The whole point of the article was a Law Discussion to explain why this incident wasn't a PK. They obviously thought it interesting question
They then discussed 10.1b (obviously doesn't apply) but not 10.1c (much more difficult to explain why it doesn't apply)

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 09:11
Ian, just because someone has a different opinion or view doesn't make it BS. As we saw with the thread on the Scotland / Australia knock on there can be many different views and interpretations of the same incident. If someone is incorrect on a point of law, we could call it BS (well, if we wanted to be impolite) but opinions, as long as supported, are points for debate not insult.

Paule23

If you look back some way...

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19363-Obstruction-Article-in-SAReferees&p=308006&viewfull=1#post308006

...you will see that Womble thought there was some "utter rubbish" being posted in this thread. Utter rubbish is just another way to say BS and vice versa

FTR, I thought it was unfair of crossref to say that Womble had "offered not a single word of explanation" for his view." I thought he made his view abundantly clear in that post!

crossref
20-11-15, 09:11
Womble just says its not a PK. Well we all agree with that, the puzzle is how to explain that in Law, when 10.1c seems to say it is.

Blackberry
20-11-15, 09:11
OK, can I wind this thread up?
A player's right to run a genuine support line trumps any obligation on him to move so a tackler can take his space.

Phil E
20-11-15, 10:11
Womble just says its not a PK. Well we all agree with that, the puzzle is how to explain that in Law, when 10.1c seems to say it is.

Try re-reading post #2 We could have stopped this thread right there.

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadh orse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

Paule23
20-11-15, 10:11
But then we wouldn't have 12 pages of fun Phil :)

there was quite bit of debate and disagreement on this topic, but also some really good reasoned arguments on both sides. I got a lot out of it (and a bit of fun too, love the dead horse emoticon!)

crossref
20-11-15, 10:11
OK, can I wind this thread up?
A player's right to run a genuine support line trumps any obligation on him to move so a tackler can take his space.

I agree with that.
That's not in the Laws, it's a de facto exception to 10.1.c , which is just the way the game is played.

It also means we have a judgement call for the referee is : is the player running a 'genuine support line' -- and that's the test that we would apply to the actual incident.

A genuine support line must mean staying in a position to receive a pass, or to receive a offload, or to be first at the breakdown.

didds
20-11-15, 10:11
Well, I think the best way to approach this is to say

1) if when reffiing you think the support runner has obstructed then PK.
2) if when reffing you don;t think a support runner has not obstructed then play on.

If you a new ref, I'd suggest ignoring the rest of the thread because it won;t answer any questions you have regarding what constitutes a support runner's legal actions. You'll need to use your gut instinct.

Didds
PS I beleive there has been sensible advice proffered above. But no consensus is being reached, despite that.

Phil E
20-11-15, 10:11
2) if when reffing you don;t think a support runner has not obstructed then play on.

It was all going so well Didds until point 2 :biggrin:

Is that a double negative?

If you want me to fix that for you just let me know (mod hat)

crossref
20-11-15, 11:11
Well, I think the best way to approach this is to say

1) if when reffiing you think the support runner has obstructed then PK.
2) if when reffing you don;t think a support runner has not obstructed then play on.

.

(scratches head) I don't think that's it at all!
following that advice would mean that the incident in the OP IS a PK, and everyone on the thread is wrong!

I think the point is : if you are a genuine support runner, running a credible support line, you won't be done for obstruction

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 11:11
OK, can I wind this thread up?
A player's right to run a genuine support line trumps any obligation on him to move so a tackler can take his space.

In a nutshell. So long as he runs his support line, he gives any opponent a fair opportunity to run around him to get to the tackler. Its when the support runner changes his line to block the tacklers that he runs afoul of Law 10.1 (c)

Iron_Lung
20-11-15, 14:11
In a nutshell. So long as he runs his support line, he gives any opponent a fair opportunity to run around him to get to the tackler. Its when the support runner changes his line to block the tacklers that he runs afoul of Law 10.1 (c)

I don't think you can limit it to line, I think you have to assess position as well don't you? You could hold your line and still adjust your position relative to the potential tackler to obstruct. I think you have to bring it back to that first key fact, that being the position of the player to support the ball carrier. If they are in a position to credibly support the ball carrier and they don't radically adjust that relative position with the express intent of obstructing, then play-on.

If the support carrier in the original post had drifted infield, moved into an offside position or slowed significantly or unpredictably to intercept the ball carrier, then you'd have a credible argument as to his intent to obstruct. He did none of those things an a manner that I'd describe as clear and obvious and was always in a position to receive a pass until he was pushed.

If I was trying to coach a new ref to give them a take away from the subject, that's what I'd get them to look at. Was intent positive (support ball carrier) or negative (obstruct tackler). Unless it's clear and obvious, benefit of doubt towards positive, play on...

RobLev
20-11-15, 14:11
I agree with that.
That's not in the Laws, it's a de facto exception to 10.1.c , which is just the way the game is played.

It also means we have a judgement call for the referee is : is the player running a 'genuine support line' -- and that's the test that we would apply to the actual incident.

A genuine support line must mean staying in a position to receive a pass, or to receive a offload, or to be first at the breakdown.

I'd agree with all of that. I don't think Ian agrees with your final paragraph.

thepercy
20-11-15, 17:11
Change so as to not offend Christians



Just a beer will do



No. I believe he would see that this is his No. 7 and he may not make it to the goal-line before being run down so he better run in support.

Its not the job of a referee to try to second guess player's motives, I would just whistle what I see. Especially, I have never been one to look for reasons to blow the whistle.

I do not see any attempt by the support runner to intentionally block the tackler, so no PK. Despite Roblev's attempt to shift the goalposts by claiming that its not about his running line, I maintain that it is about the running line. I would need to see the support runner CHANGE HIS RUNNING DIRECTION to block the tackler's access before I would consider a PK under 10.1 (c).


Could a support player, without deviating from his line, be liable to penalty if they speed up or slowed down, and blocked a tackler?

Blackberry
20-11-15, 18:11
Could a support player, without deviating from his line, be liable to penalty if they speed up or slowed down, and blocked a tackler?

Good question. Yep, if his support run is not genuine, ping.

crossref
20-11-15, 19:11
but choosing the genuine support line that also, happily, blocks a tackler is, conventionally, OK

Womble
20-11-15, 19:11
It is through discipline, control and mutual respect that the Spirit of the Game flourishes and, inthe context of a Game as physically challenging as Rugby, these are the qualities which forge thefellowship and sense of fair play so essential to the Game’s ongoing success and survival.Old fashioned traditions and virtues they may be, but they have stood the test of time and, at alllevels at which the Game is played, they remain as important to Rugby’s future as they have beenthroughout its long and distinguished past. The principles of Rugby are the fundamentalelements upon which the Game is based and they enable participants to immediately identifythe Game’s character and what makes it distinctive as a sport.

Quote from the Law book. Why are you all trying to add something that has never been there ! I am not gong to give you the answers you want because your trying to make me describe a unicorn !

RobLev
20-11-15, 19:11
It is through discipline, control and mutual respect that the Spirit of the Game flourishes and, inthe context of a Game as physically challenging as Rugby, these are the qualities which forge thefellowship and sense of fair play so essential to the Game’s ongoing success and survival.Old fashioned traditions and virtues they may be, but they have stood the test of time and, at alllevels at which the Game is played, they remain as important to Rugby’s future as they have beenthroughout its long and distinguished past. The principles of Rugby are the fundamentalelements upon which the Game is based and they enable participants to immediately identifythe Game’s character and what makes it distinctive as a sport.

Quote from the Law book. Why are you all trying to add something that has never been there ! I am not gong to give you the answers you want because your trying to make me describe a unicorn !

By which you mean?

crossref
20-11-15, 20:11
I think Womble is saying that you can't find the right way to ref this by looking in the Law Book
Which kind of takes us full circle :)

Womble
20-11-15, 20:11
I think Womble is saying that you can't find the right way to ref this by looking in the Law Book
Which kind of takes us full circle :)

In one ;)

Ian_Cook
20-11-15, 21:11
If the support carrier in the original post had drifted infield, moved into an offside position or slowed significantly or unpredictably to intercept the ball carrier, then you'd have a credible argument as to his intent to obstruct. He did none of those things an a manner that I'd describe as clear and obvious and was always in a position to receive a pass until he was pushed.

Absolutely right, and despite what Roblev and crossref have been saying, the support runner does not have to stay in, or maintain some fixed, relative position to the ball carrier to always be in a position to receive a non-forward pass or offload, or to go into a tackle through the gate. All he needs to do is be in that position AT THE TIME THE PASS, OFFLOAD OR TACKLE IS MADE, and it only takes a single check step for a player who is running beside his ball carrier to achieve that.

A support runner in the situation shown in the video might just slow down and cross behind his ball carrier if he thinks, anticipates (or if his ball carrier has indicated) that he is about to cut infield, so that he can receive ans outside pass or offload.


If I was trying to coach a new ref to give them a take away from the subject, that's what I'd get them to look at. Was intent positive (support ball carrier) or negative (obstruct tackler). Unless it's clear and obvious, benefit of doubt towards positive, play on...

Spot on, again, and the other thing to consider, of course, is materiality. Have a look at the direction the would be tackler was running in the first few frames of this clip...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF.gif

He was initially running in a direction that would have taken him in front of the support runner. IMO, had he continued running in that direction, there may have been a small possibility that he could catch and stop the ball carrier, or at least try to put him into touch. That chance evaporated (along with any materiality that might apply if you thought the support runner was obstructing) when he chose to change his running line to push/charge into the support runner. Again despite what Roblev will have you believe, it is clear and obvious that the player steps off his left foot and changes direction towards the support runner. This is the only C&O infringement - 10.4 (e) - in this play, and one in which there would have been a very good case for a PT and YC had he succeeded in pushing the support runner to plant the ball carrier into touch.

RobLev
21-11-15, 01:11
Absolutely right, and despite what Roblev and crossref have been saying, the support runner does not have to stay in, or maintain some fixed, relative position to the ball carrier to always be in a position to receive a non-forward pass or offload, or to go into a tackle through the gate. All he needs to do is be in that position AT THE TIME THE PASS, OFFLOAD OR TACKLE IS MADE, and it only takes a single check step for a player who is running beside his ball carrier to achieve that.

A support runner in the situation shown in the video might just slow down and cross behind his ball carrier if he thinks, anticipates (or if his ball carrier has indicated) that he is about to cut infield, so that he can receive ans outside pass or offload.



Spot on, again, and the other thing to consider, of course, is materiality. Have a look at the direction the would be tackler was running in the first few frames of this clip...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF.gif

He was initially running in a direction that would have taken him in front of the support runner. IMO, had he continued running in that direction, there may have been a small possibility that he could catch and stop the ball carrier, or at least try to put him into touch. That chance evaporated (along with any materiality that might apply if you thought the support runner was obstructing) when he chose to change his running line to push/charge into the support runner. Again despite what Roblev will have you believe, it is clear and obvious that the player steps off his left foot and changes direction towards the support runner. This is the only C&O infringement - 10.4 (e) - in this play, and one in which there would have been a very good case for a PT and YC had he succeeded in pushing the support runner to plant the ball carrier into touch.

Try looking at the long shot from behind, which I've referred you to before in this thread. And look at the whole sequence, not just the few frames in the GIF you've selected.

Ian_Cook
21-11-15, 02:11
Try looking at the long shot from behind, which I've referred you to before in this thread. And look at the whole sequence, not just the few frames in the GIF you've selected.

I have looked at the long shot from behind as you referred me to earlier, and here it is

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF2.gif

Clear and obvious change of direction by the would be tackler. You see his jersey number momentarily disappear as he steps off his left foot and turns his body towards the support runner to push him

How much more obvious does this need to be?

Ian_Cook
21-11-15, 02:11
I have also made another clip that goes back slightly earlier

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF3.gif

This clip also clearly shows that the support runner is not running ahead of the ball carrier (and at no time does he ever do so). I have even put in a pause when the two players cross the 22m line and another pause as the support runner is about to be pushed just to make it clearer for you.

The support runner catches the ball carrier just prior to them both reaching the 22m line, and from there until he is pushed, he maintains the same relative position to his ball carrier, never ever getting ahead of him. They are side-by-side and stride-for-stride throughout.

Therefore he does not, as you have asserted, accelerate or decelerate in order to block the tackler.

How much more obvious does this need to be?

crossref
21-11-15, 08:11
In one ;)

Which is exactly what makes it an interesting discussion. If we are reffing to conventions that are not in the Law book, what are those conventions...

OB..
21-11-15, 11:11
Which is exactly what makes it an interesting discussion. If we are reffing to conventions that are not in the Law book, what are those conventions...I hear that sort of question at just about every pre-match briefing: "Sir, when is the ball out of a ruck?" Players ask because it happens a lot, and they get different answers.

This particular incident is much rarer, and so far nobody has ever raised it.

Perhaps there are 2 general principles:
(1) a genuine support runner does not have to get out of the way of a would-be tackler
(2) if the referee thinks the support runner has deliberately moved to block rather than support, he should penalise him.

In other words, it is for the referee to judge.

RobLev
21-11-15, 22:11
Some still pictures:

Start of the run - 1½-2m behind:

3348

Approaching the 22 - approaching tackler seen - 1m behind:

3349

Tackler closing - virtually level:

3350

Just before contact - marginally (and I mean only marginally) ahead:

3351

RobLev
21-11-15, 22:11
So, ian:

Your animated .gif of the long shot demonstrated that the tackler could not have gone around the support runner.

You accept that running alongside your ball carrier is not the place to be to take a pass/offload:


All he needs to do is be in that position AT THE TIME THE PASS, OFFLOAD OR TACKLE IS MADE, and it only takes a single check step for a player who is running beside his ball carrier to achieve that.

and you ignore the fact that being tackled does slow you down (or the tackler isn't doing it right), so the support runner you had alongside you is now a couple of metres ahead and struggling to get back to take an off-load.


And the sequence of stills I have posted shows that the support runner was moving up from a good position to take a pass/offload from the time the would-be tackler was in view.

TBH, whether he was level or marginally ahead makes little difference - in either position, he wasn't going to take a pass/offload if the BC was tackled.

I entirely agree that the tackler steps off his left foot to push the support runner out of the way - but given the size differential, don't see this as relevant to the price of fish.

I agree with the summaries of OB, crossref, Blackberry and paule of the principles to be applied. You don't. We also disagree over what exactly happened - but that is a subsidiary issue.

Ian_Cook
21-11-15, 23:11
Some still pictures:

Start of the run - 1½-2m behind:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3348&stc=1

Approaching the 22 - approaching tackler seen - 1m behind:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3349&stc=1

Tackler closing - virtually level:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3350&stc=1

Just before contact - marginally (and I mean only marginally) ahead:

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3351&stc=1

Still pictures can be cherry picked

Moving pictures tell the real story


So, ian:

Your animated .gif of the long shot demonstrated that the tackler could not have gone around the support runner.

No, quite the opposite. I believe it demonstrates that he could have. Had he not changed direction to push the support runner, he may have been able to pass in front of him, and at least attempted to tackle or ankle tap the ball carrier. If you watch the front on video, the ball carrier's right foot gets very close to the touch line, so it may not have taken much to get him to step over. Also, by running in front of the support player, he might have prompted that player to play him, and that WOULD be a PK.


You accept that running alongside your ball carrier is not the place to be to take a pass/offload:

No I do not, because, the last time I looked, flat passes were still legal!


and you ignore the fact that being tackled does slow you down (or the tackler isn't doing it right) so the support runner you had alongside you is now a couple of metres ahead and struggling to get back to take an off-load.

No. I do not ignore that, because your "fact" is, quite simply not relevant.... read on


And the sequence of stills I have posted shows that the support runner was moving up from a good position to take a pass/offload from the time the would-be tackler was in view.

TBH, whether he was level or marginally ahead makes little difference - in either position, he wasn't going to take a pass/offload if the BC was tackled.

I disagree entirely with this.

Being a person who enjoys watching and analysing the game, I recognise that a player will be able to see that a tackle is about to be made, and a possible offload is about the be thrown, and will slow down in anticipation of that happening.


I entirely agree that the tackler steps off his left foot to push the support runner out of the way - but given the size differential, don't see this as relevant to the price of fish.

Its the only C&O offence committed! Its not irrlevant!



I agree with the summaries of OB, crossref, Blackberry and paule of the principles to be applied. You don't.

I agree with OB and Blackberry

I do not agree with crossref



We also disagree over what exactly happened - but that is a subsidiary issue.

I see the video evidence and understand what actually happened.

RobLev
22-11-15, 00:11
Still pictures can be cherry picked

Of course. But if the objective is to show relative positions at specific moments in a passage of play, stills are the way to go.


Moving pictures tell the real story

Selection of start- and end-points of sequences can distort.


No, quite the opposite. I believe it demonstrates that he could have. Had he not changed direction to push the support runner, he may have been able to pass in front of him, and at least attempted to tackle or ankle tap the ball carrier. If you watch the front on video, the ball carrier's right foot gets very close to the touch line, so it may not have taken much to get him to step over. Also, by running in front of the support player, he might have prompted that player to play him, and that WOULD be a PK.

We aren't going to agree on this. The tackler had c4m to go laterally, and on your view could have overtaken the support player and go across in front of him. Conservatively, he's got to make 10m more than the BC; and they're less distance than that from the line. You're arguing that the tackler could have run twice as fast as the BC, and even more than that than the support runner.


No I do not, because, the last time I looked, flat passes were still legal!

On your quoted words, the support player would have had to put in a check step to get into a position to take a pass/offload. Read your own words.


...

Being a person who enjoys watching and analysing the game, I recognise that a player will be able to see that a tackle is about to be made, and a possible offload is about the be thrown, and will slow down in anticipation of that happening.

...whereas a player who knows that he is doing will be runnigng a meter or two back so he can accelerate onto the offload, rather than slowing down into it, and being caught by the cover defence.


Its the only C&O offence committed! Its not irrlevant!

Do keep up; the issue is whether the "change of direction" is relevant.


I agree with OB and Blackberry

Then you agree with me that "a support player, without deviating from his line, [would] be liable to penalty if they speed up or slowed down, and blocked a tackler?" That isn't what you've been saying to me before, and that has the only point of contention (on principle) between us.


I do not agree with crossref

Since crossref agrees with Blackberry, with whom you agree, I'm not quite sure how this works.


I see the video evidence and understand what actually happened.

Then why pretend to the contrary? :biggrin:

crossref
22-11-15, 01:11
In fact I wasn't really focused on that particular incident, what I think is interesting is to try and tease out what are the principles here.

Ian, I think your analysis is terrible, tbh.
IMO that particular incident was not a PK, but if I was to follow the logic in everything Ian writes, it would poibt to the opposite!

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 02:11
Selection of start- and end-points of sequences can distort.

The start and end points were selected to encompass all of the time during which you claim that the support runner was at some point in front of the ball carrier, and as has been clearly demonstrated, that never actually happened. The time outside of the start and end points wasn't relevant because you were making no claims about what happened there.


We aren't going to agree on this. The tackler had c4m to go laterally, and on your view could have overtaken the support player and go across in front of him. Conservatively, he's got to make 10m more than the BC; and they're less distance than that from the line. You're arguing that the tackler could have run twice as fast as the BC, and even more than that than the support runner.

Nonetheless, I would at least expect him to try in case he can prompt an infringement from the support runner. Simply pushing the support runner is not acceptable in my view, though I am beginning to understand that it might be acceptable in yours.

We are two people looking at the same video and seeing something different., This happens all the time. I am not changing my view on what I saw, and you will not be changing yours, apparently. So be it.


On your quoted words, the support player would have had to put in a check step to get into a position to take a pass/offload. Read your own words.

When you quote someone, please do so in good faith and not snip out the inconvenient bits that change the meaning of what was quoted so that you can then argue against the out of context part of the quote. This is called "The Fallacy of Quote Mining"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

"Quote mining (also contextomy) is the fallacious tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint or to make the comments of an opponent seem more extreme or hold positions they don't in order to make their positions easier to refute or demonize. It's a way of lying."

What I said was


Absolutely right, and despite what Roblev and crossref have been saying, the support runner does not have to stay in, or maintain some fixed, relative position to the ball carrier to always be in a position to receive a non-forward pass or offload, or to go into a tackle through the gate. All he needs to do is be in that position AT THE TIME THE PASS, OFFLOAD OR TACKLE IS MADE, and it only takes a single check step for a player who is running beside his ball carrier to achieve that.

It seems so blindingly obvious to me that a support runner in that position would need to slow down to enter a tackle through the gate or take an offload given in a tackle, that I didn't need to state it. I'll know better next time, I will state everything to the nth degree so that you don't need to use any comprehension skills.

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.


...whereas a player who knows what he is doing will be running a meter or two back so he can accelerate onto the offload, rather than slowing down into it, and being caught by the cover defence.

That is not a technique I will be coaching my lads anytime soon. "Go hard, go fast, make sure you keep up... when you are running near flat out, slowing down is easy, speeding up is hard!


Do keep up; the issue is whether the "change of direction" is relevant.

I have, and it is.


Then you agree with me that "a support player, without deviating from his line, [would] be liable to penalty if they speed up or slowed down, and blocked a tackler?"

If I thought he intentionally did so for the sole purpose of blocking the tackler, then yes.

Since I think Thomstone's primary intent was to support his ball carrier, IMO, he committed no infringement.


That isn't what you've been saying to me before, and that has the only point of contention (on principle) between us.

Err, I think you might want to go back and have another look at Post #51 (http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19363-Obstruction-Article-in-SAReferees&p=308105&viewfull=1#post308105)


"10.1 (c) applies when a player intentionally gets between the ball carrier and a tackler for the express purpose of preventing the ball carrier being tackled. This happens when a player deliberately changes his position or changes his running line to get into a position to prevent the ball carrier being tackled. Thomstone did neither of these. He started on a running line that did not block any tacklers, and he continued on that same line without ever changing direction or speed, all the way until he was illegally pushed in the back."

From the 22m line onwards, when Thomstone drew level with the ball carrier, he stayed at the same speed, and in the same relative position.


Since crossref agrees with Blackberry, with whom you agree, I'm not quite sure how this works.


OK, can I wind this thread up?
A player's right to run a genuine support line trumps any obligation on him to move so a tackler can take his space.

This is what I agree with


The whole point of the article was a Law Discussion to explain why this incident wasn't a PK. They obviously thought it interesting question
They then discussed 10.1b (obviously doesn't apply) but not 10.1c (much more difficult to explain why it doesn't apply)

This is what I disagree with. It is easy to explain why it doesn't apply,

It doesn't apply because none of what Thomstone did was an infringement under that Law.


Then why pretend to the contrary? :biggrin:

I'm not

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 02:11
Have to say Ian is bang on, I have never read such utter rubbish written, there are people writing on this thread who very clearly do not understand the game !!! any new referee reading some of the posts would be lead down the wrong path!


Ian, I think your analysis is terrible, tbh.
IMO that particular incident was not a PK, but if I was to follow the logic in everything Ian writes, it would point to the opposite!

Two referees look at the same analysis and come to polar opposite views about its quality and veracity. Nothing new there then!

All I can say is that Rugby Union is a complex game to play, referee and understand. Some people play, referee and understand it differently from others!!

winchesterref
22-11-15, 08:11
I've just read this whole thread and wished I hadn't

Obstruction? Not a tap tackle? Blimey.

winchesterref
22-11-15, 08:11
To contribute:
For me, "intention" denotes primary motivation.

If the player's primary motivation appears to be to block a defender rather than offer support, then it's a whole different scenario to a legitimate support line.

RobLev
22-11-15, 16:11
...

When you quote someone, please do so in good faith and not snip out the inconvenient bits that change the meaning of what was quoted so that you can then argue against the out of context part of the quote....

I know all about quotemining - I spent years on talk.origins, where that was some creationists' sole MO. If I changed the meaning of what you said, I apologise. I cannot see how you can read the full quote, however, and not come to the conclusion that you felt that running alongside the ball-carrier, and slowing down to take the offload/pass was a sensible tactic - particularly given your subsequent remarks:


It seems so blindingly obvious to me that a support runner in that position would need to slow down to enter a tackle through the gate or take an offload given in a tackle, that I didn't need to state it. I'll know better next time, I will state everything to the nth degree so that you don't need to use any comprehension skills.

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...


That is not a technique I will be coaching my lads anytime soon. "Go hard, go fast, make sure you keep up... when you are running near flat out, slowing down is easy, speeding up is hard!

Tell SBW and Fekitoa (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emAXAtGfc9g). Two offloads, both taken running at pace from several metres back from the ball-carrier. Or try this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqLOm67fdqc); or there's a few more here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv4NNmqa4II).

RobLev
22-11-15, 17:11
I've just read this whole thread and wished I hadn't

Obstruction? Not a tap tackle? Blimey.

A tap tackle using the hand to the ankle of the ball-carrier is, if one were to be pedantic, an infringement under two separate laws - 10.4(a) and 10.4(g). But it is permitted, and that si generally agreed to be "a good thing". On the other hand, a tackle using the shoulder to the knee, with no wrap, will not be excused, and will be visited with a PK and possible YC/RC depending on the angle at which the tackler arrives (a front-on shoulder to the standing kneecap should be an instant RC).

Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 18:11
If the support is running two metres away means that the "flat" pass has to go forward out of the hand...

That is patently and obviously wrong. A flat pass is flat, or it wouldn't be called flat


Tell SBW and Fekitoa (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emAXAtGfc9g). Two offloads, both taken running at pace from several metres back from the ball-carrier. Or try this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqLOm67fdqc); or there's a few more here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv4NNmqa4II).

Cherry picking a few examples is not convincing. If I want to spend the next few hours trawling though youtube videos I am sure I will find some that support my view.

crossref
22-11-15, 18:11
Ian, this is where I disagree with you



Since I think Thomstone's primary intent was to support his ball carrier, IMO, he committed no infringement"

In my view his primary purpose was indeed to block the tackler.... But I still don't think it was a PK. Because it was pretty much a credible support line.

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 18:11
A tap tackle using the hand to the ankle of the ball-carrier is, if one were to be pedantic, an infringement under two separate laws - 10.4(a) and 10.4(g). But it is permitted, and that si generally agreed to be "a good thing".

On the other hand, a tackle using the shoulder to the knee, with no wrap, will not be excused, and will be visited with a PK and possible YC/RC depending on the angle at which the tackler arrives (a front-on shoulder to the standing kneecap should be an instant RC).

Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?

You really are clutching at straws now aren't you?

You really believe that Barrett's tap tackle...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAWlsblxNE

....was a PK under foul play Laws, yet three elite referees saw it clearly, saw nothing wrong and said nothing. How do you explain that?

Roblev, you apparently have a lawyer's view of the game. You have posted some real off the wall stuff in this thread. Frankly, some of it is so completely wrong on its face, and so far out of left field that I have to wonder if you are just on the wind up.

However, this one on the tap tackle really takes the piss. I do wonder how much your intransigent denial of the obvious confuses new referees who are here looking for guidance.

Nothing personal here, but all I can say is thank heavens that (by your own admission) you are not a referee. I would warn new referees not to take any notice of your your unique and overly legalistic interpretations of the Laws of the Game which IMO, serve to show a complete lack of understanding and empathy for how the game is played.

Rushforth
22-11-15, 19:11
You really are clutching at straws now aren't you?

Nothing personal here, but all I can say is thank heavens that (by your own admission) you are not a referee. I would warn new referees not to take any notice of your your unique and overly legalistic interpretations of the Laws of the Game which IMO, serve to show a complete lack of understanding and empathy for how the game is played.

Ian, just before the RWC we were asked to be less adversarial by Mr. Burns. I haven't invested anything in this thread, but my investment in these forums is very much in "new referees" (I remain one myself).

The vast majority of your contributions here are widely valued by all of us, but using terms such as "clutching at straws", "off-the-wall" (hyphens added), "wind up", "takes the piss" are far more likely to scare off new referees looking for guidance than simply "being wrong" ever will be.

As a player I was legalistic myself. I doubt I am unique in that respect. As a referee, I find the laws an encumberance if both sides actually just want to play according to their best understanding of them. But knowing the full legalistic details is a worthwhile exercise for forums which is not deserving of personal (yes it was) insult.

RobLev
22-11-15, 19:11
That is patently and obviously wrong. A flat pass is flat, or it wouldn't be called flat

You used the term to mean a pass from the ball-carrier to a team-mate who is running level with him; because of air-resistance, such a pass would have to go forward out of the hand.

A flat pass, however, starting East-West (or vice versa) out of the hand (but going forward because of his momentum) would normally be taken by a team-mate that started behind level with the ball-carrier.


Cherry picking a few examples is not convincing. If I want to spend the next few hours trawling though youtube videos I am sure I will find some that support my view.

Cherry-picking? The compilation video is just that - the off-load tries from the first week of the RWC 2015. I assume it's all of them - I didn't actually watch it all the way through before linking it. There are though a couple where the receiver is fairly close to level with the BC - generally where the move wasn't set up.

The Fekitoa and SBW off-loads, however, illustrate the advantage of not starting level with your BC if you want to take an off-load.

Can you remember an off-load try scored by a player who was running level with the ball-carrier as the tackle came in during this last RWC?

RobLev
22-11-15, 19:11
Ian

Your answer to this:


Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?

is?

Barrett's tackle was a PK under foul-play law applied to the letter - all tap-tackles are. They are however given a degree of latitude, in that the classic example - hand to ankle - is permitted. Whether Barrett's tackle should benefit from that latitude is a matter of judgment for the individual referee; but it's fair to say that executed by a player from a Tier 2 or 3 nation (see other threads on this topic) it might well have been PK'd.

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 19:11
Ian, this is where I disagree with you

In my view his primary purpose was indeed to block the tackler.... But I still don't think it was a PK. Because it was pretty much a credible support line.

Let me see if I can get you to where I am coming from; one step at a time. Look again at this clip

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF3.gif

Look at the point where I have first paused the video (both Green players side by side on the 22m line).

1. Do you think the support runner (Thomstone) is blocking the tackler at this point? (I need a "Yes" or "No" answer, no explanations or qualifications) - if your answer is "yes" then don't bother reading the rest of the post, because there is no way to convince you otherwise.

2. Did Thomstone do anything (change speed or direction) in order to change his primary objective from supporting his ball carrier to blocking the tackler? (if so, when did he do that?)?

3. Do you believe that Thomstone was obligated to move out of the way to give the opponent access to his ball carrier?

If you answer "no" to all three questions then you agree with me.... that at the very least, his primary objective was support runner. He was not blocking the tackler at the 22m and he does nothing subsequetly to change that (no additional change in position, direction or speed) and he doesn't have to get out of the way.

RobLev
22-11-15, 19:11
Ian:

Would you agree with this:


Support players
We’ve already noted above that the ball carrier should not deliver the pass unless a call is heard, which is obviously a key task for the supporter. Another critical aspect, however, is the positioning of the supporter. Support players looking to receive an offload must come from depth. Support players who are too lateral can create the following problems:

1. Their lateral positioning is too far away creating further pressure on the already difficult pass
2. If the ball carrier is unable to deliver the pass and is tackled, then the supporter is in no position to be able to cleanout and secure possession at the breakdown.

By supporting narrow and in depth, the supporter increases his effectiveness in being able to either receive the offload, hammer on, or clean out.

This is from here (http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/18/Files/Coaching/Level3Papers/Offloading%20-%20Dave%20Enfantie%202011.pdf). It's not the only resource on the Web stressing that a supporting player should come from depth onto the off-load. Do you really want to carry on arguing to the contrary just to win an argument on the Internet with someone you don't even know?

RobLev
22-11-15, 19:11
Let me see if I can get you to where I am coming from; one step at a time. Look again at this clip

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/RugbyRefs/LTvSF3.gif

Look at the point where I have first paused the video (both Green players side by side on the 22m line).

1. Do you think the support runner (Thomstone) is blocking the tackler at this point? (I need a "Yes" or "No" answer, no explanations or qualifications) - if your answer is "yes" then don't bother reading the rest of the post, because there is no way to convince you otherwise.

2. Did Thomstone do anything (change speed or direction) in order to change his primary objective from supporting his ball carrier to blocking the tackler? (if so, when did he do that?)?

3. Do you believe that Thomstone was obligated to move out of the way to give the opponent access to his ball carrier?

If you answer "no" to all three questions then you agree with me.... that at the very least, his primary objective was support runner. He was not blocking the tackler at the 22m and he does nothing subsequetly to change that (no additional change in position, direction or speed) and he doesn't have to get out of the way.

This is where my first still is relevant. Thomstone spotted the danger outside the 22 (if you look at the sequence from which that still was taken you can even see him looking at the cover-tackler)and moved up alongside before they even reached the 22.

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 19:11
The vast majority of your contributions here are widely valued by all of us, but using terms such as "clutching at straws", "off-the-wall" (hyphens added), "wind up", "takes the piss" are far more likely to scare off new referees looking for guidance than simply "being wrong" ever will be.

So, you don't like colourful metaphors? Your choice I suppose.

I'll tell you what, I'll rephrase it for you


You really are wrong?

You really believe that Barrett's tap tackle...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDAWlsblxNE

....was a PK under foul play Laws, yet three elite referees saw it clearly, saw nothing wrong and said nothing. How do you explain that?

Roblev, you apparently have a lawyer's view of the game. You have posted some incorrect stuff in this thread. Frankly, some of it is so completely wrong on its face, and so unusual that I have to wonder if you are just having me on.

However, this one on the tap tackle is wrong. I do wonder how much your intransigent denial of the obvious confuses new referees who are here looking for guidance.

Nothing personal here, but all I can say is thank heavens that (by your own admission) you are not a referee. I would warn new referees not to take any notice of your your unique and overly legalistic interpretations of the Laws of the Game which IMO, serve to show a complete lack of understanding and empathy for how the game is played.

Its a bit bland for my liking, and it would be a pretty boring world if we all talked like that.


As a player I was legalistic myself. I doubt I am unique in that respect. As a referee, I find the laws an encumberance if both sides actually just want to play according to their best understanding of them. But knowing the full legalistic details is a worthwhile exercise for forums which is not deserving of personal (yes it was) insult.

Knowing the full legalistic details is fine; suggesting that referees apply them in that manner is not.

This forum should be about educating referees how to interpret the Laws to let a game take place, not a legalese pissing contest to show how we can impart clever spins to the wording of the Law to show off how smart we are.

Throughout this thread I have done nothing but express my views on how I believe this Law has been interpreted in the past, how it should be interpreted in the future, and how this incident was ruled on correctly by the match officials. The vast majority have agreed with that view, but a small number have tried to bog it down in a legalistic mire of strict Law interpretations. I get cross when I see this, and yes, I jump down peoples throats from time to time. I call BS when I see it.

BTW: Saying someone's post is BS refers to the post not the poster; it is attacking the argument NOT the arguer.

OB..
22-11-15, 20:11
A tap tackle using the hand to the ankle of the ball-carrier is, if one were to be pedantic, an infringement under two separate laws - 10.4(a) and 10.4(g). But it is permitted, and that si generally agreed to be "a good thing". On the other hand, a tackle using the shoulder to the knee, with no wrap, will not be excused, and will be visited with a PK and possible YC/RC depending on the angle at which the tackler arrives (a front-on shoulder to the standing kneecap should be an instant RC). I presum all referees would agree.


Where on the spectrum between those extremes an elbow to the upper shin lies is a matter of judgment - but is it so obviously a legitimate tap tackle that the contrary view can be dismissed out of hand?As I see it the distinction is that driving with the shoulder is in itself likely to cause damage, whereas tap tackles merely cause a player to fall. Any subsequent injury would be indirect.

Rushforth
22-11-15, 20:11
This forum should be about educating referees how to interpret the Laws to let a game take place, not a legalese pissing contest to show how we can impart clever spins to the wording of the Law to show off how smart we are.

In that case, please stop engaging in legalistic pissing contests to show how smart you (think you) are. As a moderator, please be seen to avoid them rather than to add fuel to the fire.

As a ... victim ... of your debating style, I too can call it when I see it, and your previous post was bullying and unsportsmanlike (both of which I doubt you are with people you know personally).

Stop being proud of your "ability" to call a spade a spade, because it makes you look like a dick.

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 20:11
Ian:

Would you agree with this:

I would in general, for midfield support with players on both sides close to the ball (probably 99% of the scenarios). However, would I still apply it in a line-break and sprint situation when defending players are sprinting to catch up, with no defenders directly ahead of the ball carrier? Definitely not!

All of the offloads you showed in your videos were cases where the ball carrier was nowhere near full speed and in midfield with defenders all around. None of them were in this line-break & sprint situation with a ball carrier running flat out. If the support runner is also running flat out, and is running behind, he has no capacity for further acceleration.

I maintain that Thomstone ran a valid support line, and one that I would coach any player to emulate in that situation; supporting a sprinting ball carrier over a distance.

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 20:11
In that case, please stop engaging in legalistic pissing contests to show how smart you (think you) are. As a moderator, please be seen to avoid them rather than to add fuel to the fire.

So, I should just let those posts go unchallenged if I disagree? Sorry, I won't do that!

OB..
22-11-15, 20:11
So, I should just let those posts go unchallenged if I disagree? Sorry, I won't do that!
Refereeing is an art rather than a science. That means it is frequently not possible to provide conclusive proof in support one particular view.

I think this case is a borderline one, where most of us say we would accept that running line. After 150+ posts I don't think we have advanced beyond that, nor are we likely to.

I think it is time to stop.

Ian_Cook
22-11-15, 20:11
Refereeing is an art rather than a science. That means it is frequently not possible to provide conclusive proof in support one particular view.

I think this case is a borderline one, where most of us say we would accept that running line. After 150+ posts I don't think we have advanced beyond that, nor are we likely to.

I think it is time to stop.

Fair enough, close it then?

ddjamo
22-11-15, 21:11
Fair enough, close it then?

Gladly