Mexican Stand Off

[didds]

If they advance or continue sideways until the ball leaves the lineout (and if advancing only the ball has to leave the LoT as no maul has formed) then we're in general play and defenders can cross the LoT and try to tackle ant any angle. Then you'd have obstruction from the players bound on the side or back.

So the team in possession were smart enough to keep it as a lineout but when stalemate happened they didn't have a plan B.

Gotcha Chris - that was the bit I was missing

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

didds

 

[ChrisR]

Gotcha Chris - that was the bit I was missing

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

didds

That's a real good point, didds.

- - - Updated - - -

Gotcha Chris - that was the bit I was missing

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

didds

That's a real good point, didds.

 

[menace]

I'd call out "ball is at front, no obstruction". This invites attacking team to move forward and/or defending team to tackle ball carrier.

If that fell on deaf ears, then "<attacking team>, use it!"

If that fell on deaf ears, scrum attacking team.

"Soul judge" ... love it

And there you have now disadvantaged a team by giving away their tactic.
Ill counsel players when they are breaking a law....not when theyre abiding by them.

soul / sole...all the same to me.
I am soul, you are sole! epper:epper:

 

[collybs]

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point... we wouldn't expect a ref to penalise a supporting runner whose normal support running position prevented a chasing defender from reaching a running ball carrier after all.

Law 9.3 in 2018 laws refers to all players whether offside or not.

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

Law 9.2 refers to offside players

9.2 An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.

 

[didds]

Law 9.3 in 2018 laws refers to all players whether offside or not.

so - just to clarify you'd ping a support player running in support of a ball carrier - like the below.? He's chosen to take up that support position to best support the ball carrier so is by definition intentionally there.

View attachment 3754

 

[OB..]

so - just to clarify you'd ping a support player running in support of a ball carrier - like the below.? He's chosen to take up that support position to best support the ball carrier so is by definition intentionally there.

View attachment 3754

If he was already there when the defender arrived, then he does not have to get out of the way. If he moved in order to prevent the defender getting to the ball carrier - PK. Often a judgement call.

 

[ChrisR]

So . . . what about the lifters who are bound to the player with the ball. Their intent is not to obstruct but they surely do. Is there 'accidental obstruction'?

Sounds like scrum time but who feeds?

 

[Taff]

... Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point...

Personally, I wouldn't penalise that. The support players have to be somewhere.

So . . . what about the lifters who are bound to the player with the ball. Their intent is not to obstruct but they surely do. Is there 'accidental obstruction'?

Good question Chris, but the intention was to set up a Maul and not block any possible tacklers. And if they didn't deliberately move into a blocking position the "intent" bit is missing, so I don't see why they would be penalised.

The same argument applies to guards at Rucks; they are onside but they are only there to protect their SH by making life more awkward for opposition players. We don't penalise those, and there is far more "intent" there than at this LO.

 

[didds]

If he was already there when the defender arrived, then he does not have to get out of the way. If he moved in order to prevent the defender getting to the ball carrier - PK. Often a judgement call.

I agree OB. I was intending to imply that it was a standard support line etc

didds

 

[didds]

So . . . what about the lifters who are bound to the player with the ball. Their intent is not to obstruct but they surely do. Is there 'accidental obstruction'?

Sounds like scrum time but who feeds?

I thought refs generally did watch for the "step betweeners" ? At lineout but also receiving kicks.

didds

 

[OB..]

Though whether they could claim obstruction by attempting to reach the ball "from the back" may be a moot point..

Once the ball has been caught, the offside line for those participating in the lineout runs through the ball, so players cannot run round and claim obstruction.

This remains the case while the lineout continues to exist.

However:[LAWS]18.37 Other than by moving to the receiver position if that position is empty, no player may leave the lineout until it has ended.[/LAWS]
"Leaving the lineout" is not defined and some people take a very restricted view. In this case at least one defender seems to have left the lineout by sliding behind a team-mate.

 

[ChrisR]

I'm not sure what the throwers are expecting outside of wanting the ops to join so they can drive. However with the ball at the front they can do that anyway. And the defenders? Are they just expecting the throwers to play the ball away?

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much if the defenders left the LoT as long as the stayed between the tramlines and the goal as there's no advantage to be gained by dropping back.