Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Isn't this obstruction?

      
  1. #1

    ELRA/Club Referee


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    08 Nov 18
    Posts
    177

    Default Isn't this obstruction?

    https://youtu.be/-KkwT1qPYX4?t=177

    I'm having trouble with this one. What I'm seeing here is 3 Bath players shearing off the original maul with the ball at the back of the formation. The Bath 17, one of the 2 players in front of the ball carrier engages/is engaged by a Wasps player who was not part of the original maul. The referee calls bound throughout which I assume is because the Bath 7 keeps his hand on the original maul until after the Wasps player is engaged. Even so, given the Wasps player never joined the original maul and the ball is at the back of the 3 player Bath break off team this looks like obstruction to me. Am I missing a nuance?

  2. #2

    Referees in Australia
    Dickie E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    VRRA
    Grade
    Level 2
    Join Date
    19 Jan 07
    Posts
    12,785

    Default Re: Isn't this obstruction?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jz558 View Post
    https://youtu.be/-KkwT1qPYX4?t=177

    I'm having trouble with this one. What I'm seeing here is 3 Bath players shearing off the original maul with the ball at the back of the formation. The Bath 17, one of the 2 players in front of the ball carrier engages/is engaged by a Wasps player who was not part of the original maul. The referee calls bound throughout which I assume is because the Bath 7 keeps his hand on the original maul until after the Wasps player is engaged. Even so, given the Wasps player never joined the original maul and the ball is at the back of the 3 player Bath break off team this looks like obstruction to me. Am I missing a nuance?
    you use the term "shearing off" and that is the critical issue. If the line that the "new" pod moves in is the same as the "old" pod, then it is the same maul irrespective of if a new defender engages.
    I, for one, like Roman numerals

  3. #3
    Rugby Club Member

    Soc/Assoc
    Cambridge and St Neots
    Grade
    I am a Fan
    Join Date
    08 Mar 11
    Posts
    1,443

    Default Re: Isn't this obstruction?

    No that is good rolling maul technique and has been permitted since the dawn of time. The Wasp defence needed to work harder to stay square and not be twisted out of the way.

  4. #4

    ELRA/Club Referee


    Soc/Assoc
    None
    Grade
    Select Grade
    Join Date
    08 Nov 18
    Posts
    177

    Default Re: Isn't this obstruction?

    Thanks for the replies. It just didnt look right in my head when I watched it and I guess I was over thinking it.

  5. #5

    Referees in England
    Phil E's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Staffordshire and Royal Navy
    Grade
    8
    Join Date
    22 Jan 08
    Posts
    15,023
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Isn't this obstruction?

    The front of the maul is turned by Wasps, but the defenders don't leave and rejoin at the front.
    As a consequence the original maul trundles on in the same line (the 3 players with the ball).

    Things to note here:
    All the wasps players effectively leaving the maul doesn't mean the maul is over. See law 16.16
    The three players don't leave and go forward on a new line, they just carry on forward and everyone in front of them moves out of their way.

    Follow my Award Winning blog The Rugby Ref


  6. #6

    Referees in England
    lawsons's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    London Society
    Grade
    Level 7
    Join Date
    26 Sep 05
    Posts
    246

    Default Re: Isn't this obstruction?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jz558 View Post
    https://youtu.be/-KkwT1qPYX4?t=177

    I'm having trouble with this one. What I'm seeing here is 3 Bath players shearing off the original maul with the ball at the back of the formation. The Bath 17, one of the 2 players in front of the ball carrier engages/is engaged by a Wasps player who was not part of the original maul. The referee calls bound throughout which I assume is because the Bath 7 keeps his hand on the original maul until after the Wasps player is engaged. Even so, given the Wasps player never joined the original maul and the ball is at the back of the 3 player Bath break off team this looks like obstruction to me. Am I missing a nuance?
    I think if you want to be pedantic you could argue the leading Bath player is offside as he is only bound by his hand when he engages the new Wasps player. Would be harsh and I didn’t see it in real time, so all good.

  7. #7

    Referees in England
    ctrainor's Avatar

    Soc/Assoc
    Cumbria Referees Society
    Grade
    7
    Join Date
    23 Jun 05
    Posts
    2,433

    Default Re: Isn't this obstruction?

    Bath try looks good, the following Wasps try in the link is clearly not the same maul.
    Too much of this going on for me at the top level.
    Top refs loudly shouting same maul regularly to justify not making a decision.
    Ciaran Trainor

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •