When do you call obstruction?

There have been a few incidents in international games which have divided opinion. Specifically, POC's tussle with Launchbury last weekend and Dylan Hartley's positioning during Farrell's autumn try against Australia.

Today, the Crusaders played the Blues and Colin Slade scored a try which the Blues clearly felt was the result of obstruction. It seemed that way to me at first sight but the referee so no reason to refer it, and the commentary says it "looked to be a very well-executed try".

You can see the passage of play from the 1:27 mark



Since none of us have a dog in this fight, so I was curious how supporters of our tournament's various nations see this. I think I'd be unhappy if it was scored against England next weekend, and slightly bashful if it was awarded to us.

(Incidentally, if you want to see a nice try from a restart, watch the video from around the 3:58 mark)

That's definite obstruction in my view,he runs straight into the 12 taking him out of the game and opening a gap for the fullback to run through.

Personally I would say this was definitely obstruction. More clearcut than the Farrell and O Connell one. He ran into the bloke and took him out.

Farrell try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzVUCbyH7Sk

Hartley gets in the way sure but the Australian could still make the tackle.

The O Connell incident. Personally I would have given that try too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv0l6niSTEk

That's fairly different to the POC and Hartley scenarios IMO. Neither were penalties, too marginal. This was practically a shoulder charge.

Obstruction is when the ref or linesmen see you.

Obstruction is where you (in an offside position), directly interfer with a defending player. As with all the laws of rugby they are applied within context to allow the game to flow.

So O'Connell WAS obstructing Launchbury as he was holding onto him off the ball in an offside position. But the ref would have judged it to have little/no impact and so lets it go (or missed it )

For Hartley, he was in an offside position (retreating from a previous ruck), however the TMO (and ref seeing the images) decided that Moore could have avoided him and Hartley wasn't directly obstructing.

Usually the key thing is whether the defender tried to get to the attacker with the ball but couldn't because the blocking player was in the way. This is where dummy runs can be dummy runs or crossing depending on whether they're bought or not. All depends on the refs interpretation which will vary from ref to ref and union to union (specific unions, competition unions, IRB all give instructions to the refs).

obvious obstruction….what is even more obvious is that the defences are shocking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUA_1BWdfx4

I know this incident was last year but was wondering if you think this is obstruction or not.

1:47

Henson runs into Tomkins and goes down like a sack of spuds. What do you think?

beshocked wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUA_1BWdfx4

I know this incident was last year but was wondering if you think this is obstruction or not.

1:47

Henson runs into Tomkins and goes down like a sack of spuds. What do you think?

Now you know why he went down so easily at that bar in Bath   

Notch! Doesn't this belong in the club section?

I posted this example in the international forum because I thought it would be worthwhile sampling views from all supporters ahead of the next round of internationals.

We had a contentious obstruction call in the autumn, which might have decided a test match, and another this last weekend, which had no impact on the eventual result. There could be an incident again in the final two weeks, so it seems worthwhile to try and set some kind of baseline with a example with no tribal associations.

As it turns out, this case hasn't really sparked debate because everyone seems to think it's clear obstruction. I thought it was too, but assumed some might disagree, given that the referee didn't refer it, and the commentator called it a well-executed try.

I'd like to think that if a move like this took place in the Six Nations, the referee would not award a try, and no supporters would have any grounds for complaint.

Rugby Fan wrote:I posted this example in the international forum because I thought it would be worthwhile sampling views from all supporters ahead of the next round of internationals.

We had a contentious obstruction call in the autumn, which might have decided a test match, and another this last weekend, which had no impact on the eventual result. There could be an incident again in the final two weeks, so it seems worthwhile to try and set some kind of baseline with a example with no tribal associations.

As it turns out, this case hasn't really sparked debate because everyone seems to think it's clear obstruction. I thought it was too, but assumed some might disagree, given that the referee didn't refer it, and the commentator called it a well-executed try.

I'd like to think that if a move like this took place in the Six Nations, the referee would not award a try, and no supporters would have any grounds for complaint.

Yep,
I did the same thing this week and the post was
Moved to club.

How often do you see McCaw bounced off twice in two minutes? I'm sure some will say "poor defense", however this is just individual brilliance on attack.

There is no obstruction in slade's try in my view

The paper here in NZ seems to think it was an obstruction

obvious obstruction given the pace and direction of the decoy runner. there was no way for the defender to avoid him, hence contact was initiated by the decoy runner, clearing a space for the try scorer.

cant really understand why the ref wouldnt refer it upstairs though. is a good argument for why each team gets 1 refer per half for things they feel the ref may have missed.

I think it was fine. Especially if Robshaw and Hartley's were not called. They were far more blatant in my opinion.

nganboy wrote:The paper here in NZ seems to think it was an obstruction

That's good to hear. It's obviously not a New Zealand blind spot, because the Blues players all knew what was wrong. The referee was happy to refer a later try to check the grounding when there was never any doubt it was a good score. You can only assume he just wasn't following the play and the assistant on that side was looking elsewhere.

Referees don't necessarily want to be seen to be responding to team appeals. It slows the game down and encourages players to keep nagging the officials. This seems to be one case where it would have paid dividends.

I suppose it's also true that an obstruction can make a planned set piece move look very slick because it opens up a hole the defenders think they have covered. I'm not convinced that a TMO review would have disallowed Kearney's try last weekend, but POC was only tussling with Launchbury because he knew what move had been called, and knew it would be useful to distract the English defence.

Well everyone can have an opinion, but only the referee is "correct". In this case I also agree with him. The attack is very flat and the defender takes the wrong man. I'm not sure he's even ahead of the ball carrier in which case there's no case to answer.  He can run whatever line he wants.

The pass is just released when contact is made so I think it's just a great attacking move.

I tell you what though, the blues flanker on the blind side has unbound before the scrum is complete, (is it luatua?) so the whole play should've been under advantage to the crusaders anyway.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well everyone can have an opinion, but only the referee is "correct". In this case I also agree with him. The attack is very flat and the defender takes the wrong man. I'm not sure he's even ahead of the ball carrier in which case there's no case to answer.  He can run whatever line he wants.

The pass is just released when contact is made so I think it's just a great attacking move.

so are you saying that farrell's try was "correctly" given by the referee then? bit of a change of tune when it's england profiting...  

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well everyone can have an opinion, but only the referee is "correct". In this case I also agree with him. The attack is very flat and the defender takes the wrong man. I'm not sure he's even ahead of the ball carrier in which case there's no case to answer.  He can run whatever line he wants.

The pass is just released when contact is made so I think it's just a great attacking move.

The ref will be relieved to hear it, GE.  He was waiting for your support

and that line about the wrong man................... wonderful.

Rugby Fan wrote:There have been a few incidents in international games which have divided opinion. Specifically, POC's tussle with Launchbury last weekend and Dylan Hartley's positioning during Farrell's autumn try against Australia.

Today, the Crusaders played the Blues and Colin Slade scored a try which the Blues clearly felt was the result of obstruction. It seemed that way to me at first sight but the referee so no reason to refer it, and the commentary says it "looked to be a very well-executed try".

You can see the passage of play from the 1:27 mark



Since none of us have a dog in this fight, so I was curious how supporters of our tournament's various nations see this. I think I'd be unhappy if it was scored against England next weekend, and slightly bashful if it was awarded to us.

(Incidentally, if you want to see a nice try from a restart, watch the video from around the 3:58 mark)

Who says none of us had a dog in this fight?

The difference is that we deal with situations like this in a different way to a lot of others, Instead of bitching, whinging and moaning about it we do what is the only thing you can do... Usethe remainder of the game to score more tries than the other team.

From another perspective though, I think most on here only saw it from the angle of a camera, the referee would have seen it from quite a different angle and height.

Sure puts the Blues loss to the Highlanders inperspective. Theyre giving the Chiefs a good run- Chiefs just taken the lead with a Cruden sideline conversion...10 to go.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:There have been a few incidents in international games which have divided opinion. Specifically, POC's tussle with Launchbury last weekend and Dylan Hartley's positioning during Farrell's autumn try against Australia.

Today, the Crusaders played the Blues and Colin Slade scored a try which the Blues clearly felt was the result of obstruction. It seemed that way to me at first sight but the referee so no reason to refer it, and the commentary says it "looked to be a very well-executed try".

You can see the passage of play from the 1:27 mark



Since none of us have a dog in this fight, so I was curious how supporters of our tournament's various nations see this. I think I'd be unhappy if it was scored against England next weekend, and slightly bashful if it was awarded to us.

(Incidentally, if you want to see a nice try from a restart, watch the video from around the 3:58 mark)

 Who says none of us had a dog in this fight?

The difference is that we deal with  situations like this  in a different way to a lot of others, Instead of bitching, whinging and moaning about it we  do what is the only thing you can do... Usethe remainder of the game to score more tries than the other team.

From another perspective though, I think most on here only saw it from the angle of a camera, the referee would have seen it from quite a different angle and height.

I agree with Laurie that the ref would have seen it from another angle being on the pitch.  Though it seemed pretty obvious to Weepu.  However, since I was not on the pitch, it did appear on tv to be a pretty straight up obstruction, a well executed NFL style block.  I think with so many dummy runners these days, there is more appearance of obstruction than ever before.  So many times it is a thin line that I think is not enforced as much as it used to be.  

On the other hand Laurie, I don't see this as complaining, just a point of (Rugby) Law.  And a good one, methinks.

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Well everyone can have an opinion, but only the referee is "correct". In this case I also agree with him. The attack is very flat and the defender takes the wrong man. I'm not sure he's even ahead of the ball carrier in which case there's no case to answer.  He can run whatever line he wants.

The pass is just released when contact is made so I think it's just a great attacking move.

so are you saying that farrell's try was "correctly" given by the referee then? bit of a change of tune when it's england profiting...  

Nope, Farrell's try was utterly different. The play was far deeper and more static. Basically Hartley retreating from a ruck blind sides and knocks Moore over, and Farrell sees the gap and runs through it from 10 yards back.

In this całe the linę is flat and defender lateral. Totally different.

Hartley was running away from the defender how did he knock the defender over? Such a shame you have to do this!

It would definitely be inconsistent to call Farrell's try for obstruction while giving Slade's effort a pass.

We should have another example up shortly. The Waratahs have just had a try disallowed. In that case, the referee suspected something had happened and called for a review. He saw the replay himself and didn't wait for the TMO before disallowing it. There was a body check by a NSW player on a defender. Not as obvious as the Crusaders case, but it opened up a big hole.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hartley was running away from the defender how did he knock the defender over? Such a shame you have to do this!

If he was running away from him, they couldn't have collided !

Check your logic!

Such hypocrisy from GloriousEmpire.

So you now you change it from Hartley knocked someone over to they collided? Fair enough, I accept that. If we're truthful I think we all agree on this.

beshocked wrote:Such hypocrisy from GloriousEmpire.

Sigh. It's not hypocrisy. Not all potential obstructions are actual obstructions.

The Hartley case is blatant obstruction. The referee even agreed it was obstruction but bizarrely didn't think he needed to penalise it - this is only normalised if you consider the cluster of odd rulings and let offs that occurred at twickenham around that time.

The blues case is utterly different. The attack is fast and flat and the defender takes the wrong man.

Rubbish. GloriousEmpire it's your anti English/ one eyed thought process that gives you this opinion.

NZ players in your eyes can never be guilty of obstruction but the nasty English always do such things.

The crusaders try is far more blatant. As an Englishman you might think I would be hard done by O Connell. I wasn't. I felt the Farrell and Kearney tries were fair. In the Farrell case the ref adjudged the try to be awarded.

Debate the point, not the poster.

Hartley is well in front of the play and he deliberately takes put a defender - it occurs in slow motion.

The crusaders case is flat and high speed. The contact takes place as the ball is being released - at the time of the contact the players are aligned flat and the defensive line just collides with the attacking line - this happens all the time. No foul. It's the benefit of playing flat.

But GE, you say "the defender takes the wrong man"

That's presuming most fault lies with the defender.  The defender is active in 'taking' the wrong man.  Not passive as in simply 'colliding with' the wrong man.

The defender, it's clear from the video, didn't have a choice...he took what he got and that was the opposing player crashing straight into him and denying him the abilty to chase out and get the man that was in his sights (man with the actual ball)

There is nothing passive there, and nothing colliding innocently.  Watch it ten, fifteen or one hundred times - not a moral opinion but an observational one - the defender was obstructed - the result was the one planned - a try.

Defensively you have to pick your man quite early in that scenario.

As I've already pointed out, luatua (I think it is) unwinds from the scrum early anyway. So there was one too many men in the line as it was. The crusaders merely advance in formation and the blues number up incorrectly. They don't pick the move. That's why they conceded.

The defender in question is headed across with the defensive drift - he checks his run and lines up the attacker who collided with him. If he'd continued to drift and been taken out that would be different.

Definitely not an issue. The pass is made way before the collision takes place thus rendering the defender out of the reckoning. The defender never looked like attempting a tackle at any time.

Taking out the defender is okay in your books glorious empire?

Correct eg4ever - glad you can see it too.

Anyone still in doubt, pause at exactly 1:37 and tell me what the defender is doing.

"taking out" a defender happens frequently in any match. Rarely does it make the ref blow his acme thunderer.

englandglory4ever wrote:"taking out" a defender happens frequently in any match. Rarely does it make the ref blow his acme thunderer.

No...but not the point of this thread either. This is about the technicality. Was it obstruction by "taking out" the defender. It was...plain and simply, it was - and it was designed to be so. The moral of the tactic is probably for another thread - but the practicality is that the defender was "taken out"

The video started great and then it went quickly downhill after the second try.

What was this thread about?

Secret. Freeze frame at 1:37

McCaw has a broken thumb by the way and could be out for two months.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Secret. Freeze frame at 1:37

No.  
Pause at 1:38.  
The Canterbury Inside Centre clearly lines up his NFL style block on the defender (though his body position is a tad high).  Textbook downfield lead block.  And the running back - oops, I mean the fly half - cuts in behind his blocker and slips through the hole created by the lead blocker.  Just as any good NFL running back should do.

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The video started great and then it went quickly downhill after the second try.

What was this thread about?

This thread is about a game of rugby wherein the Mighty Auckland blues played a team from the South Island called Canterbury, the Canterbury team scored a try that in the eyes of many was questionable, but it didnt really matter because Auckland (Blues) scored so many other trys that it had no bearing on the outcome of the match.Do you want to know what the score was?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if The Crusaders scored another try using this same move in four months time when they play England?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

kiakahaaotearoa wrote:The video started great and then it went quickly downhill after the second try.

What was this thread about?

This thread is about a game of rugby wherein the Mighty Auckland blues played a team from the South Island called Canterbury, the Canterbury team scored a try that in the eyes of many was questionable, but it didnt really matter because Auckland (Blues) scored so many other trys that it had no bearing on the outcome of the match.Do you want to know what the score was?

  

doctor_grey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Secret. Freeze frame at 1:37

No.  
Pause at 1:38.  
The Canterbury Inside Centre clearly lines up his NFL style block on the defender (though his body position is a tad high).  Textbook downfield lead block.  And the running back - oops, I mean the fly half - cuts in behind his blocker and slips through the hole created by the lead blocker.  Just as any good NFL running back should do.

Ah you see - you are a second too late. Check the previous second. The defender who is drifting into Slade sees the runner coming. He checks his run and turns in toward him. He's committed to tackling the decoy. He sees the pass and then collides with the man he lined up.

He picks the wrong guy. No obstruction there.

Constantly amazed people still feed this barely disguised trolling zzzz