When do you call obstruction?

First topic message reminder :

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)

There is quite often 'obstruction' during moves (that is, players getting in each others way). The ref has to decide whether OBSTRUCTION (as laid out in the laws) has been committed.

We'll never get to the bottom of it anyway and I'm not going to claim I'm 100% right and posting 'The Truth'

Here's an obstruction call from a Currie Cup encounter. This seems to highlight the strength and weakness of TMO referrals. The obstruction call seems good, so the referee was right to suspect something illegal had occurred. On the other hand, it's hard not to feel a pang of sympathy as the commentator rambles about "too far back to influence play":



Officials will often refer things they catch out the corner of their eye. Sometime you wish they'd do the same for play right in front of them:

Biltong wrote:You have a point Doc, the Crusaders have another move where they can send as many as four runners up, spread to cover the whole midfield, then the ball carrier runs in behind them with one or two support runners that can move either way depending what the set move is.

Now this creates a total "blind spot" for the defending midfield. It is a rather effective move, I have seen other teams using it these days as well.

Now those employing it will say there is no intention to commit obstruction, it is merely a "move of deceipt"

The question is where does the skill in sidestepping, making a brilliant offload, breaking a tackle compare to deceipt?

Great point.  And in today's game, with more misdirection and dummy runners going all angles, it probably is harder to accurately referee obstruction.  To me, though, it is still a question if a defender is physically impeded from the ball carrier - whether the person in the way knows where the ball carrier is or not.  Or moves deliberately or not.  

I had not thought of that play by Canterbury until you mentioned it.  Using the dummy runners to block the view of the ball carrier.  Only takes a second to create a break.  Makes reffing harder and harder.  Glad I am not a ref.

I'm with Cyril on this. Like most of rugby it's subjective.

To me it seems the last two are pretty clear cut. Murray's try is particularly bad. The Currie was obstruction, but ref saw it and said play on and I guess the argument is it didn't directly relate to the try. in terms of the Crusaders try (I'm in the anti crusader camp), I tend towards the non obstruction interpretation. I think it's marginal either way. My take is that the defender had committed to the man cutting back. However, I can see the argument for obstruction. I also see the obstruction in England's try against Australia in November (I can understand the aguements that fans make against it).

On another note, all these things show why a single viewers analysis (even if they are an expert) of what a referee misses are suspect.

doctor_grey wrote:

Biltong wrote:You have a point Doc, the Crusaders have another move where they can send as many as four runners up, spread to cover the whole midfield, then the ball carrier runs in behind them with one or two support runners that can move either way depending what the set move is.

Now this creates a total "blind spot" for the defending midfield. It is a rather effective move, I have seen other teams using it these days as well.

Now those employing it will say there is no intention to commit obstruction, it is merely a "move of deceipt"

The question is where does the skill in sidestepping, making a brilliant offload, breaking a tackle compare to deceipt?

Great point.  And in today's game, with more misdirection and dummy runners going all angles, it probably is harder to accurately referee obstruction.  To me, though, it is still a question if a defender is physically impeded from the ball carrier - whether the person in the way knows where the ball carrier is or not.  Or moves deliberately or not.  

I had not thought of that play by Canterbury until you mentioned it.  Using the dummy runners to block the view of the ball carrier.  Only takes a second to create a break.  Makes reffing harder and harder.  Glad I am not a ref.

It's not just Canterbury. It's quite common. It's part of the planning and reaction that happens in rugby. In my view it's both an attacking tool and reaction to high speed, often illegal defensive lines. I think like all these things. It's a matter of how it's applied. if you have a flat line on attack and the defence targets the closest man and you pass to a secondary line is that actually obstruction (I don't think it is in terms of the laws and then applications (see the earlier posted guidance for referees).

Rugby Fan,
This has been a great topic.  And thanks for continuing to pump in more videos to illustrate the points and keep dialogue going.  These points of law are great subjects to discuss.  

That second video, the Scotland-Japan match was so much more than obstruction, I am not sure what it was!

doctor_grey wrote:Rugby Fan,
This has been a great topic.  And thanks for continuing to pump in more videos to illustrate the points and keep dialogue going.  These points of law are great subjects to discuss.  

That second video, the Scotland-Japan match was so much more than obstruction, I am not sure what it was!

Do you think it's cardable?

Yes, methinks. The first thought I had when I saw it a few minutes ago was to bin him, I don't know if it is cardable by law (or simply by common sense). He drove over the line before the ball came out and tackled the defender. Haven't seen that in a long, long time.

doctor_grey wrote:Yes, methinks.  The first thought I had when I saw it a few minutes ago was to bin him,  I don't know if it is cardable by law (or simply by common sense).  He drove over the line before the ball came out and tackled the defender.  Haven't seen that in a long, long time.

Pretty much my thoughts......

Watching that Brumbies obstruction call for their maul after a lineout, I remembered that some teams have recently tried countering a lineout maul by stepping away. You can see the Scarlets doing it during a match with Racing last year.



The idea is that if the defending team doesn't engage, then the attacking maul ends up exposed as a truck and trailer. In the case above, the referee didn't end up penalizing Racing, though I think I've seen them given.

One rugby referees forum thinks the Scarlets should have attempted to reach the ball carrier through the other Racing players to make the offence clear. Some there think the Scarlets player going round to tackle the ball carrier encouraged the referee to wave play on.

I haven't seen an international team try this tactic so it's difficult to know how officials might rule in a Test. The tactic might be too cute for a team to try it, or for a referee to want to reward it. It can look like the defending team is trying to milk a penalty rather than looking to compete.

Rugby Fan wrote:Watching that Brumbies obstruction call for their maul after a lineout, I remembered that some teams have recently tried countering a lineout maul by stepping away. You can see the Scarlets doing it during a match with Racing last year.



The idea is that if the defending team doesn't engage, then the attacking maul ends up exposed as a truck and trailer. In the case above, the referee didn't end up penalizing Racing, though I think I've seen them given.

One rugby referees forum thinks the Scarlets should have attempted to reach the ball carrier through the other Racing players to make the offence clear. Some there think the Scarlets player going round to tackle the ball carrier encouraged the referee to wave play on.

I haven't seen an international team try this tactic so it's difficult to know how officials might rule in a Test. The tactic might be too cute for a team to try it, or for a referee to want to reward it. It can look like the defending team is trying to milk a penalty rather than looking to compete.

Pretty sure the tactic started here a few years back. Point being a maul has to be initiated with the opposition. Otherwise it's just a flying wedge with players obstructing.

Definitely seen it before the problem is when the ref doesn't give the penalty and the attacking team basically gets a free run towards the line

Mauls should be brought down, the law needs to change, no matter how you see a maul, it is a form of obstruction that has been legalised, so at least give the defending team a fighting chance.

I you want to maul, it is your responsibility to keep it up.

Biltong wrote:Mauls should be brought down, the law needs to change, no matter how you see a maul, it is a form of obstruction that has been legalised, so at least give the defending team a fighting chance.

I you want to maul, it is your responsibility to keep it up.

While a maul can seem a bit 'over-protected' you need to remember there are safety aspects to be considered too. If sides are allowed to pull down mauls any which way it could be quite dangerous.

But yeah, defending sides are really up against it.

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Mauls should be brought down, the law needs to change, no matter how you see a maul, it is a form of obstruction that has been legalised, so at least give the defending team a fighting chance.

I you want to maul, it is your responsibility to keep it up.

While a maul can seem a bit 'over-protected' you need to remember there are safety aspects to be considered too. If sides are allowed to pull down mauls any which way it could be quite dangerous.

But yeah, defending sides are really up against it.

I have thought about that, and as much as I understand the IRB is looking after player welfare I have never seen an incident where a player got injured (apart from minor injuries you pick up anyway) badly at a maul.

If they cannot change the law in respect to mauls to give the defending team a sporting chance, then rather ban mauls completely. I know it sounds harsh, but mauls are in my view one of the least competitive aspects of rugby union.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Mauls should be brought down, the law needs to change, no matter how you see a maul, it is a form of obstruction that has been legalised, so at least give the defending team a fighting chance.

I you want to maul, it is your responsibility to keep it up.

While a maul can seem a bit 'over-protected' you need to remember there are safety aspects to be considered too. If sides are allowed to pull down mauls any which way it could be quite dangerous.

But yeah, defending sides are really up against it.

I have thought about that, and as much as I understand the IRB is looking after player welfare I have never seen an incident where a player got injured (apart from minor injuries you pick up anyway) badly at a maul.

If they cannot change the law in respect to mauls to give the defending team a sporting chance, then rather ban mauls completely. I know it sounds harsh, but mauls are in my view one of the least competitive aspects of rugby union.

I find the choke tackle similarly annoying (too much advantage for the defending side).

This all sounds like we're trying to do away with the Irish side's two main weapons

+1 on that biltong

They are frustrating to watch when your team is getting mauled off the park. Good call biltong, considering. On the H&S aspect, mauls get brought down all the time (for a cheap pen) and I've never seen an injury either. Maybe put a 5 sec time limit, or whatever, on the maul to get the ball out in play again otherwise it's a turnover.

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Mauls should be brought down, the law needs to change, no matter how you see a maul, it is a form of obstruction that has been legalised, so at least give the defending team a fighting chance.

I you want to maul, it is your responsibility to keep it up.

While a maul can seem a bit 'over-protected' you need to remember there are safety aspects to be considered too. If sides are allowed to pull down mauls any which way it could be quite dangerous.

But yeah, defending sides are really up against it.

I have thought about that, and as much as I understand the IRB is looking after player welfare I have never seen an incident where a player got injured (apart from minor injuries you pick up anyway) badly at a maul.

If they cannot change the law in respect to mauls to give the defending team a sporting chance, then rather ban mauls completely. I know it sounds harsh, but mauls are in my view one of the least competitive aspects of rugby union.

I find the choke tackle similarly annoying (too much advantage for the defending side).

This all sounds like we're trying to do away with the Irish side's two main weapons

I don't have any issues with the choke tackle, it starts as a normal tackle and there are no offsides, this means you can wrap yourself around the ball without any danger of being seen to be offside, once the maul is called you can't go offside but in this case the defence starts on equal footing with one tackler on one ball carrier with no intended obstruction being committed.

Totally different from a maul.

ebop wrote:+1 on that biltong

They are frustrating to watch when your team is getting mauled off the park. Good call biltong, considering. On the H&S aspect, mauls get brought down all the time (for a cheap pen) and I've never seen an injury either.  Maybe put a 5 sec time limit, or whatever, on the maul to get the ball out in play again otherwise it's a turnover.

Agree with that ebop.

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Biltong wrote:Mauls should be brought down, the law needs to change, no matter how you see a maul, it is a form of obstruction that has been legalised, so at least give the defending team a fighting chance.

I you want to maul, it is your responsibility to keep it up.

While a maul can seem a bit 'over-protected' you need to remember there are safety aspects to be considered too. If sides are allowed to pull down mauls any which way it could be quite dangerous.

But yeah, defending sides are really up against it.

I have thought about that, and as much as I understand the IRB is looking after player welfare I have never seen an incident where a player got injured (apart from minor injuries you pick up anyway) badly at a maul.

If they cannot change the law in respect to mauls to give the defending team a sporting chance, then rather ban mauls completely. I know it sounds harsh, but mauls are in my view one of the least competitive aspects of rugby union.

I find the choke tackle similarly annoying (too much advantage for the defending side).

This all sounds like we're trying to do away with the Irish side's two main weapons

I don't have any issues with the choke tackle, it starts as a normal tackle and there are no offsides, this means you can wrap yourself around the ball without any danger of being seen to be offside, once the maul is called you can't go offside but in this case the defence starts on equal footing with one tackler on one ball carrier with no intended obstruction being committed.

Totally different from a maul.

I think what i have issue is is when a choke tackle goes down not-one needs to roll away, so they all flop on the ball and the defending teams gets it. Maybe it should be the team going forward, or all players should roll away if it goes down.

As most choke tackles seem very close to high tackles anyway - maybe this should be stopped as well

Gents, I respectfully disagree about the maul.  Properly executed the maul is an excellent weapon, can gain ground and is perfect for launching an attack.  All a defending team has to do is stop it from moving forwards to gain possession.  No need to take it down or strip the ball.  I think the defense has a lot going for it here.  50% of making a maul work and 50% of stopping a maul is body position.  This means coaching.  We see poor body positions in mauls on both sides of the ball all the time at every level. I wouldn't change the laws because of this. I respectfully submit the coaches need to do a better job.

Now, to be fair, I am a Saints supporter, and we have possibly the best maul in the NH.  Very well drilled and usually well executed. So, I respectfully say I am biased on this issue!

Doc, SA is known for their mauling abilities, in fact looking at the Super XV teams, I can categorically state the NZ and OZ teams don't even come close.

However, when you look at the mauls, a well executed maul that gains momentum immediately is great, but those being halted I can tell you now that each and everyone of those becomes a truck and trailer.

Hence my condemnation of the current law.

I'm with Doctor Grey on this point as I think the maul is a useful and skilful attacking weapon. However, too often, the modern mauls is an organised battering ram with a loosely tethered ball carrier at the back. This is silly and refs should ping this truck and trailer approach.

I still believe that mauls have their place in the game, but in recent years I feel they have become uncompetitive because of the way players of the side in possession are allowed to "block" the ball carrier. It used to be that players had to bind onto the ball carrier from behind and when then take control of the ball. Now they slide their bind forward past the ball carrier, hence blocking the defenders, but the defenders are prevented from sliding (swimming) up the side of the maul in a similar way.

IMO mauls have been de-skilled because of this, no longer do we see true rolling mauls with the point of attack being shifted and the dragging in of defenders which created space. Conversely there is no real way to defend against a well set maul, whereas in previous times defenders would look for a weak point and attack this, especially if a rolling maul became loose.

I would agree that when the maul becomes truck and trailer the referees should be aggressive policing it.  Not a reason to allow bringing it down, just ref it right.  

Slow and sedate, I think a maul can be defended because all the defense has to do is stop it going forwards.  No need to get the ball or do anything else.  

I agree with you all that the maul has frequently devolved into truck and trailer.  Truck and trailer is a penalty offense and should be policed that way.  Not sure the laws need to be changed.  Since maul skills are generally poor, then I wonder if referees are skilled enough to recognise when it breaks down (though it appears pretty obvious to us).

Dr G the problem is that mauls seem to stop and start at random with it being up to the refs interpretation of when it has stopped. Many times a maul will stop, then get going again when more players have joined or rejoined only for it to collapse with a penalty being awarded. If only the IRB would go back to the old law of whoever is going forward gets the put in we may get proper mauls again.

Correct me if I am wrong, but at one time didn't referees regularly call to 'use it' when they feel the maul has stopped?  Which means get it out or lose possession. Don't hear it much.

It was interesting to see a couple of people wondering whether Scotland's Euan Murray should have been carded for the obstruction shown above. He tacked a defender from an off-side position, leading to a try through the gap.

I've actually never seen a player sin binned for deliberately obstructing a defender to help his side score a try. The only time I can recall seeing a yellow card for obstruction is when it's the defender who is judged to have prevented an attacker from attempting to score. Here's an example:



Marland Yarde was lucky not to see yellow for his obstruction against Australia in the autumn. In the end, he was only penalized.

Referees will send players to the sin bin for late tackles and body checks which prevent scoring chances. You don't see the same inclination when an attacker engages in skullduggery to create a scoring chance.

Take this well-known example of Nathan Hines holding Ulster players down:



The touch judge spots him, and he is penalized, but he was trying to help Clermont score a try which would have given them the lead.

There's probably something hardwired in our brains which has us lay more blame on a desperate defender rather than an over-eager attacker. Nevertheless, both kinds of offence are designed to influence the scoreboard illegally.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that all the attacking obstructions above are yellow card offences. Nathan Hines' intent is clear but it's much harder to judge whether a decoy runner play from a set piece deliberately sets out to obstruct, or if the execution is just a shade off.

Rugby Fan wrote:It was interesting to see a couple of people wondering whether Scotland's Euan Murray should have been carded for the obstruction shown above. He tacked a defender from an off-side position, leading to a try through the gap.

I've actually never seen a player sin binned for deliberately obstructing a defender to help his side score a try. The only time I can recall seeing a yellow card for obstruction is when it's the defender who is judged to have prevented an attacker from attempting to score. Here's an example:



Marland Yarde was lucky not to see yellow for his obstruction against Australia in the autumn. In the end, he was only penalized.

Referees will send players to the sin bin for late tackles and body checks which prevent scoring chances. You don't see the same inclination when an attacker engages in skullduggery to create a scoring chance.

Take this well-known example of Nathan Hines holding Ulster players down:



The touch judge spots him, and he is penalized, but he was trying to help Clermont score a try which would have given them the lead.

There's probably something hardwired in our brains which has us lay more blame on a desperate defender rather than an over-eager attacker. Nevertheless, both kinds of offence are designed to influence the scoreboard illegally.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that all the attacking obstructions above are yellow card offences. Nathan Hines' intent is clear but it's much harder to judge whether a decoy runner play from a set piece deliberately sets out to obstruct, or if the execution is just a shade off.

Rugby Fan, I couldn't get the videos to load, one message saying it was not available over here, the other just didn't work for some reason. If you can re-post somehow I would like to take a look. This is a great thread.

Regarding Murray taking out the defender, I thought he should be carded. The reason is he came across before the ball had even come out. He then tackled the defender, not simply obstruct. Not sure what to call it, but it was more than obstruction.

doctor_grey wrote:I couldn't get the videos to load, one message saying it was not available over here, the other just didn't work for some reason.  If you can re-post somehow I would like to take a look...

Here are the two links if you can get them to work for you by going direct

"Edoardo Gori Yellow Card for Obstruction, England v Italy, Rugby 10 March 2013"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Vs38K2lmA

"Nathan Hines showed how to hold three Ulster forwards on the floor"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8soVSySmqjI

Rugby Fan wrote:I'm not for a moment suggesting that all the attacking obstructions above are yellow card offences. Nathan Hines' intent is clear but it's much harder to judge whether a decoy runner play from a set piece deliberately sets out to obstruct, or if the execution is just a shade off.

I agree that it can be difficult to know if an obstruction is deliberate or not. I think whether it may be a simple penalty or a card depends could depend on the severity of the offense. To me, it is clear Murray should have been carded. Not sure about the original example with the Canterbury player. That was a clear penalty, but doubt it was a card.

Regarding Nathan Hines, I am utterly shocked - shocked, I say - that he would resort to any skulduggery on the pitch. Clear penalty, but should it have been worse because he committed essentially two penalties at the same time (holding two players at one time)? Do the laws differentiate between obstruction, which I take as being in the way, and holding a player?

blackcanelion wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Watching that Brumbies obstruction call for their maul after a lineout, I remembered that some teams have recently tried countering a lineout maul by stepping away. You can see the Scarlets doing it during a match with Racing last year.



The idea is that if the defending team doesn't engage, then the attacking maul ends up exposed as a truck and trailer. In the case above, the referee didn't end up penalizing Racing, though I think I've seen them given.

One rugby referees forum thinks the Scarlets should have attempted to reach the ball carrier through the other Racing players to make the offence clear. Some there think the Scarlets player going round to tackle the ball carrier encouraged the referee to wave play on.

I haven't seen an international team try this tactic so it's difficult to know how officials might rule in a Test. The tactic might be too cute for a team to try it, or for a referee to want to reward it. It can look like the defending team is trying to milk a penalty rather than looking to compete.

Pretty sure the tactic started here a few years back. Point being a maul has to be initiated with the opposition. Otherwise it's just a flying wedge with players obstructing.

Its been around a while, I remember the Italians doing it off lineouts a lot in about '06. The opposition werent getting penalised, just looking confused.

When do you call an obstruction? When you are a TMO in Italy and you need to cheat.

Controversial scratch, but I have to, as usual, agree with you.

A friend raised this passage of play as a possible obstruction call. It's Cuthbert's try in the first Lions Test.



Direct Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYAEs6oree4

I've selected the Australian commentary clip. Stuart Barnes on Sky was unequivocal there was no obstruction. Once Rod Kafer has a couple of looks however, you can hear him start to wonder how the TMO will see it. In the end, he's happy to see the try stand.

I hadn't even remembered that there was any doubt about that move. I suppose there are echoes of the disallowed Lions try in the first Test against South Africa in 2009. You can see it in the passage of play from around 29:40.



Direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFxBeQzRZ2o

Stuart Barnes calls that as clear obstruction on the commentary, and that's how I saw it. The match was moving at such a pace, though, that TV viewers didn't get a quick replay of the move.

After the event, however, I heard some maintain the move was good. The argument seemed to run that Byrne did not obstruct the defenders, they elected to tackle him. I would want that called as obstruction if it resulted in a try against my team.

I have to be honest, for me obstruction is any time a player takes a defender out that opens a gap for the ball carrier.

The problem once again is the interpretation of what is obstruction.

And that is going to differ from referee to referee.

If I was the referee I would have called obstruction for Cuthberts try, others would not.

The first vid, no obstruction, defender lines up attacker and they maintain the same line, no crossing. The 2nd honestly can't see it…what happened

I was talking to a professional referee who I can't name yesterday. He said it was fair for information to be in the public domain that after high profile incidences such as the Hartley/Farrell decision that clarification is issued to help bring better consistency across the decisions of some referees who's opinions and judgement may be divergent from what would normally be considered a fair and justifiable perspective.

Or words to that effect. Which is interesting on many level.

Cuthbert's try for the Lions now looks more like obstruction to me than Farrell's for England. It came from a set play so there was a clear intention to have a decoy runner. The question comes down to whether you think the attacking team got it right. I do wonder on occasion whether the aesthetics of a move have an influence on decisions.

What we do know is that four of the game's top officials ruled, with the benefit of review, that both tries were good.

I'm all in favour of more clarity and consistency in refereeing. Out of all the instances illustrated in this thread, the one I'd most like to be subjected to scrutiny is the Crusaders try against the Blues. It's not just the issue of the missed obstruction, it's the official's failure to call on the TMO.

If you are going to clarify decisions, then you really want cases which best illustrate a key point of law, not just "high profile" incidents. To do the latter would be another point of discrimination against international teams outside the top tier.

Scotland's match against Japan wasn't high profile but two international match officials missed Euan Murray's clearout. Japan might have reason to feel a bit aggrieved on the obstruction front. The commentators on the following clip feel there might have been something a bit fishy about the try. You get the impression they conclude "it's only Japan, they wouldn't have stopped the move anyway, so it doesn't matter".

Direct Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXwv2ifrAOM

Luatua detaches early before ball comes out. Clear offence and not ruled by ref. Not the first case a detached loosie isn't called by a ref.

When the referee runs an obstructing line, can he penalise himself?

Yellow card GE.

Nonu's biceps are a good case for obstruction. Geez Louise, they're bigger than most men's legs.

Jonathan Davies is adamant that Scotland's second try against France saw a defender being blocked. I'll post a video when a highlights clip appears.

was well spotted in real time by jiffy. doesnt look quite as clear as the crusaders one, but the ball carrier is very close behind the dummy runner.

quinsforever wrote:was well spotted in real time by jiffy. doesnt look quite as clear as the crusaders one, but the ball carrier is very close behind the dummy runner.

It's interesting to hear Jiffy suggest that the French defender should have been a bit more histrionic in his reaction to draw the referee's attention. I don't like to hear anyone call for more play acting.

However, France will be frustrated that Chris Pollock and his two touch judges didn't even think it was worth a TMO review.

EDIT: During halftime, both Andy Nicol and Ian McGeechan said the Franch defender should have thrown his hands in the air. Nicol called him naive, while Geech called it a learning experience.

Here's the clip from the RBS 6nations channel (no commentary)

Direct Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9lgHVc240w

Rugby Fan wrote:

quinsforever wrote:was well spotted in real time by jiffy. doesnt look quite as clear as the crusaders one, but the ball carrier is very close behind the dummy runner.

It's interesting to hear Jiffy suggest that the French defender should have been a bit more histrionic in his reaction to draw the referee's attention. I don't like to hear anyone call for more play acting.

However, France will be frustrated that Chris Pollock and his two touch judges didn't even think it was worth a TMO review.

EDIT: During halftime, both Andy Nicol and Ian McGeechan said the Franch defender should have thrown his hands in the air. Nicol called him naive, while Geech called it a learning experience.

The comments of the commentary team were Apalling.

hardly appalling. they weren't saying the french defenders should have cheated, just been a bit more obvious about having been impeded to make it easier for the ref to refer to the TMO.

frankly i think refs need to be given clear guidance that all dummy runner moves resulting in a try get referred to the TMO for review. it's not possible for the referee in the middle of the action to see everything in realtime speed. the crusaders is an even more obvious example. not a chance that would have been allowed on referral.

still, obstruction is not as much of a problem as the scrums. awful in the second half sco v fra. and the ref seemed fairly clueless. i thought pollock was exceptionally consistent elsewhere, but the scrums were a lottery.

Scotlands try can't be compared to the Crusaders effort, theres no obstruction whatsoever, he's not impeded the tackler in any way!

ok thanks for that value added. appreciate you setting everyone straight on the matter.

however it is interesting that when things get referred to the TMO, dummy runners colliding with the nearest tackler of the ball carrier, if the ball carrier is right behind, usually get given as obstruction.