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)

GloriousEmpire wrote:

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.

Incorrect.
The defender is watching the ball carrier. The blocker eyes up the defender and executes his block to perfection.

This video for the Waratahs game doesn't give a good view of the play I mentioned earlier. I forgot that highlights clips don't always feature disallowed tries.

Nevertheless, you can get a glimpse of it at exactly 5:34. It's not as clear an offence as the Crusaders move, but the Queensland defender, Horwill, was bodychecked out of the way to create a hole.

The referee knew immediately something had happened, and took only one look at a replay before disallowing it.

That was a good call. I saw it early this morning. I am not sure the blocker in this case could have gotten out of the way, so probably not intentional. Certainly did not go out looking for someone to block. But intentional or not, obstruction is obstruction.

Then there is always the other form of obstruction....

When in possession and on attack, put your own players between the ball carrier and the referee, hence obstruscting him from seing any obstruction....Its no different to a whole lot of defending players jumping onto a try scorer to prevent any replays spotting the ball being grounded.

doctor_grey wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:

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.

Incorrect.  
The defender is watching the ball carrier.  The blocker eyes up the defender and executes his block to perfection.  

Nope. He lines up the wrong man, and this before the pass. He sees the ball go too late but by then, it is too late.

Incorrect again.
Going to go for the trifecta and be incorrect three times in a row, boychik?

Mate,
Relax. I was having a bit 'o fun with you.  Apologies if it was a mistake.

Of all people on 606, I am genuinely surprised that you can't take any direct disagreement.  I am patronising because I said 'incorrect'?  I had already clearly explained my p.o.v.. You go to war with people and dish out a whole lot worse and some really heinous things are said to you, and you get peed over this? OK, we no more talk. Apology again.
 
FYI -the term boychik is not an insult.   It is a term of endearment:  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boychik

If I was to rate some of the obstruction calls we've discussed on the forum, I'd put them something like this, with the most blatant first:

Crusaders - (try allowed, no review) - An attacking player without the ball barrels into a defender, creating the gap. Clear obstruction, and difficult to imagine any TMO would have let the try stand. 100%

Waratahs - (try disallowed on review) - Horwill taken out by a Waratahs player. Similar to the Crusaders move but with less momentum in the bodycheck on the defender. The referee drove this decision but most TMOs would have given this if asked. 80%

England - (try allowed on review) - Farrell took a line which put Hartley between him and Moore in defence. You can make a case either way here. Hartley was under no obligation to move but some officials might decide he shifted his weight towards Moore. On the day, the ref and TMO decided Moore was not obstructed. The referee in the Crusaders match would probably agree. 50%

Ireland (try allowed, no review) - POC tussles with Launchbury, who might have covered the gap which Kearney sailed through. The interference was highlighted by the BBC during the match but I'm not convinced many TMOs would have disallowed the try. If Ireland use the same set move and POC is spotted doing the same thing, then officials might think otherwise. 10%

Incidentally, there was a truck and trailer obstruction call in the Brumbies match with the Force. You can see the passage of play develop from a lineout at the 48:20 mark in the following match video:



Again, the referee thought something was fishy and called for the TMO review straight away. The Brumbies did question his call later. From their point of view, the move went exactly as they planned in training, so they weren't best pleased to be told it was illegal.

The ref told them that the maul hadn't naturally moved the point of attack. He said that the Brumbies had effectively set up another pod adjacent to the maul, then the ball carrier had switched over to it and run behind them to the try line.

I think you're still failing to grasp what happens in the crusades v blues match. Clearly the "barrelled into" defender has checked his run to line up the decoy runner. He is flat and marginally behind the 10, he has little choice but continue in his path. Simple case Of the defender taking the wrong man.

The blues realised they were out flanked and the saders had a man over - this is why luatua unwinds early and pushes the defence across field.

Slade is joining the line from 15 so it's inevitable he will be coming from behind the attacking line.

You can't call all plays where the fullback joins as obstruction simply because there are players ahead of him.

TMO (or ref himself) would have disallowed try on referral. That was the mistake the ref made, not referring it.

at current count its about 10-2 against the try on this thread. all of whose opinions are equally valid a priori.

Crusaders is one of the clearest examples of obstruction you could imagine.

It should be used as an example case to show obvious obstruction. 100%.

Sorry Cyril but I trust the qualified referee who made the correct call over a bunch of posters on an Internet forum.

GloriousEmpire wrote:A lot of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Truth is not a democracy.

rugby is not logic. there are plenty of decisions left to interpretation, and thats why the IRB spends so much time and money making videos with examples for referee associations to help with "interpretation".

in the end, democracy leads to the truth being redefined. its a slippery concept, but if you think about why and how rule changes are tried and implemented, then you will see that the democracy of "appeal" is the driving force.

Best example of obstruction you'll see occurs at 6:27 in this clip:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ6Je52uhlg

Clear obstructs McCaw from on offside position and enables the try to be scored.

Looks deliberate. Should've been a yellow card.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Sorry Cyril but I trust the qualified referee who made the correct call over a bunch of posters on an Internet forum.

that is the most naive comment i have seen you post. unless it's a WUM?

so you are saying there is no need for citing, video replays, TMOs and the like? because the referee always sees everything correctly the first time and in real time?

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:A lot of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Truth is not a democracy.

rugby is not logic. there are plenty of decisions left to interpretation, and thats why the IRB spends so much time and money making videos with examples for referee associations to help with "interpretation".

in the end, democracy leads to the truth being redefined. its a slippery concept, but if you think about why and how rule changes are tried and implemented, then you will see that the democracy of "appeal" is the driving force.

Sounds like apologist waffle to me.

Rugby should follow suit with the NRL and outlaw questioning the referee during play, pointing or gesturing for decisions.

That was a certain obstruction. The player runs ahead of both the fly half and the 12 so that the ball is passed behind him

he is on an angled run towards the defender and hits him as the pass is thrown

Could have been a yellow imo

The ball is regularly passed behind a player. It's one of the stock moves of most back lines in world rugby.

Are you going to call obstruction every single time that happens?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Best example of obstruction you'll see occurs at 6:27 in this clip:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ6Je52uhlg

Clear obstructs McCaw from on offside position and enables the try to be scored.

Looks deliberate. Should've been a yellow card.

LOL - not you are just making yourself look silly

deliberate????

The ball bounces around, they all are going for it and one player gets there first

Not sure why I wasting my fingers texting a response, but sometimes people make me laugh so much it hurts (In the wrong sort of way)

GloriousEmpire wrote:The ball is regularly passed behind a player. It's one of the stock moves of most back lines in world rugby.

Are you going to call obstruction every single time that happens?

Only when he shoulder charges the covering defender in front of the ball

Anyway - you are just trying to wind people up again, so I am out of this converstation

Apologies if my opinion winds you up. I thought this was a site for debate. Is there a need for us to agree All of the time?

Riskysports wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Best example of obstruction you'll see occurs at 6:27 in this clip:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ6Je52uhlg

Clear obstructs McCaw from on offside position and enables the try to be scored.

Looks deliberate. Should've been a yellow card.

LOL - not you are just making yourself look silly

deliberate????  

The ball bounces around, they all are going for it and one player gets there first

Not sure why I wasting my fingers texting a response, but sometimes people make me laugh so much it hurts (In the wrong sort of way)

Robshaw is off side - he is also obstructing the defender (McCaw) which enables an English player a clear dive on the ball.

You do have a grasp of the laws, don't you? I'm certainly not making myself look silly to anyone who does. Yourself, quite the opposite.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:A lot of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Truth is not a democracy.

rugby is not logic. there are plenty of decisions left to interpretation, and thats why the IRB spends so much time and money making videos with examples for referee associations to help with "interpretation".

in the end, democracy leads to the truth being redefined. its a slippery concept, but if you think about why and how rule changes are tried and implemented, then you will see that the democracy of "appeal" is the driving force.

Sounds like apologist waffle to me.

Rugby should follow suit with the NRL and outlaw questioning the referee during play, pointing or gesturing for decisions.

yes, strangely i find myself trying to find excuses for your comments on this thread. so in that sense it is apologist.

you flip-flop neatly between the referee being "always correct" and the referee at HQ always making errors. it's pretty funny. anyone who has seen both these views expressed by you (pretty much everyone on here) can only conclude one thing - that you are a signed up, card carrying member of the Anyone But England club.

Sorry said I was not going to respond again - but had to

I know the Laws, seems you do not

Both your examples were reffered - so not only the ref, but also the TMO agreed that they were ok (which is one more opinion than the original posts example)

So your line

"Sorry Cyril but I trust the qualified referee who made the correct call over a bunch of posters on an Internet forum"

means zero, as you just want to pick on England and English players

PS I am not English and do not have skin in this game as they they

Just making a point BT... Surely it's a graphic example?

The respondent was trying to claim that a lot of posters believing something made it more valid.
Which is obviously not a point of logic at all.

GE, PM for you.

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:A lot of people believing something doesn't make it true.

Truth is not a democracy.

A lot of people in nazi Germany believed in the supremacy of the Arian race. That doesn't mean any of them were correct.

Come now GE, not really appropriate on a sport forum, is it?

but just to answer his point. the point i make regarding democracies is that by dint of numbers they change "their truth" to support their viewpoint. which is EXACTLY what happened in Weimar Germany. it's called the tyranny of the majority. i am sorry you were unable to understand.

when the IRB tries bad laws, and the viewing public protests loudly, they get changed back. the fact that you are in such a minority on that obstruction call makes it clear to me at least that not only are you wrong, but even if you weren't you soon would be, as common sense dictates that an unfair, deliberate advantage was gained, and the "interpretations" proposed by IRB will move in that direction.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Im still right.

ah, but given you are neither CORRECT nor is your opinion TRUTH, frankly my dear, i couldnt give a darn

I will just say this, Slade's try was a clear case of obstruction, anyone arguing the fact has red tinted glasses on.

they are special glasses that get issued with a lifetime subscription to "Anyone But England Weekly"

Just to add, the "not enough obstruction" against Australia, was obstruction, there are no grades of obstruction, it either is or it isn't

Biltong wrote:Just to add, the "not enough obstruction" against Australia, was obstruction, there are no grades of obstruction, it either is or it isn't

disagree with that Bilt. poor choice of words by the ref and tmo should not determine whether it was obstruction or not.

in instances like this, i actually think it would be good for the IRB, at a safe distance after the event, to make a ruling on what refs should do about a similar situation in the future.

i genuinely believe this one could have been given either way. the fact that hartley was walking back towards his own line, had his back to Moore, and didnt change direction, and Moore made an absolute meal of trying to claim obstruction and yet still should have made the tackle, are what make me think the try was giveable.

but it's a really tricky one, no doubt.

Quins, that close to the line there should be no margin of forgiveness.

If a defender is impeded for a mere second, either to check his line, hesitate or stop for a mere moment, it is enough to create a gap.

A players that is 10-15 meters away, needs less than two seconds at full tilt to go through.

That close to the line there is no second bite at the ball carrier for the defence, there is no cross or scrambling defence, hence the obstruction law should be severe.

Don't you think a lot of this is on the ball carrier? If the runner ducks in behind a teammate or cuts too close around a teammate, the onus is really on him, methinks. In the case of the Canterbury player the dummy runner acted like a blocker, but most of the cases I think it is the runner who puts his teammate is the position to obstruct.

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?

thats definitely what farrell did. he saw hartley walking back towards him and knew he couldnt be given for obstruction unless farrell actually made contact with hartley, or hartley changed his line and obstructed a defender. hartley was under no obligation to move or change his line.

opportunistic on farrell's part. obviously wasnt a training ground routine though.

at the time i thought it was probably obstruction actually, but having gone through the rules in detail afterwards i think the referees made the right call, just.

would have no problem with the rules being tightened up though as i hate these aggressive decoy runners and the inevitable confusion caused. was a SH innovation in the late 90s that everybody now does equally. i dont like it.

Biltong you will find all the side stepping, pace, and off loads in the tries that the Blues scored in reply to the Colin Slade try.

Agree with that mate. They played brilliant rugby, I was actually tipping the Crusaders, and when I saw Slade's try, I hoped the Blues will exact revenge in the manner only they can.

They are an absolute peasure to watch and support when they play that expressive type of rugby, downside is that next week theyll come out and play like a pack of one legged cretins.

Be happy with what you get, currently the SA conference apart from the Sharks have not impressed at all

We will get a good handle on things next week Bulls Versus Blues at Loftus, that might bring us back to reality.

Biltong wrote:Just to add, the "not enough obstruction" against Australia, was obstruction, there are no grades of obstruction, it either is or it isn't

Clearly it wasn't obstruction because both the ref and the TMO ruled the try good. The fact that the ref's mouth was a few IQ points behind his brain wasn't Hartley's fault.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

Biltong wrote:Just to add, the "not enough obstruction" against Australia, was obstruction, there are no grades of obstruction, it either is or it isn't

Clearly it wasn't obstruction because both the ref and the TMO ruled the try good. The fact that the ref's mouth was a few IQ points behind his brain wasn't Hartley's fault.

we'll have to disagree on that, the moment it happened my first thought was obstruction.

I haven't changed my opinion on it since.

The real concern I have with the "not enough obstruction" comment was that we had an International referee telling us that he had to have a certain level of obstruction before he could rule obstruction, in other words a referee who made up the rules to meet what he saw in front of him.

Exactly. It is like being a little offside, or knocking a ball enough but not enough for a scrum or advantage to be awarded.

I think the ref meant not enough obstruction to have a bearing on the game. Its the same when players momentarily go offside when defending at a breakdown. As long as they return to an onside position without interference with play the refs are happy. The ref was just economical with his words. People need to get past fretting over this.

So where did the word "enough" come from?

englandglory4ever wrote:I think the ref meant not enough obstruction to have a bearing on the game. Its the same when players momentarily go offside when defending at a breakdown. As long as they return to an onside position without interference with play the refs are happy. The ref was just economical with his words. People need to get past fretting over this.

Nobody is fretting, neither England nor Australia is "my team"

The ref made a mistake in the wording.

Something I'm sure most people have done in a heat-of-the-moment situation.

He wasn't 'making up rules'.

And how do you know he made a mistake with his wording?

The mere fact that he mentions Obstruction, suggests there was.