• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Obstruction in-goal

chrismtl said:
.
Click to expand...

Don't get precious over words Chris, many posters use descriptive utterings to exaggerate the point they are making, its no big deal.

All players who get caught doing things they shouldn't are in the same category, pick any word to describe......., intensioned/breakers/unlawfully/cheats/cons/sneaks/gamesmanship. Add in deliberate and all of these can ratchet up, again its no big deal.

Be in this forum long enough and you'll soon see fruitier language than that mild delivery. You'll also find a broad range of opinions on any topic. Shame about your nearly TRY, ref seemed clear minded enough, so your teammates 'accidental mispositioning and inadvertent obstruction' buggered up your glory moment ..........' Doh him' ! (Wink)

PS. Use the search facility ...type in cheat and see how many times it appears in this forum :-)
 
Last edited:
OB.. said:
But it wasn't. Context is important.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In the middle of the field, call it since it has no real bearing on the match, but disallowing a guaranteed try for it is something completely different. If the player would have gotten anywhere close to me, I would have just dropped to the ground and the try would still be scored. Instead the opposition now has a lineout at the 10 (or further if they had their top half back in the match).
 
How about this: ball carrier is in goal and working his way to under the posts. Team mate obstructs opponent. Ref calls "advantage". Upon hearing this, ball carrier reverses direction and heads AWAY from posts towards corner. At the point that he deems that he would have been caught had there been no obstruction, he dots down.

Advantage over and try stands?
 
Dickie E said:
How about this: ball carrier is in goal and working his way to under the posts. Team mate obstructs opponent. Ref calls "advantage". Upon hearing this, ball carrier reverses direction and heads AWAY from posts towards corner. At the point that he deems that he would have been caught had there been no obstruction, he dots down.

Advantage over and try stands?
Click to expand...
I hope you're not serious. The defending team has not made a gain in ground nor had a chance to play the ball how they wish.
 
Last edited:
chrismtl said:
Exactly. In the middle of the field, call it since it has no real bearing on the match, but disallowing a guaranteed try for it is something completely different. If the player would have gotten anywhere close to me, I would have just dropped to the ground and the try would still be scored. Instead the opposition now has a lineout at the 10 (or further if they had their top half back in the match).
Click to expand...

So you're saying that the more material the offence is (after all, it could have made a difference of two points on your own account, given the day your kicker was having) the less appropriate it is to call it?
 
leaguerefaus said:
I hope you're not serious. The defending team has not made a gain in ground nor had a chance to play the ball how they wish.
Click to expand...

No, but the disadvantage that they incurred by the obstruction has now been corrected.


There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
 
chrismtl said:
In the middle of the field, call it (the obstruction) it has no real bearing on the match, but disallowing a guaranteed try for it is something completely different.

If the player would have gotten anywhere close to me, I would have just dropped to the ground and the try would still be scored.
Click to expand...

But under that scenario you're removing blocking as a foul play act when a player is near/over the try line!, or you're sanctioning a shielding/blocking guard running alongside the winger/BC who scores in the corner and wishes to go under the posts?
 
Dickie E said:
No, but the disadvantage that they incurred by the obstruction has now been corrected.


There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?
Click to expand...

While the JFK comment suggests that you disagree with the Law as it stands, I thought that the test for advantage was whether the non-infringing side had reached a better position than they would have done had the infringement been penalised? You seem to suggest that the test is whether the non-infringing team has reached a better position than they would have done had the infringement not occurred.
 
Taff said:
I'm pretty sure it was Robert Kennedy ... not John Kennedy. They were brothers.
Click to expand...

That they were brothers (and POTUS/USAG) I knew; but I misquoted someone else's identificiation of it as an RFK quote (which was itself, apparently, a paraphrase of a line by GBS - “You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never were; and I say, ‘Why not?’”).

In fact, JFK was the only one of the three brothers (J/R/E) who didn't use the line or some variant.
 
Browner said:
But under that scenario you're removing blocking as a foul play act when a player is near/over the try line!, or you're sanctioning a shielding/blocking guard running alongside the winger/BC who scores in the corner and wishes to go under the posts?
Click to expand...

You see it all the time in professional matches. Inside player passes to outside player and slows down run blocking the cover tackler coming across the field, or the chase tackler. If a pro ref called that (leading to not awarding a sure try), I guarantee you we'd be having a discussion about how he's got a "loss of form".

Also, blocking isn't a foul play act when you're in an onside position. Intentionally blocking is. There's a big difference, especially at the amateur level. At the pro level, they know exactly what they're doing.
 
chrismtl said:
Also, blocking isn't a foul play act when you're in an onside position. Intentionally blocking is. There's a big difference, especially at the amateur level. At the pro level, they know exactly what they're doing.
Click to expand...

Just be careful throwing around the word "intentionally". We need to referee based on what happened, not about what was intended to happen. And until we start getting TMOs at club matches, it is the referee's view on "what happened" (right or wrong) that determines how the match rolls out.
 
Mr.Christopher said:
Just be careful throwing around the word "intentionally". We need to referee based on what happened, not about what was intended to happen. And until we start getting TMOs at club matches, it is the referee's view on "what happened" (right or wrong) that determines how the match rolls out.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I was merely quoting the law, and the obstruction offense called against me would be Law 10.1 (c), which clearly states that it must be intentional.

[LAWS] Law 10.1 (c)

Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

[/LAWS]
 
chrismtl said:
I agree, but I was merely quoting the law, and the obstruction offense called against me would be Law 10.1 (c), which clearly states that it must be intentional.

[LAWS] Law 10.1 (c)

Blocking the tackler. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball carrier.

[/LAWS]
Click to expand...
The offence was called against your teammate not you. its likely the referee had a better view of his actions than you did , irrespective of your teammates ' embarrassed at being caught out' subsequent innocence protestations.

PS... 10.1(b) can also apply , if you accept the 'shielding' element of it.
 
Browner said:
The offence was called against your teammate not you. its likely the referee had a better view of his actions than you did , irrespective of your teammates ' embarrassed at being caught out' subsequent innocence protestations.

PS... 10.1(b) can also apply , if you accept the 'shielding' element of it.
Click to expand...

I agree...my teammate was running if front of me...10.1 (b) all day.

PS...that was sarcasm
PPS...go troll another thread bud
 
I don't think you can call him trolling because he disagrees with you? His points are valid!

I would probably have gone with the try, benefit of the doubt, but each to their own call - you can back up either way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top