Obstruction in-goal

[chrismtl]

I don't think you can call him trolling because he disagrees with you? His points are valid!

If he presents a valid argument then I wouldn't be calling him a troll...Instead, he's posted twice in this thread, and both times he's gone ahead and added useless items that are purely posted to provoke and piss me off. The first post actually had nothing to do with discussing the issue...I'll go ahead and underline the trolling parts of his posts added for absolutely no reason. Without the underlined parts, I can consider his posts valid; with them, they move into the troll category. I have full respect for a well thought out argument, but this is just trash talk and not particularly productive for the discussion.

1) You were let down by your deliberately cheating teammate, not the ref. Why did he do it?!!?!
2) 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.

As for his arguments being valid, I'd love to see a ref claim that a player who was behind another player is being called under law 10.1 (b) which is clearly titled "Running in front of a ball carrier". Kind of hard to run behind someone if you're in front of them. In any case, Law 10.1 (b) also contains the word "intentionally" just like 10.1 (c), (d) & (e)

 

[Browner]

Of course 10.1(b) can apply.

Granted, its written to expect the 'norm' of a player in front of the BC , but essentially its a shielding/guarding/obstructing/blocking law. If BC is heading towards posts within inches of the DBL then any teammate running between him and the defender trying to get to the BC is potentially sanctionable under 10.1(b)

To consider otherwise licences a guard/shielding/protector to operate, and that notion is dismissed by me.

The referees answers 5,6,7 seem to say enough IMO.

 

[chrismtl]

Of course 10.1(b) can apply.

Granted, its written to expect the 'norm' of a player in front of the BC , but essentially its a shielding/guarding/obstructing/blocking law. If BC is heading towards posts within inches of the DBL then any teammate running between him and the defender trying to get to the BC is potentially sanctionable under 10.1(b)

To consider otherwise licences a guard/shielding/protector to operate, and that notion is dismissed by me.

The referees answers 5,6,7 seem to say enough IMO.

I would much prefer that if a ref were to quote a law he presents me with 10.1 (c) in this situation (blocking the tackler) instead of 10.1 (b). The entire Law 10.1 deals with obstruction, and there are 5 specific obstruction sub-laws, a-e. If a ref interpreted the in front of a player in the sense that you seem to be doing, any player who is facing his own goal line would potentially have 14 players obstructing a lazy defender.

 

[Browner]

I would much prefer that if a ref were to quote a law he presents me with 10.1 (c) in this situation (blocking the tackler) instead of 10.1 (b). The entire Law 10.1 deals with obstruction, and there are 5 specific obstruction sub-laws, a-e. If a ref interpreted the in front of a player in the sense that you seem to be doing, any player who is facing his own goal line would potentially have 14 players obstructing a lazy defender.

The point I made remains valid, irrespective of your preference ( which is noted) The discussion concerned 'in goal' BC and support "shielders" and my point relates specifically to them.

Lazy defenders are a different set of circumstances & a new thread can always be started if you want to divert into that discusssion.

In general you've been arguing that a BC inside the Goal area, IF being shielded, shouldn't be penalised. I disagree with that general belief. Players, when caught offending often deny doing so, instead they claim the referee was wrong, in this case I believe your referee was probably correct based on his and your submissions.

Its been an interesting chat, and has clarified a couple of things in my mind, always valuable.

PS...I did notice you commenced name calling just after being PM'd by another influential member who has a history of doing the same, please dont its not nice, I will simply block you if you repeat.

 

[SimonSmith]

"Why'd you ping me ref, it wasn't material"
"if it wasn't material, why did you do it?"

It's a subjective call, and on the day you just have to go with the ref's view of events.

 

[chrismtl]

The point I made remains valid, irrespective of your preference ( which is noted) The discussion concerned 'in goal' BC and support "shielders" and my point relates specifically to them.

Lazy defenders are a different set of circumstances & a new thread can always be started if you want to divert into that discusssion.

In general you've been arguing that a BC inside the Goal area, IF being shielded, shouldn't be penalised. I disagree with that general belief. Players, when caught offending often deny doing so, instead they claim the referee was wrong, in this case I believe your referee was probably correct based on his and your submissions.

Its been an interesting chat, and has clarified a couple of things in my mind, always valuable.

PS...I did notice you commenced name calling just after being PM'd by another influential member who has a history of doing the same, please dont its not nice, I will simply block you if you repeat.

This thread was dead until you brought it back to life by insulting one of my teammates. You then proceeded to do it again before I called you out on it. If all you can do is dish out and you can't face the reality when someone calls you out on it, then that's too bad for you. Go back and read post #31 that I wrote where I clearly said that I understood why the call was made after looking at the photos. No need to go instigate an argument after that.

I agree that obstruction can occur in goal. However the obstruction law you are quoting is being in front of the BC, which my teammate wasn't, whereas the obstruction law everyone else is quoting is blocking the tackler, which was what was called in this situation. I can't imagine a ref would call being in front of the BC if the player was behind the BC...

 

[Phil E]

Let's drop all the "he said", "she said" and keep on the topic in question please.
Otherwise I will close the thread.
Thanks
Mod.