Cheetahs v Reds R14

[Bruwheresmycar]

You do have to weigh up whether or not the opponent would have been able to influence the ball carrier. The point of refereeing is only to blow up a penalty when it has an effect on play.

Obstruction is a tricky one. An obvious distinction is that when an obstruction happens right in front of the defence, you blow the penalty. But when an obstruction happens 50m away you don't blow up the penalty.

In this case play has been effected. The Reds player gets a clear run through because some offside players didn't retreat in the correct way and blocked some defenders while they were at it. It's not a question of whether a clean tackle could have been made on Red #15, it's a question of whether or not he could have influenced the play. He could have definitely forced Red #15 to run a different line, and he could have got a hand on the ball carrier.

If you have to argue about these semantics generally you should call it. Set a clear standard for the players.

 

[Sidbarret]

Isn't that the whole idea behind obstruction but? That an attacking player has obstructed a defending player from making a tackle?

Law 10.1 (c); states:

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

Based on this I think that it's entirely relevant whether or not the opponent would've been able to tackle the ball carrier. Otherwise what are they 'obstructing'?

Did Fiangaa block a defender from making the a tackle? We don't know, because the defender was blocked from ever getting near the ball carrier. Why should he enjoy the benefit if the doubt when he is the one cheating?

I must admit my own prejudice though. I have seen Sias Fainga'a lying at the back of ruck holding the leg of a defender hundreds of times. This is annoying, silly, illegal play which rarely has a direct influence on the play, but he obviously believes there is some benefit to doing it. There is a not so small part of me that just enjoys the fact that his negativity has cost his team and I hope it happens more often.

 

[Scoey]

You do have to weigh up whether or not the opponent would have been able to influence the ball carrier. The point of refereeing is only to blow up a penalty when it has an effect on play.

Obstruction is a tricky one. An obvious distinction is that when an obstruction happens right in front of the defence, you blow the penalty. But when an obstruction happens 50m away you don't blow up the penalty.

In this case play has been effected. The Reds player gets a clear run through because some offside players didn't retreat in the correct way and blocked some defenders while they were at it. It's not a question of whether a clean tackle could have been made on Red #15, it's a question of whether or not he could have influenced the play. He could have definitely forced Red #15 to run a different line, and he could have got a hand on the ball carrier.

If you have to argue about these semantics generally you should call it. Set a clear standard for the players.

It is a question of whether a tackle could have been made. It's not semantics at all. That's precisely what the rule says.

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

Super simple stuff.

 

[Sidbarret]

It is a question of whether a tackle could have been made. It's not semantics at all. That's precisely what the rule says.

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

Super simple stuff.

Can you prove that the tackler would not have been able to make the tackle or that it would not have changed the line Morahan would have run? If you do then you have even more reason to be pissed at the Fiangaas for doing what they did.

 

[Braveheart81]

Realistically you only need to be close enough to maybe make an ankle tap.

I really think this sort of obstruction needs to be strictly enforced and generally favour the defending team so it doesn't become a viable tactic for offside players.

 

[Scoey]

Can you prove that the tackler would not have been able to make the tackle or that it would not have changed the line Morahan would have run? If you do then you have even more reason to be pissed at the Fiangaas for doing what they did.

No more than you can prove that the tackler could make the tackle and the subjectivity of this debate goes to the heart of the issue. I think the wording of the law is also such that it reinforces my position. It uses the word intentionally which means that a referee should be sure that the action is deliberately designed to prevent a tackle. Not kind sorta thinks that maybe the guy coulda had a dive and ankle tapped the guy. This is a game where 15 guys are running a different direction to 15 other guys. There are going to be blokes running into each other and that's part of it. I can't prove it but if there was some way of doing so, i'd put a large sum of money that they wouldn't have gotten within metres of Morahan.

The line Morahan ran is irrelevant both in the context of the obstruction law and in the argument. He picked his line well before any of the alleged misgivings occurred.

Realistically you only need to be close enough to maybe make an ankle tap.

I really think this sort of obstruction needs to be strictly enforced and generally favour the defending team so it doesn't become a viable tactic for offside players.

The day that these types of rules are strictly enforced and favoring the defending team is the day that players will deliberately run into attacking players when they realise they won't make the tackle because they know that they will get the penalty. Horrible thought.

 

[Hawko]

The day that these types of rules are strictly enforced and favoring the defending team is the day that players will deliberately run into attacking players when they realise they won't make the tackle because they know that they will get the penalty. Horrible thought.

As distinct from now when its bloody hard to get a penalty, particularly on kick-chase, despite all the "accidental" blocking that goes on.

Anyone recall how Mitchell got his ankle smashed?

 

[Scoey]

Yeah it'd be a much better spectacle if they just blew a penalty every time someone ran into another person.

 

[Troy]

I agree completely that the TMO made a poor call on saying that was a definite knock-on from the single replay he looked at.

In relation to the obstruction, I think the commentator Meyer Bosman summed it up pretty well.

Meyer Bosman plays center for the Sharks! Pretty sure that commentator was Darren Scott. Funny how Bob Skinstad (Ex Springbok & Stormers Captain) didn't think there was a problem and it was a try.

Also from GAGR news this morning Craig Joubert has apparently been stood down from this weekends Sharks v Bulls game..

It also appears that Craig Joubert’s performance in the Cheaters vs Reds game didn’t go un-noticed.He’s been given the tap on the shoulder by SANZAR ref boss Lyndon Bray and replaced for this weekend’s Sharks/Bulls match by Marius Jonker.

 

[Braveheart81]

Meyer Bosman plays center for the Sharks! Pretty sure that commentator was Darren Scott. Funny how Bob Skinstad (Ex Springbok & Stormers Captain) didn't think there was a problem and it was a try.

Also from GAGR news this morning Craig Joubert has apparently been stood down from this weekends Sharks v Bulls game..

Oops. One of the commentators (Skinstad I think) referred to the other as Boz which is why I put Bosman's name down.

I think that is incorrect that Joubert has been stood down. He was originally listed as an Assistant Referee for the Sharks vs Bulls game when the lists were published by SANZAR on 7 May.

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/linkservid/E1F3998B-0B99-2B5D-C9BE5BAD2FF9CD5D/showMeta/0/

He was then no longer listed when SANZAR published an updated referees list on 16 May (3 days before the Cheetahs vs Reds game). Regardless of his poor performance in that game, he hasn't been stood down for it. He was already not refereeing this weekend for whatever reason.

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/linkservid/C6AFBAA7-CE40-9648-F01CC27D6F5DFBC6/showMeta/0/

 

[Troy]

Bob would have been referring to the third commentator Warren Brosnihan. I enjoy Bros he's got a good sense of humor.

I wonder why he was removed from the SHAvBUL game?

 

[Braveheart81]

I wonder why he was removed from the SHAvBUL game?

I think it's just a scheduling thing. They seem to get every few weekends off.

If you look at the next month or so Joubert is scheduled for:

31 May - Stormers vs Kings (Referee)
15 June - Samoa vs Italy (Referee)
18 June - Brumbies vs Lions (AR)
22 June - Wallabies vs Lions (AR)
25 June - Rebels vs Lions (AR)
29 June - Wallabies vs Lions (Referee)
6 July - Wallabies vs Lions (AR)

That's a pretty busy schedule!

 

[boyo]

Backrow? Ashley Johnson? Pretty sure he went to England.

He plays for Wasps in England.

 

[Troy]

I'm just watching Super Rugby Extra Time which I recorded on Monday night. Just getting around to it now!
Just took the following pic which should put the knock on from RD to bed!

How is this a knock on?

 

[Scotty]

I would have called the obstruction if I was TMO. The fingers should not have altered their running lines.

The issue though is how much the TMO picks up compared to the on field ref. if the Morahan try wasn't referred I have no doubt it would have been given.

Conversely if the cheetahs first try was referred then I expect it would have been disallowed due to offside at the ruck before the charge down.

 

[boyo]

I'm just watching Super Rugby Extra Time which I recorded on Monday night. Just getting around to it now!
Just took the following pic which should put the knock on from RD to bed!

How is this a knock on?

View attachment 3573

I'm not saying you're wrong, but this is a photograph, therefore it won't show the whole picture (pardon the pun!).

 

[Hawko]

Also from GAGR news this morning Craig Joubert has apparently been stood down from this weekends Sharks v Bulls game..

The link doesn't work for me, so I can't see what Bray has said. But I don't understand why Joubers is getting shit on him. He referred both the grounding and the obstruction upstairs and the TMO made the decision. In other decisions I thought he was quite OK.

 

[Troy]

The link doesn't work for me, so I can't see what Bray has said. But I don't understand why Joubers is getting shit on him. He referred both the grounding and the obstruction upstairs and the TMO made the decision. In other decisions I thought he was quite OK.

Maybe he sent too many decisions upstairs? I don't know, but I did note that Steve Walsch was happy to refer to his AR's often and make a decision without involving the TMO quite so often!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[convenient wisdom]

The link doesn't work for me, so I can't see what Bray has said. But I don't understand why Joubers is getting shit on him. He referred both the grounding and the obstruction upstairs and the TMO made the decision. In other decisions I thought he was quite OK.

And now for the good news - that TMO for this week's game is the same myopic muppet as last week, according to a post on team lists thread.

 

[convenient wisdom]

I would have called the obstruction if I was TMO. The fingers should not have altered their running lines.

The issue though is how much the TMO picks up compared to the on field ref. if the Morahan try wasn't referred I have no doubt it would have been given.

Conversely if the cheetahs first try was referred then I expect it would have been disallowed due to offside at the ruck before the charge down.

Yeah - I watched that try again last night and the scrummie was way offside, but strangely I didnt see that when I watched the game live ?? weird !!