We look at obstruction

From a reader's question

A reader said the following: 'Could Planet Rugby possibly clarify the laws on crossing, this seems to be a law that often just goes by the wayside when the southern hemispheres play.'

Let's leave aside this hemisphere thing as it really doesn't add to a discussion and can be boring through repetition. Just let's say that there is one law which should be the same for all.

That's why having local rulings is so bad. It leads to interpretation which leads to confusion and argument and lack of consistency. There should not be interpretation, only application. That would make consistency more of a possibility.

Obstruction is covered by Law 10. Let's look at the law and let's see if we can apply it to players on the move and to players at the tackle, which may be a more vexed question than "crossing".

Then we shall go on to what is more fertile ground for obstruction - the tackle.

Law 10.1 OBSTRUCTION

(a) Charging or pushing. When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, either player must not charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(b) Running in front of a ball-carrier. A player must not intentionally move or stand in front of a team-mate carrying the ball, thereby preventing opponents from tackling the current ball-carrier or the opportunity to tackle potential ball-carriers when they gain possession.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

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

(d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.

(e) Ball-carrier running into team-mate at a set-piece. A player carrying the ball after it has left a scrum, ruck, maul or line-out must not run into team-mates in front of the player.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(f) Flanker obstructing opposing scrum-half. A flanker in a scrum must not prevent an opposing scrum-half from advancing around the scrum.
Penalty: Penalty Kick

(g) A player carrying the ball cannot be penalised for obstruction under any circumstances.

That is the whole of the law on obstruction. The part relating to crossing is in (b) and (c).

The point of the law is that an opponent must be allowed free passage to the ball-carrier. That's a big difference between our game and gridiron.

It is worth mentioning that the law is not against deception. Selling a dummy is not a problem because the ball-carrier is always exposed to the possible tackler. The same applies to doing the scissors, for then the cross-runners cross behind the ball-carrier, leaving him exposed to the possible tackler.

In (b) there are two aspects to this. A player without the ball gets in front of a team-mate carrying the ball and blocks access to a ball-carrier.

It is not just being in front which is the sin. It's being in front and blocking access to the fellow who has the ball now, or the fellow who gets a pass.

Now being in front is important. It does not apply to "next to" but to "in front". It does not apply to the ball-carrier who executes a pass to a team-mate and in so doing blocks the defender from getting to the team-mate. In that case the passer was not in front.

It does not apply if the backline comes up with a second line behind. If the ball carrier then passes to a player in the second line, the players of the first line are not obstructing unless they do something illegal when a player of the second line has the ball.

In the Test in Christchurch on Saturday, there was one case of obstructive moving.

Just before half-time the All Blacks win the ball from a tackle. Justin Marshall darts forward and is tackled. Bakkies Botha tries to get the ball but Chris Jack arrives to drive him backwards.

While this is happening Marty Holah is standing at the side of the tackle/ruck, unattached and unbound - on the left side as the All Blacks look at it.

Simon Maling arrives and picks up and drives also on the left side. Holah darts right to get out of the way but collides with Jaco van der Westhuyzen, which prevents Van der Westhuyzen from getting to Maling.

The referee penalises, as the law requires him to do.

That is a clear-cut case. What happens wider out, often with long passes, is basically the same but subtler and at wider angles, which makes it harder for the referee who is acting without slow-motion replays and aerial views.

The ball-carrying side is allowed to distract, but not obstruct. In order to distract it would seem logical that there must be a moment when the decoy runner is in a position to receive a pass. He cannot expect to be allowed to charge at the opposition willy-nilly.

It remains an important rugby principle that being in the wrong position is not in itself an offence, except in the case of being within 10 metres of a player waiting to play an opponent's kick. For the rest it is what you do in the wrong (= off-side) position determines whether there is something wrong.

The basic for off-side is being in front of a player of your team who last played the ball.

Think of the scrum, as the ball comes back. The front-row and then the second row are gradually in front of a player of their team but not deemed off-side. When the ball comes out to the scrumhalf nobody in his right mind would take action against the tight forwards in front of him for being off-side. It's a different matter if the flank does what (f) above says he is not allowed to do.

But let's look briefly at the tackle and what happens after it with the eye on obstruction.

England complained that the All Blacks obstructed at the tackle so much so that they could not get to the ball. That was also the burden of the complaint of Eddie Jones, the Wallaby coach.

Let's look at a few incidents from last Saturday's match, when the Springboks did not complain. As we do this, we should remember that incidents of this nature happen at a high speed and in a moment of white-hot intensity.

a. The Springboks kick off a rolling ball which Marty Holah gathers in. Holah starts running and is tackled by Schalk Burger and AJ Venter. Burger stays on his feet and tries to play the ball. Daniel Carter comes to the side of the scene and drives onto Burger, trying to pull him away. Eventually he is behind Burger, that is roughly where the Springbok scrum-half would be.

b. Tana Umaga charges. Jaco van der Westhuyzen grabs at him. Umaga and Van der Westhuyzen fall to ground, apart from each other. Forwards gather. The first is Schalk Burger who goes to compete for the ball. Daniel Carter comes from the side to play Burger and ends behind Burger, tugging at him and leaving Holah free to win the ball.

The ball goes to Jerry Collins. Marius Joubert tackles Collins and both go to ground. The forwards are immediately there and a ruck is probably formed. Mils Muliaina stands on the side of this, beyond the last feet on the All Black side, back to the Springboks, close to Justin Marshall who picks up and passes

c. Marty Holah charges and is tackled by Jacques Cronjé and Eddie Andrews. They stay on their feet and a maul forms. One of those in the maul, on a side, is Xavier Rush. He ends at the end of the maul and unbound pulls Cronjé from behind Cronjé.

d. Justin Marshall passes to Tana Umaga who charges a short way ahead. Jacques Cronjé tackles him. Xavier Rush and behind him Ali Williams come in at the side. Rush drives onto Cronjé.

e. Joe Rokocoko has the ball and is tackled by Schalk Burger and John Smit. They all go to ground. First there are three All Blacks - Ali Williams, Marty Holah and Kees Meeuws. Williams first dives over the ball and then rising forms a wall with the other two about a metre beyond where Rokocoko is lying on the ground. They put out arms to discourage any Springbok involvement at the ball.

From this the ball goes to Howlett who is tackled and Meeuws, Chris Jack and Greg Somerville are the players who go beyond Howlett.

Some comment:

a. There was a tackle. Players who come to the tackle to play must do so from behind. That includes Carter, who seemed to do so. If he joined in legally and then accidentally ended in the wrong place, he is probably OK. But if then, detached he starts to play by pulling a player who does not have the ball, he would seem to be liable to penalty.

b. In this case there is no tackle. That means that Carter - and anybody else - is allowed to approach from wherever they like.

It may just be possible that Law 10.4 (f) is infringed: Playing a player without the ball. Except in a scrum, ruck or maul a player must not hold or push or charge into or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.
Penalty: Penalty kick

But what about the clean-out? There is no tackle. And if it was a ruck, which it quite possibly was, then Law 16.2 applies: (b) A player joining a ruck must bind onto the ruck with at least one arm around the body of a team-mate, using the whole arm.

Burger was not Carter's team-mate!

c. If Rush joined the maul correctly, that is from behind and onto one of his own players, and he then stayed in the maul, where he ends up is irrelevant, but once he unbinds he is in an off-side position and should retreat to his own side.

d. Law 15.7 (c) At a tackle or near a tackle, other players who play the ball must do so from behind the ball and from directly behind the tackled player or the player closest to those players' goal-line.
Penalty: penalty kick

The law does not take sides. There is no greater tolerance for the ball-carrier's team-mates. They must also come from behind. And referees allow the 45' approach.

That means that if Rush and Williams had started from behind, the referee would have been happy with their action. If they were not behind the last foot on their side as they started their apporach, the letter of the law would require them to be penalsied.

e.  In terms of the law governing obstruction this would seem illegal. For players to take up a position beyond the tackle does not seem an acceptable part of rugby. They have gone beyond their team-mate who last played the ball and are stopping opponents from getting to he ball. But then we have that "near the tackle" dispensation which enables the tackled player's team-mates to protect the ball. This makes stepping beyond the tackle an acceptable and laudable thing to do.

This makes for continuity but also for prediectability and makes ruck counts a bit pf a mockery as instead of winning seven rucks a team may in fact be winning one ruck seven times!

A tackle is a legal and honourable part of rugby. The tackler and his team-mates have rights to play on, including the right to contest for possession. If in either of these cases an opponent had gone beyond the protective wall to pick up the ball, there would have been howls of off-side - for no good reason.

The fair contest for possession seems an important part of the game. It contains within it the possibility of turnover with its resultant unpredictability.

If the tackler's team cannot get to the ball, they stand off. That makes rucks thinner and off-side lines flatter and harder to police. In the case of e. above there was probably no ruck and hence no off-side line as there is no off-side line at a tackle.