[Sandwlch]

A rules question for you more knowledgeable out there. Example this morning early on with Parra and Carter but a reasonably regular occurance and the outcome always puzzles me :

Attacking player kicks and chases. But runs into a defending player and appeals for obstruction as both bundle over. Ref decides there is no obstruction and waves play on - effectively saying the defender did not move to block the attacker, so no obstruction, all OK, so play on.
Q: Why is it OK? Why does he not penalise the attacker and award a penalty to the defending team, not for the faking, but for taking out the defender who didnt have the ball? Surely it has to be a penalty to one or the other (assuming the defending team does not gain advantage from the kick).

[petebricquette]

Originally Posted by Sandwlch

A rules question for you more knowledgeable out there. Example this morning early on with Parra and Carter but a reasonably regular occurance and the outcome always puzzles me :

Attacking player kicks and chases. But runs into a defending player and appeals for obstruction as both bundle over. Ref decides there is no obstruction and waves play on - effectively saying the defender did not move to block the attacker, so no obstruction, all OK, so play on.
Q: Why is it OK? Why does he not penalise the attacker and award a penalty to the defending team, not for the faking, but for taking out the defender who didnt have the ball? Surely it has to be a penalty to one or the other (assuming the defending team does not gain advantage from the kick).

If it's a situation that the defending player clearly stepped into the attacker then that's definitely a penalty. However, because (I think) the attacker is gonna go for the shortest distance between two points and he has his eye on the ball there's no penalty awarded to the defending team.

I've explained it badly. The defender is perfectly aware of what they're doing. They could easily run back to defend rather than stopping in their tracks to slow down the attacker. To penalise the attacker would be a disgrace in that situation.

[Reloc8]

I suspect you're thinking of the Morgan Parras incident in this mornings game.

If the kicking player takes the defender out deliberately, its a penalty against him.

Within the sport however, you have to allow that collisions will happen. The defender is equally entitled to hold his ground.

If the collison is a genuine 50-50 where two players are competing legitimately for the same space, its play on.

[Shelflife]

If the ref feels that the kicker deliberately runs into the defender in order to milk a pen or injure that player he can award a pen against him and if deemed necessary a card as well.

there will be instances where a kicker will run his line and collide in a genuine attempt to get the ball, that would be play on.

[imasmeasmecanbe]

Simple explanation is that the defending player doesn't have to move out of the way but can not step into the path of the attacking player.

[Piliger]

Agree. An excellent decision by the ref. He had a brilliant game, again.

[Sandwlch]

Originally Posted by imasmeasmecanbe

Simple explanation is that the defending player doesn't have to move out of the way but can not step into the path of the attacking player.

Agree, but that is not the explanation. The point is, should there not be a penalty against the attacking player if he takes down a defending player who is legally not moving out of his way? Either it is a penalty to the attacker if the defender moves to obstruct, or a penalty to the defender if, when not moving he is hit and taken down by the attacker. It cannot simply be 'play on'.

[Shelflife]

It cannot simply be 'play on'.

as expalined above it can, if the kicker is making a genuine effort to play the ball and collides with a player who stands his ground then its play on.

if he deliberately runs into the defender then its a pen.

[Piliger]

An almost impossible decision for any ref. I have never ever seen it btw.

[Reloc8]

Originally Posted by Sandwlch

Agree, but that is not the explanation. The point is, should there not be a penalty against the attacking player if he takes down a defending player who is legally not moving out of his way? Either it is a penalty to the attacker if the defender moves to obstruct, or a penalty to the defender if, when not moving he is hit and taken down by the attacker. It cannot simply be 'play on'.

You're looking for an empirical answer which in practice is very hard to endorse in this situation.

As a ref my position is :-

Yes. If the attacker takes out a defender deliberately, it would be a penalty.

If the attacker collides with the defender in pursuit of the ball, it would not be a penalty.

The further the kick, the more likely that the defender is colliding deliberately with the attacker if the defender simply holds his ground, as the angles involved to pursue are much less acute, and the immediacy is not present.

However, with long kicks, the defender is much less likely to simply stick in place, he'll almost always chase back, hence collision is much less likely.

With grubber kick chases, the chance of a collision is much higher, especially when the kick is through traffic. Your first focus after a kick is on kicker, to ensure he isn't hit late, however on an attacking kick chase, you have to move focus very quickly to the ball, as a knock on is very possible. It can make it very difficult to assess a collision after the kick, and so unless you are certain that a defender has checked the attacker illegally, or that the attacker has crashed into the defender illegally or tried to contrive a penalty, its play on.

There's also an element of materiality...if the attacker runs into a defending player and takes himself out but leaves the defender standing, I might likely not be bothered with a penalty, but I would give a strong caution on future conduct to the defender. If there was an element of pretending to have been injured I suspect I would penalise, but I've never come across that personally.

[daveharnett]

Originally Posted by Sandwlch

Why does he not penalise the attacker and award a penalty to the defending team, not for the faking, but for taking out the defender who didnt have the ball? Surely it has to be a penalty to one or the other (assuming the defending team does not gain advantage from the kick).

In most cases, I would say materiality - in most cases the collision has no effect on the subsequent play.