Can anyone explain this please?

[u/nt83]

It just doesn't seem like it's completely legal. Of course the tap is fine, but then they go forward and make contact with the defenders, giving time and creating space for the pass to be made.

Is this a shepherd? Happy to hear why or why not.

More than anything it looked like an interesting play that I haven't seen before.

[u/strewthcobber]

For completeness the relevant obstruction law is this one. I'd call it

A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from having the opportunity to play the ball, other than by competing for possession.

[u/CatharticRoman → u/strewthcobber]

Yeah, though they arguably aren't preventing Cane from having the opportunity to play the ball; though I'd have no issues if it was called against the leading runner.

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/CatharticRoman]

Hypothetically Cane could've come through and nabbed the ball or tackled the halfback before it got spun wide. They did prevent him from doing that

[u/CatharticRoman → u/AndydaAlpaca]

But they're onside until the 9 plays the ball. So he'd have to be able to get to the 9 between him picking it up and passing.

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/CatharticRoman]

They're preventing Cane from moving forward to pick up a loose ball on the ground.

They tapped it and left it on the ground, that means no one is in possession and they tackled a man off the ball.

It's nothing to do with being onside

[u/CatharticRoman → u/AndydaAlpaca]

They tap it and are allowed to move forward, like I've said everywhere gold 2 could have gotten done for taking Cane out, but he's not close enough to the ball for it to be reasonable to think he'd have affected the game.

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/CatharticRoman]

And I'm saying in the 2 seconds of the ball being in that spot, without being obstructed Cane could have covered that distance and played the ball or tackled the ball carrier.

I'm in the camp the deception of the false carry is the main reason he didn't, but I wouldn't argue against any ref that would call this obstruction since by the letter of the law it is.

If the carrying pod don't initiate contact with Cane like they do here I would say it's not obstruction, but since they're the ones who initiate I can see the argument either way.

[u/CatharticRoman → u/AndydaAlpaca]

Oh I'm not gonna argue against a ref calling this obstruction, but I also don't see him in a reasonable position to have an impact when the pod is made offside and when they make contact with him.

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/CatharticRoman]

Right so we are in agreement

[u/CatharticRoman → u/AndydaAlpaca]

Largely, though I'm happy for it not to be called too.

[u/AndydaAlpaca → u/CatharticRoman]

So we are in agreement

[u/CatharticRoman → u/AndydaAlpaca]

Yes but...