Am I right in thinking that if for instance the onfield ref goes to the VR and says look at the grounding but during that play another infringement occurs such as a knock on at the ptb that the on ref either missed or didn't think it was. Can the VR say it is a no try scrum defence?

If so then the NRL version should be best used especially as not every game has a VR over here.

Your interpretation is illogical. The rule gives specific permission for the ball carrier to dodge behind the ruck (whatever this may be) but that doesn't preclude him from running behind any other player.

So, once again, yes I do query the current interpretation of the rules by Cummings, Smith et al because, as it stands the use of dummy runners will be virtually impossible

Obstruction? I think that one's been around a long time. Do you in fact know anything about the rules of RL?


Nope, you're wrong again. Here's explanation from Richard Silverwood's personal account:

"McGuire can't run behind Clarkson close to line and get an advantage from it"
"If McGuire gets tackled near to Clarkson there hasn't been an advantage....when he breaks and there is a score there is the advantage"

So there you go. He called 'play on' as McGuire hadn't gained an advantage at that point. However, the passage of play led to a clear advantage. Silverwood had clearly noticed an infringement as he immediately referred the VR back to check.

Is that clear enough for you, or do you need pictures and a bigger font? Despite going on like a big girl's blouse, in fact the officials got it spot on and you are completely and utterly wrong.


It's not subjective. As Silverwood states: "Rules state you can’t run behind your own man in close proximity to the defensive line which is what happened".

And if I'm wrong then so are Richard Silverwood, Ian Smith, Jon Sharpe, Stuart Cummings and in fact most pundits who agree with me that it was a harsh call, but ultimately the correct one. You genuinely think you know better than all these people, don't you? Deary me.

Illogical? Using the RFL Glossary to define terms used in the RFL Laws? Erm, I think that's exactly what it's intended for.

Dummy runners are fine as long as they go cleanly through the defensive line and out of the way. If they stop in the middle of the defensive line there's every chance they'll be pulled up for impeding, especially if the ball carrier runs behind them.

I didn't say that using the RFL glossary was illogical. I said that your interpretation of it was illogical.
Just because it doesn't say that the ball carrier can run behind his own player doesn't mean that it's illegal. It doesn't say that it's ok for the ball carrier to skip round in ever decreasing circles singing God Save The Queen in Finnish but it wouldn't be illegal if he did.

As far as dummy runners are concerned;
‘Dummy’ Player 3 is in possession and veers towards the wing. This time he dummies to pass to colleague 2 but sidesteps to the left and runs in-field. [uPlayer 2, expecting the pass, has his eye on the ball and his momentum carries him forward. He can easily collide with player 5 without being guilty of obstruction, [/uand once again the Referee will allow play to proceed unless player 5 was actually prevented from making the tackle, in which case a scrum will ordered.

So, no requirement to go "cleanly" (whatever that means) through the defensive line (another one you've made up). Providing he doesn't prevent a tackle, no obstruction.
In this case the VR decided he had impeded the tackler. I disagree but that's just my opinion. What I'm concerned about is all the other crap that you keep spouting about "running behind his player", "standing in the defensive line" etc when there is no support for this in the rules. I repeat - this interpretation will inhibit the use of dummy runners and stifle the game.
That's my opinion. You think I'm wrong. I think you're wrong. Let's leave it at that

Jesus, I'm talking to morons. I'm not 'interpreting' anything. I'm using the Glossary as it is meant to be used: to clear up any confusion over what a word means. In this case, ruck.

And I didn't say 'passing cleanly' through was a 'requirement', but it's a simple fact that if the dummy runner passes through the defensive line without touching a defender and is out of the way completely, he will be very unlikely to be found guilty of impeding anyone. If he stands in the line and a defender has to deviate from his movement - however slightly, by millimetres even - he is risking being found guilty of impeding that player, especially when the ball carrier passes behind him and the passage of play leads to an advantage.

You do realise there are directives and referee guidelines as well as the Official Laws? That not everything is in that document? As it is, it doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. The fact is the officials agree with me. Go and read Silverwood's explanation, it's very simple to understand.