|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Kevs Head"Can you tell me where it says in the laws of the game that the ball carrier can't run behind his own man? By my reading of the rules it says specifically that he can dodge behind his own players. ...'"
Correct. Like the Langley incident, where the refs feed on Twitter confirmed that the penalty was given not under the laws of the game, but on the basis of a "Policy", the laws (or at least a Note to Law 15) plainlky state that
Quote The player who is in possession of the ball cannot be guilty of
obstruction. He can make use of the goal posts to avoid a
tackle, or dodge behind a ruck of his own players or bore a
way through his own pack'"
So the rule states that he can dodge behind a whole ruck of his own players, or even bore his way through them, but we all know that the reality is the exact opposite, if the player in possession dodges behind even one of his own players, a pretty much automatic penalty will be given, in direct conflict with the laws.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 13190 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2007 | 18 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2020 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="django"...but would you say he was 'harder' than Brian McDermott?'"
Maybe not, he was a Royal Marine and as an ex-matelot I know not to mix it up with the 'green death', unless your pi$$ed that is
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 3796 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2021 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Bull Mania"Spot on. The video referees are clearly looking for a reason not to give a try.
I thought one of the worst decisions (except the Hull try) was disallowing Broughtons try. Awful decision and a travesty that was disallowed!'"
I said elsewhere that the Widnes defender pretty much ran straight into Gaskell, but he stuck his arm across the body of the defender when they made contact so disallowing it was probably the right decision.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Correct. Like the Langley incident, where the refs feed on Twitter confirmed that the penalty was given not under the laws of the game, but on the basis of a "Policy", the laws (or at least a Note to Law 15) plainlky state that
[i"The player who is in possession of the ball cannot be guilty of obstruction. He can make use of the goal posts to avoid a tackle, or dodge behind a ruck of his own players or bore a way through his own pack"
[/i
So the rule states that he can dodge behind a whole ruck of his own players, or even bore his way through them, but we all know that the reality is the exact opposite, if the player in possession dodges behind even one of his own players, a pretty much automatic penalty will be given, in direct conflict with the laws.'"
According to the RFL Glossary: "Ruck refers to all players involved in and around the tackle and subsequent play the ball."
Therefore "dodging behind a ruck of his own players" actually means running behind the player who has played the ball and dummy half. It doesn't refer to running behind one of your own players in open play, and certainly not those lingering in the opposition's defensive line.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1080 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jun 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Cronus"It has? Any evidence to back that up or just your hazy recollections?
The offence was obstruction. That's what Silverwood asked for and what was given.
As Cummings explained at the time, "what we're looking for is: is the player in the defensive line (yes), did he run behind him (yes), is it close proximity (yes), does it have an effect on the man in front of him (yes - Hansen)"
He then goes on to say, "for me it's quite simple, he's run behind his own man in the defensive line and therefore it should be a penalty." If the dummy runner had carried on through the defensive line and out of the way it wouldn't have been an offence.
Silverwood, via the @RFLReferees twitter, has said in response to queries on the decision: "Rules state you can’t run behind your own man in close proximity to the defensive line which is what happened."
As I originally said, I thought it was a minor offence and a harsh call - but the correct call. A minor obstruction is still an obstruction, just as a minor knock-on is still a knock-on.
Happy to clear that up for you. Thanks for your contribution.'"
Sorry but you've cleared up nothing. If Cummings and Silverwood did say those things (and of course my advanced years cast a fog over anything that happened more than five minutes ago) I would ask them the same question, "Which rule states that McGuire can't run behind a team mate?".
And incidentally, the Leeds player ran a legitimate dummy run and raised his hands as soon as possible to show he was no longer involved in the play so, if it were obstruction it should have been classed as accidental - the correct decision for accidental obstruction is to allow play to carry on unless the defender was prevented from making a tackle in which case it should be a scrum. I'm not making this up - it's in the rules!
I personally don't care who wins when Leeds play Wigan, I'd just like the rules to be adhered to consistently. And it would be good if posters on here and referees stopped making them up as they go along.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Cronus is entirely wrong. An obstruction penalty isn’t given for running behind a team-mates back. In fact the obstruction penalty cannot even be given against the player in possession of the ball. It is perfectly legal for a player to loiter in the defensive line and it is perfectly legal for his team mate in possession to run behind is back. An obstruction is fairly simply ‘to impede an opposition player who isn’t in possession of the ball’ whether they are attacking or defending.
The only decision a referee needs to make is whether one player physically impedes another. In this instance, i dont believe any player was stopped from making the tackle on Mcguire by the presence of the dummy runner.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 5392 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 1970 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| If Silverwood was in any doubt (especially given the incident the previous day) why did he make a positive indication that everything was fine with his 'play on' call. That in itself is the decider by far, the VR call casts serious doubts on Silverwood to make ANY judgement call and we may as well not have refs on the field at all then.
Saying there was inerference enough to impede the defender from getting to the tackler is garbage, there wasn't any. if he (the defender) is distracted enough to warrant a penalty then that applies to pretty much every single play in a game.
The VR call on this is IMO worse & is far wider reaching than the Ganson call, it undermines everything the refs train for and are using their expereince in deciding upon in the flow of a game.
Silverwood uses his knowledge of the game & his experience to decide in a positive manner that there is no interference (as in he is so sure he calls 'play on')
The VR call is in direct conflict to his 'correct' on field judgement, Silverwood was influenced by what happened the day before and that in itself is wrong, fear to make a decision and now everything might as well be officiated by computers and 10 refs with every single minor infraction being pulled up. Mayt as well go watch NFL ffs...
It is totally getting out of hand and whilst we want correct decisions the definition of certain rules are being (re-)interpreted so that the game as a spectacle is being ruined...
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 7652 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Sep 2005 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Dec 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| He didn't pull up immediately for the Sam Powell try that was chalked off for the same reason, so if McGuire's effort should stand, then Powell's can as well.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Kevs Head"Sorry but you've cleared up nothing. If Cummings and Silverwood did say those things (and of course my advanced years cast a fog over anything that happened more than five minutes ago) I would ask them the same question, "Which rule states that McGuire can't run behind a team mate?".
And incidentally, the Leeds player ran a legitimate dummy run and raised his hands as soon as possible to show he was no longer involved in the play so, if it were obstruction it should have been classed as accidental - the correct decision for accidental obstruction is to allow play to carry on unless the defender was prevented from making a tackle in which case it should be a scrum. I'm not making this up - it's in the rules!
I personally don't care who wins when Leeds play Wigan, I'd just like the rules to be adhered to consistently. And it would be good if posters on here and referees stopped making them up as they go along.'"
Raising your hands is irrelevant. Wigan had a try disallowed in the 2010 Grand Final for obstruction despite Farrell having his hands up. You can raise your arms to indicate you're not participating in play and feel you're out of the way, but if you're impeding, you're still impeding.
It's very simple. The VR clearly decided the dummy runner was impeding players in the defensive line (most likely Hansen) and was therefore guilty of obstruction. It may be pedantic, but there we go.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"Cronus is entirely wrong. An obstruction penalty isn’t given for running behind a team-mates back.'"
Didn't say it was.
Quote In fact the obstruction penalty cannot even be given against the player in possession of the ball.'"
No sh*t Sherlock.
Quote It is perfectly legal for a player to loiter in the defensive line and it is perfectly legal for his team mate in possession to run behind is back. An obstruction is fairly simply ‘to impede an opposition player who isn’t in possession of the ball’ whether they are attacking or defending.'"
...and the VR clearly decided the dummy runner was impeding players in the defensive line (most likely Hansen) and was therefore guilty of obstruction.
Perhaps you'd like to query it with Silverwood and Cummings, who provided very clear explanations? I know you think you know the rules better than qualified and experienced referees, but in reality you don't.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 274 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2011 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2016 | Oct 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="CM Punk"He didn't pull up immediately for the Sam Powell try that was chalked off for the same reason, so if McGuire's effort should stand, then Powell's can as well.'"
Agreed.
They've all conveniently forgotten/ignored the disallowed Powell try!
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Cronus"According to the RFL Glossary: "Ruck refers to all players involved in and around the tackle and subsequent play the ball."
Therefore "dodging behind a ruck of his own players" actually means running behind the player who has played the ball and dummy half. It doesn't refer to running behind one of your own players in open play, and certainly not those lingering in the opposition's defensive line.'"
Quote Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. As I quoted, in the Laws it states
He can make use of the goal posts to avoid a
tackle, or dodge behind a ruck of his own players'"
See that "a ruck". Specifically, "a ruck of his own players". Not "the ruck". It is clearly a different meaning.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 2531 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2022 | May 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="WarriorWithin"Agreed.
They've all conveniently forgotten/ignored the disallowed Powell try!'"
I appreciate this is beside the point, but Powell was short anyway so it wouldn't have been a try.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Cronus"Raising your hands is irrelevant. .'"
You are wrong again, it isn’t irrelevant at all. The RFL instruct attacking players who are within the defensive line to stand still and put their hands on their head to signal to the referee that they are not attempting to interfere with play.
If you would like further information then all this information is available on the RFL website.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Cronus"Didn't say it was.'" Seems odd then that you would think you had seen a referee give that offence for 30 plus years then.
Quote No sh*t Sherlock.'" Well you do come across as needing very basic things explaining to you
Quote ...and the VR clearly decided the dummy runner was impeding players in the defensive line (most likely Hansen) and was therefore guilty of obstruction.
Perhaps you'd like to query it with Silverwood and Cummings, who provided very clear explanations? I know you think you know the rules better than qualified and experienced referees, but in reality you don't.'" Nobody, at any stage, has disputed that the VR felt that way. At all. Would you like to put a hat on that straw man or is your backpeddling too distracting?
People have simply disagreed with the VR’s feeling that the any Wigan player was obstructed from tackling McGuire because of the presence of an offensive player in the attacking line. Richard Silverwood in fact didn’t explain why he felt Wigan were obstructed (because he didn’t, he quite clearly called play-on and was happy with the play in his judgement from the field) but simply explained Ian Smith’s thinking behind it. In Ian Smiths opinion there was obstruction, in Richard Silverwood’s on the field, there wasn’t. In my and many others opinion, there wasn’t. Its ok, it’s a subjective decision.
Whilst the full RFL rules are available to further educate you on the RFL’s website, I don’t have the time to, nor am I aware of a website which can educate you on the difference between a matter of fact and a subjective opinion. It is simpler and less time consuming to just tell you, you're wrong.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 10530 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2005 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| The Powell no try, and the McGuire no try were different. Crosby clearly runs into a Leeds defender obstructing him for making the tackle on Powell, where as Achurch despite being stood in the defensive line doesn't obstruct anybody. To the letter of the law it's a no try which I think is fair enough.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 22777 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jun 2020 | Feb 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| It isn’t ‘to the letter of the law’ though, it’s a strange defence of the decision because there is no ‘letter of the law’. It’s a subjective decision down to the on-field ref and then subsequently the VR. I wouldn’t complain with either decision. In my opinion it wasn’t obstruction, in Richard Silverwoods it wasn’t obstruction, in Ian Smiths it was and that is fine, it would be ridiculous to expect everyone to have the same opinion.
I just don’t get why the RFL (and others) are trying to defend it as a decision as a matter of fact when it isn’t, it is a subjective judgement. The answer to the question of why that try was chalked off is that Ian Smith felt a Wigan player was obstructed. We are allowed to disagree with that. Other refs are allowed to disagree with that. Either decision would have been ‘correct’. My only questioning of it is why we have a VR to over-rule the on-field refs subjective opinion. It may very well have been that if the places were swapped and Ian Smith referred that decision to Richard Silverwood he rules try. Why not just have the VR for matter of fact decisions (like the Watkins try, onside/offside, in touch etc) and the on-field ref for subjective ones like forward passes, obstruction, holding down, hands in at the ruck etc etc.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 1091 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2012 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2020 | Feb 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="WarriorWithin"Agreed.
They've all conveniently forgotten/ignored the disallowed Powell try!'"
Nobody has forgotten about that, it hasnt been mentioned as it was clear.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"See that "a ruck". Specifically, "a ruck of his own players". Not "the ruck". It is clearly a different meaning.'"
Not, it's not. The RFL Glossary defines the words used within the Laws. Use of the word 'ruck' falls under the definition given. There is absolutely no reason why this would be an exception.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"You are wrong again, it isn’t irrelevant at all. The RFL instruct attacking players who are within the defensive line to stand still and put their hands on their head to signal to the referee that they are not attempting to interfere with play.
If you would like further information then all this information is available on the RFL website.'"
Not required ta, seeing as I already mentioned this - in the same paragraph in fact. On poor form today, aren't you.
Quote ="Cronus"You can raise your arms to indicate you're not participating in play and feel you're out of the way, but if you're impeding, you're still impeding.'"
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1080 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jun 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Cronus"According to the RFL Glossary: "Ruck refers to all players involved in and around the tackle and subsequent play the ball."
Therefore "dodging behind a ruck of his own players" actually means running behind the player who has played the ball and dummy half. It doesn't refer to running behind one of your own players in open play, and certainly not those lingering in the opposition's defensive line.'"
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
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="SmokeyTA"Seems odd then that you would think you had seen a referee give that offence for 30 plus years then.'"
Obstruction? I think that one's been around a long time. Do you in fact know anything about the rules of RL?
Quote Nobody, at any stage, has disputed that the VR felt that way. At all. Would you like to put a hat on that straw man or is your backpeddling too distracting?
People have simply disagreed with the VR’s feeling that the any Wigan player was obstructed from tackling McGuire because of the presence of an offensive player in the attacking line. Richard Silverwood in fact didn’t explain why he felt Wigan were obstructed (because he didn’t, he quite clearly called play-on and was happy with the play in his judgement from the field) but simply explained Ian Smith’s thinking behind it. In Ian Smiths opinion there was obstruction, in Richard Silverwood’s on the field, there wasn’t. In my and many others opinion, there wasn’t. Its ok, it’s a subjective decision.'"
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.
Quote Whilst the full RFL rules are available to further educate you on the RFL’s website, I don’t have the time to, nor am I aware of a website which can educate you on the difference between a matter of fact and a subjective opinion. It is simpler and less time consuming to just tell you, you're 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.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Kevs Head"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'"
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.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 1080 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2006 | 19 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Jan 2025 | Jun 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Cronus"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. [u Player 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
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7152 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jan 2005 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Dec 2020 | Jun 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Kevs Head"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.
|
|
|
|
|