Dummy runner or obstruction? : Sun Jun 12, 2011 7:09 pm  

Right guys who out there knows the letter of the law on this one?

There were many occasions today when Wigan had dummy runners 'near' the play of the ball, and loads of occassions where (in my humble opinion) it looked like our defenders where being obstructed by these dummy runners.

I'm not going to get on a soap box and say that Wigan were 'cheating', because I'm a firm believer in playing to the referees whistle, and as we know he wasn't blowing for it....so in which case what the hell, go for it.

What are other peaoples thoughts on todays dummy runners, obstructions and crossings etc?

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:28 pm  

I saw at least one that I thought was a definite penalty, but it wasn't given, it is a fine line between success and failure and the only time we really see them clamped down on, is when a try is scored in a live game and they go to the video ref.

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:54 pm  

just remember that when teams execute the moves so well its not just the defenders that find it hard to follow play, the refs are put in a near impossible position.
Unless you have reffed a game i suggest keeping stum on this subject.

If you actually think you could do it then i will arrange an under 9s game for you to ref and se how you feel at the end of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:21 am  

binks wrote:

just remember that when teams execute the moves so well its not just the defenders that find it hard to follow play, the refs are put in a near impossible position.
Unless you have reffed a game i suggest keeping stum on this subject.

If you actually think you could do it then i will arrange an under 9s game for you to ref and se how you feel at the end of it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've no critisism of it, as I put in my post if the Ref doesn't blow for it....then why not go for it. It's shrewd tactic which judging by Wigan's position in the table, is perhaps one which clearly works.

As a spectator though, with an often a better vantage point to view the action, it just doesn't look quite right. Some of the guys running on, do so whilst never being in a realistic position to receive a ball. However they present themselves forward into the defending line, as both a distraction and a nuisance. Whilst defenders steer around them, it buys the man with ball in hand, a split second of time a space.

To re-emphasise...if it works, then why not!! Perhaps there is a lot we can learn from it, as (other than the young players coming through) we are often that bit too predictable ourselves.

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Thu Jul 07, 2011 7:16 am  

I know, that I am bringing this post back from the dead (co0incidentally from the last time we played Wigan!!!)......however even with the aid of the video ref it was given last night.

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:06 am  

The whole point of a dummy runner is to suck in the defence.

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:57 am  

MOUSE13 wrote:

The whole point of a dummy runner is to suck in the defence.

The rules state that if the dummy runner collides with the defenders trying to get to an opponent then this is obstruction, unless of course the video ref is Bentham.

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:46 am  

tigerman49 wrote:

The rules state that if the dummy runner collides with the defenders trying to get to an opponent then this is obstruction, unless of course the video ref is Bentham.

Or unless of course the defender misreads the dummy runner and attempts to tackle the dummy runner, or maybe you should also consider the defender that was taken out has absolutely no chance whatsoever of affecting the outcome. he was "taken out" about 7 or 8 metres from where Joel offloaded and would have made no impact whatsoever in the defensive line. Unless of course he could fly or defy gravity. Maybe he should have gut up and attempted to actually make a tackle instead of lying on the floor like a tool with his arms spread eagled, play to the whistle

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:22 am  

tigerman49 wrote:

The rules state that if the dummy runner collides with the defenders trying to get to an opponent then this is obstruction, unless of course the video ref is Bentham.

To be honest, I was expecting it to be ruled out.

I think the only reason it was given is that the defender (Widders?) still made the tackle on Joel. Couldn't have argued with a no try though.

Re: Dummy runner or obstruction? : Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:33 am  

Guerrier wrote:

To be honest, I was expecting it to be ruled out.

I think the only reason it was given is that the defender (Widders?) still made the tackle on Joel. Couldn't have argued with a no try though.

As I said in another thread I thought there was enough disruption to Cas' sliding defence to rule it out but you're right, Widders was sucked in and the man outside him wasn't blocked. They say benefit of the doubt to the attacking so the try was fair enough. That benefit of the doubt thing does seem to be enforced very inconsistently though.