Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:31 pm  

mick sterbs wrote:

1st post so treat me gently, I have to agree that it's a subtle difference between obstruction and dummy runners and Leigh used them to good effect but the reason dummy runners are used is obvious, to get in the way of the defenders so to me that means obstruction. Personally I'd like to see it outlawed and then there'd be no doubts about fairness.

But that would then be removing a skill from the game that is pretty intricate as far as these things go, and I would disagree that the intention is to obstruct as I'd say that's a definite difference between distracting (as I feel is the aim of a dummy runner) and obstructing defenders.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:35 pm  

mick sterbs wrote:

1st post so treat me gently, I have to agree that it's a subtle difference between obstruction and dummy runners and Leigh used them to good effect but the reason dummy runners are used is obvious, to get in the way of the defenders so to me that means obstruction. Personally I'd like to see it outlawed and then there'd be no doubts about fairness.
On another note there was a loose ball near the line and Paddy Flynn was blatantly held back when I'm sure he would have picked up and scored,everybody saw it but the ref who was yards from the incident.

Welcome aboard.

The use of dummy runners is to cause confusion in the defence, keep them guessing, flat footed etc, not to obstruct if they do that then it a penalty.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:40 pm  

Leyther_Matt wrote:

But that would then be removing a skill from the game that is pretty intricate as far as these things go, and I would disagree that the intention is to obstruct as I'd say that's a definite difference between distracting (as I feel is the aim of a dummy runner) and obstructing defenders.

Damn you Leyther-Matt

Note to oneself don't phone Chinese why trying to post. got to go in Ten mineetts.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:44 pm  

glow wrote:

Damn you Leyther-Matt

Note to oneself don't phone Chinese why trying to post. got to go in Ten mineetts.

Sorry mate, you're obviously busier at work than I am

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:17 pm  

Leyther_Matt wrote:

But that would then be removing a skill from the game that is pretty intricate as far as these things go, and I would disagree that the intention is to obstruct as I'd say that's a definite difference between distracting (as I feel is the aim of a dummy runner) and obstructing defenders.

So surely the Leigh players should have stopped their run before coming close to the defensive line that was trying to sweep across rather than careering through it?

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:19 pm  

Chris B wrote:

So surely the Leigh players should have stopped their run before coming close to the defensive line that was trying to sweep across rather than careering through it?

Not at all as they are running in to the gaps so neither directly at a would-be tackler nor directly blocking their path. Takes a ton of hours on the training field to get the timing just right or there'd be penalties all over the place.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 6:38 pm  

Chris B wrote:

True enough...
However Hewer had given a try to Leigh when there had been a slight question of an offside from the kick. He had been looking at the kicker when it was made and turned round to see the try scorer (Maden?) catch the ball and ground it. I'm not saying it was offside because like Hewer I was watching the kicker but if there was any slight doubt it should have been referred to the VR.I also think that had Leigh scored with any of the passages of play in which they had used the dummy runner then he probably would have referred it also. That is sort of my point. He was leaving it upto the VR to decide if the player had obstructed the defence when in actual fact he should have been more clued up to this in general play.

RFL told Hewer at half time that, as they were paying Ian Smith a fortune to be video ref, he ought to start using him! Let's face it, SL refs. take everything to the VR - Hewer won't ever make the grade in Sooper Dooper League, if he persists in being 'old-fashioned' and making his own decisions. What does he think he is - a referee?

P.S. I thought he should have taken that try - Armstong's - to the VR, too.