The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruction? : Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:35 am  

The referee last night seemed to have no idea whatsoever...
Leigh were allowed only nearly every play within our 20 yard area to have player after player careering through into the defensive line blocking the tacklers and stopping the sliding defence. So does this constitute a dummy runner?

On the one occasion that we employed a similar tactic Hewer went straight to the man in the box for an opinion and it turns out that it is classed as an obstruction.

If the try was disallowed for obstruction then a lot more of Leigh's play should have been penalised too. He was in a great position for the chalked off try to have seen any penalty but didn't preferring to refer to the man upstairs. I can only assume he was unsure whether to award any penalties for the dummy runs / obstruction and preferred to err on the side of the attacking team when he was without the luxury of the video ref making the call.

My understanding of a dummy runner is one that does not directly interfere with the defending player moving to make a tackle and there were countless incidents of this happening last night.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:44 am  

Well either Leigh are very clever at it, or he did not feel the need on any of the 8 tries to have them checked for obstruction. The one he hauled Widnes back for could have been seen from the Moon. Still I suppose I must congratulate you for being the first to blame the referee for last night

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:55 am  

DemonUK wrote:

Well either Leigh are very clever at it, or he did not feel the need on any of the 8 tries to have them checked for obstruction. The one he hauled Widnes back for could have been seen from the Moon. Still I suppose I must congratulate you for being the first to blame the referee for last night

Where did I lay the blame on the referee? Just point it out for me will you at the risk of you looking like a complete berk?

The point I was making which you so nicely highlighted for me is that if our obstruction could be seen from the moon why didn't he give it? He was nicely sighted for it.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:12 am  

1) He did see it, hence the call for the video ref to check it

2) Where did I lay the blame on the referee? Your statement was in summary this - the referee didn't have a clue, he constantly allowed Leigh to have 'dummy runners' who I would suggest were obstructing the defence. Also he erred on the side of the attacking team - in which case why didn't he err on the side of Widnes for their obstruction try because they were the attacking side at that point. So what you really meant was he only erred on the side of the attacking team when it was Leigh.

I would add however, there does seem to be a fine line between dummy runners being dummy runners and an obstructing player. I am sure you will see loads of dummy runners in tonight SL game.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:18 am  

If he saw it he would have given it. You said yourself that it was obvious?
I didn't blame the referee I questioned his decisions. I squarely blame the players and more so the coach.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:45 pm  

bitter widnes fan ???? i think so

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:48 pm  

Daryl D wrote:

bitter widnes fan ???? i think so

you've clearly not actually read his posts if thats your conclusion. berk.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:04 pm  

Chris B wrote:

If he saw it he would have given it. You said yourself that it was obvious?

tbf a lot of referees can be quite cautious when it comes to giving decisions when there's a video ref available.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 2:24 pm  

LeythIg wrote:

tbf a lot of referees can be quite cautious when it comes to giving decisions when there's a video ref available.

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.

Re: The subtle difference between dummy runners and obstruct : Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:24 pm  

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.