Dummy Runners Rules

[Poster]

Can someone please help me with the rules on this one.
I do mean THE rules not any interpretation.
Saints must be the masters at using this to the full.

Of all the years I have followed R l my simple understanding is that at the moment the ball is relaesed for a player to be onside he must be in a position to receive the ball not in a forward position. Wether he receives the ball or not is irrelevent to the passage of play but being forward of that position my view is that he is offside and the move stops for an opposition freekick.
I know full well that this is not how things work out week in week out with all teams playing it to the full, but please what is the official position and not in the opinion of ref or linesman etc?

[GeoffN]

Poster posted:
Can someone please help me with the rules on this one.
I do mean THE rules not any interpretation.
Saints must be the masters at using this to the full.

Of all the years I have followed R l my simple understanding is that at the moment the ball is relaesed for a player to be onside he must be in a position to receive the ball not in a forward position. Wether he receives the ball or not is irrelevent to the passage of play but being forward of that position my view is that he is offside and the move stops for an opposition freekick.
I know full well that this is not how things work out week in week out with all teams playing it to the full, but please what is the official position and not in the opinion of ref or linesman etc?

He has to be "interfering with play".

Yet another of my famous ...errr..... "discussions" with Rob about interpretation, and inconsistency.
It does come down to the referee's interpretation of what constitutes interfering with play.

In your example regarding dummy runners, the referee would have to decide whether the runner obstructed a defender.

It just depends what mood the ref is in at the time.

[Poster]

[/quote]

He has to be "interfering with play".

Yet another of my famous ...errr..... "discussions" with Rob about interpretation, and inconsistency.
It does come down to the referee's interpretation of what constitutes interfering with play.

In your example regarding dummy runners, the referee would have to decide whether the runner obstructed a defender.

It just depends what mood the ref is in at the time.
[/quote]
Thanks as I thought regarding application.
However just for discussion purposes, surely any player in the line of that play but forward of the ball must at least be committing an element of a sliding cover thus detracting from the defensive line.

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:
In your example regarding dummy runners, the referee would have to decide whether the runner obstructed a defender.

It just depends what mood the ref is in at the time.

Nothing to do with mood, it's to do with the officials reading the game. Sometimes the player concerned causes an interference and should be penalised, sometimes they have zero impact on play, so why should they be penalised?

It's easy enough to judge if you take off your fans cap and read the game.

[robjoenz]

Poster posted:
Yet another of my famous ...errr..... "discussions" with Rob about interpretation, and inconsistency.

Out of interest, would you like to see every player stood out of play (what you'd call an offside position) penalised?

[Poster]

robjoenz posted:

Poster posted:
Yet another of my famous ...errr..... "discussions" with Rob about interpretation, and inconsistency.

Out of interest, would you like to see every player stood out of play (what you'd call an offside position) penalised?

In such a case I think it would be clear cut and would not take long to eliminate this sort of distraction play. In truth we have an element of this when the ball is put back behind players for the kick through whereby they can be placed onside by the kicker following through or must give ten. Long winded way of saying yes but qualified by thoughts that it may well create more anomalies than it would solve.

[robjoenz]

Poster posted:
In such a case I think it would be clear cut and would not take long to eliminate this sort of distraction play. In truth we have an element of this when the ball is put back behind players for the kick through whereby they can be placed onside by the kicker following through or must give ten. Long winded way of saying yes but qualified by thoughts that it may well create more anomalies than it would solve.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.

What is the issue of the kicker standing back from his team mates? His team mates have every right to stand somewhere on the field. The only time it should be penalised is if players change their path to obstruct opponents. Ashley Klein spotted a couple of good ones on Thursday night.

It'd definately create more problems than it would solve. If you applied it the way I questioned in my previous post you'd penalise every time a player was receiving treatment in front of the play the ball, or whenever a player hadn't managed to chase back following a kick to the fullback.

[Poster]

robjoenz posted:

Poster posted:
In such a case I think it would be clear cut and would not take long to eliminate this sort of distraction play. In truth we have an element of this when the ball is put back behind players for the kick through whereby they can be placed onside by the kicker following through or must give ten. Long winded way of saying yes but qualified by thoughts that it may well create more anomalies than it would solve.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.

What is the issue of the kicker standing back from his team mates? His team mates have every right to stand somewhere on the field. The only time it should be penalised is if players change their path to obstruct opponents. Ashley Klein spotted a couple of good ones on Thursday night.

It'd definately create more problems than it would solve. If you applied it the way I questioned in my previous post you'd penalise every time a player was receiving treatment in front of the play the ball, or whenever a player hadn't managed to chase back following a kick to the fullback.

I think what I am trying to say is that many of these 'Dummy Runner' plays are not in the 'Spirit of the game ' and very clearly the RL is on a mission to stamp out all such practices not being in the interest of the game. Further more I surrender!

[GeoffN]

robjoenz posted:

GeoffN posted:
In your example regarding dummy runners, the referee would have to decide whether the runner obstructed a defender.

It just depends what mood the ref is in at the time.

Nothing to do with mood, it's to do with the officials reading the game. Sometimes the player concerned causes an interference and should be penalised, sometimes they have zero impact on play, so why should they be penalised?

It's easy enough to judge if you take off your fans cap and read the game.

Knew you'd bite, Rob!

Remember earlier in the season, when Klein & Ganson went "penalty-mad" over obstructions? OK, I was teasing a bit by saying it was the mood they were in, but it's still changed a lot, yet the rule remains the same, just the interpretation has changed.

There's always a little bit of interference, if only (for example) affecting the ball carrier deciding which side to pass the ball out.

One example that springs to mind is when the hooker "scoots" into a marker who wasn't square (Newton & Cunningham being experts at that) trying to get a penalty: the marker tries to look like he's just getting back onside but still affects play, yet sometimes it's penalised, other times it isn't.

[robjoenz]

GeoffN posted:
Knew you'd bite, Rob!

Remember earlier in the season, when Klein & Ganson went "penalty-mad" over obstructions? OK, I was teasing a bit by saying it was the mood they were in, but it's still changed a lot, yet the rule remains the same, just the interpretation has changed.

There's always a little bit of interference, if only (for example) affecting the ball carrier deciding which side to pass the ball out.

One example that springs to mind is when the hooker "scoots" into a marker who wasn't square (Newton & Cunningham being experts at that) trying to get a penalty: the marker tries to look like he's just getting back onside but still affects play, yet sometimes it's penalised, other times it isn't.

:baaa:

I was out this afternoon so I didn't realise the reason behind this thread, but I've just watched the Saints game. I thought Silverwood was much too keen on the obstruction penalties. On one of them the tackle was made, I always argue; how is it obstruction if it doesn't cause an interference.

Regarding the Cunningham/Newton trick; a player has the right to stand anywhere on the field. You cannot exploit that player in order to win a penalty. It's the dummy half's choice whether he follows the retreating player. These don't get punished unless the retreating player effects a tackle.