dummy runner shoulder charges

Does anyone else think this dummy runner stuff needs to
be revisited? I've been getting more annoyed by it as the
weeks have gone by but today Rougerie was just running
straight into O'Driscoll and shoulder blocking him. There
was nothing dummy about it he was deliberately making
contact with the player and every time (about 5 or 6 times
in the game) with a shoulder block that stopped O'Driscoll
getting across. The other thing that struck was he ran on
the ball carrier side of O'Driscoll each time and blocked him
from getting across. As in clearly interfering with play.

Watching yesterday's games the same thing was going on,
the ball was being passed at the back of players who were
often already in front of the ball carrier and were put 10m
in front sometimes and those players kept putting
themselves in direct line between the defenders and where
the ball was being passed.

As far as I can tell you should actually be called offside if
you in any way are interfering with play, that must surely
include if you continue running ahead of play and are
blocking the line the defenders need to take to get to the
ball carrier.

It seems like there isn't a play now that doesn't involve
players in offside positions either carrying on into the
opposition or dummy runners "accidentally" blocking
defenders as they try to cover across.

Yes it looks great with the ball being flung around but it's
cheating and it's getting ridiculous, there's now more
players from the carriers side in front of him than behind
him on these moves.

[Old Dog]

I'm in almost full agreement with Omer about that. It's cheating - end of.


(However I cannot agree with his Cyclopean first paragraph - on my 6" high-definition LCD television, Rougerie appeared to be as much sinned against as he was sinful.)

*


I'm in almost full agreement with Omer about that.** It's
cheating - end of.


(However I cannot agree with his*Cyclopean first
paragraph - on my 60"*high-definition LCD television,
Rougerie appeared to be*as much sinned against as he was
sinful.)


*

can only go on what I saw, if BOD was doing it as well then
just reinforces the point.

[Balla Boy]

BOD ran a couple of them himself early on. Sexton's loop is predicated on some lines from the outside backs that are very much pushing the envelope in terms of legality.

[Dumptruck]

I'm in almost full agreement with Omer about that. It's cheating - end of.


(However I cannot agree with hisCyclopean first paragraph - on my 60"high-definition LCD television, Rougerie appeared to beas much sinned against as he was sinful.)

I believe it should always be pulled up as offside.. It is interferance, plain and simple.. Don't understand why it gets let off.. However, we do it just as much as anyone. O'Driscoll is a particular annoyance when he does it, and seems to quite often... The guy is good enough as it is..

[Dave Cahill]

Rougerie should simply have gotten out of his way. The
Irish player was onside, and is under no obligation
whatsoever under the laws to get out of the way. The
move is predicated on the sure and certain knowledge that
it is legal. As long as the player running the dummy line
doesn't actually grab the defender or deviate his line to
take him out, hes allowed do anything he likes as he is a)
onside and b) in motion.

The beauty of the move is that it creates three points of
uncertainty for the defense. The player on the dummy run
(do we ignore him? Then what if he is the receiver) The
player actually running the loop (do we ignore him. What
happens if he goes through the gap created by the dummy
runner), and finally the outside man.

[Old Dog]

Rougerie should simply have gotten out of his way. The
Irish player was onside, and is under no obligation
whatsoever under the laws to get out of the way. The
move is predicated on the sure and certain knowledge that
it is legal.

Legal or not, it's cheating.


Ivor Callely's claiming of mileage for the 492 mile returm tripfrom my back garden to the steps of Seanad Eireann is also legal. And it too is cheating.

[Dave Cahill]

Rougerie should simply have gotten out of his way. The
Irish player was onside, and is under no obligation
whatsoever under the laws to get out of the way. The move
is predicated on the sure and certain knowledge that it is
legal.

Legal or not, it's cheating.


Ivor Callely's claiming of mileage for the 492 mile
returm trip*from my back garden to the steps of Seanad
Eireann is also legal.** And it too is cheating.


*

Yeah, thats an entirely irrelevant example.

How is it cheating? The only person breaking the laws is
Rougerie. Technically it should be a penalty to the
attacking side as the defender is deliberately obstructing a
player off the ball.

[Mcork]

Rougerie should simply have gotten out of his way. The
Irish player was onside, and is under no obligation
whatsoever under the laws to get out of the way. The
move is predicated on the sure and certain knowledge that
it is legal.

Legal or not, it's cheating.

That's basically saying throwing a dummy is cheating. As long as the decoy runner is behind the thrower at the moment the ball leaves his hands, then it is legal. After that if the guy is ahead, it's up top the ref to decide if he's interfering with play or not. Clever defences will push up hard and feign being blocked by the decoy if he's not deep enough.

Basically, if it's executed correctly, it's perfectly legal.

[Old Dog]

Rougerie should simply have gotten out of his way. The
Irish player was onside, and is under no obligation
whatsoever under the laws to get out of the way. The
move is predicated on the sure and certain knowledge that
it is legal.

Legal or not, it's cheating.

Basically, if it's executed correctly, it's perfectly legal.

Of course it is! Aswas Ivor Callely's mileage claim.


And I regard both in the same light, as, presumably, does Evil Omer.


But you don't and neither does Dave.So that's the end of that.

[i_like_cake]

Ok, just to resurrect this thread..... this past year has seen a frightening increase in this blatantly cheating move....

[Old Dog]

Ok, just to resurrect this thread..... this past year has seen a frightening increase in this blatantly cheating move....

Yep.

Although I have noticed Top 14 refs asking the TMO to check for obstruction before awarding a try on a couple of occasions already this season. Hopefully this will happen regularly in Rabo, APL and HEC games.

[Blindsider.]

Yep.

Although I have noticed Top 14 refs asking the TMO to check for obstruction before awarding a try on a couple of occasions already this season. Hopefully this will happen regularly in Rabo, APL and HEC games.

Unfortunately, this will only happen in APL games this year - TMO powers have not changed for HEC or Pro12. I wasn't aware that T14 TMO's now had this power, but I have only seen 1 game so far this season.

Hopefully, extended TMO powers will be introduced everywhere next year.

[nuke]

Dummy runners are not against the laws of rugby, active obstruction is against the laws but would have to have a material effect on play to be rightly penalised.

Now there are examples out there that should be penalised and just as many that are penalised that shouldn't be. I think the TMO experiment is a good idea inrelation to this and look forward to seeing it extended to the HEC.

[plastic]

If you're in front of the ball you're offside and should be making an attempt to get onside - once the ball has past you, if you continue to travel forward you are actively offside.

as mentioned on both threads its ignored like so many other laws but higher powers think it promotes a high scoring/running brand of rugby so is not going to feature on any officials hit list for a good while yet

[nuke]

Yes they are offside but law 11.1(a) states that a player who is in an offside position is not automatically penalised so that brings us back to having a material effect on the game as per 11.1(b) which says a player who is offside must not take part in the game.This means the player must not play the ball or obstruct an opponent.

As for moving forward when the ball is past you that is covered specifically in Law 11.1(c) and is for when the ball is kicked passed you, not passed behind you. This does not apply to dummy runners

Law 11.1(c) Offside and moving forward. When a team-mate of an offside player has kicked ahead,
the offside player must not move towards opponents who are waiting to play the ball, or
move towards the place where the ball lands, until the player has been put onside.

[plastic]

Material effect is as subjective as it comes.

If the ball has come from the breakdown and is passing along the backline (allowing the use of dummy runners) then the bulf of the players (forwards etc) will be travelling in the direction of the ball, and therefore will be passing through the line of the dummy runners.
I am stating all dummy runners should be penalised, I'm saying it should be looked at - to tidy up the midfield and give defences a fair crack of the whip.
From distant memory Mr FitzPatrick was the master of the tactical retreat from offside - how many S-H passes did he disrupt over the years ?

As the IRB have failed to deal with the scrum put in, it's unlikely to do anything about the rest of the issue

[Evil Omer]

There is a simple answer to make this easy to control, one law change. Once you get beyond the ball the obligation should be on you to retreat.

[plastic]

Agree with Omer

Fantastic 'dummy runner' for Edinburgh's first try
Took out 2 Munster defenders (3 yards in front of the ball) - was wondering where Dougie got to

[Piquet]

Yes, the EMBRA 12 wasn't it?

[nuke]

Agree with Omer

Fantastic 'dummy runner' for Edinburgh's first try
Took out 2 Munster defenders (3 yards in front of the ball) - was wondering where Dougie got to

As we all know it's obstruction and should be penalised as such.

It's a bit like the maul - technically it's offside and obstruction but who in Munster doesn't enjoy a good rumbling maul.

Blame the referee for not enforcing the laws and let's look to change their view. The laws on this don't need changing only the interpretation by certain ref's.

[Evil Omer]

As we all know it's obstruction and should be penalised as such.

It's a bit like the maul - technically it's offside and obstruction but who in Munster doesn't enjoy a good rumbling maul.

Blame the referee for not enforcing the laws and let's look to change their view. The laws on this don't need changing only the interpretation by certain ref's.

I agree they need to enforce laws better but I do think this one needs clarification - if you're in front of the ball your aim should be to get back onside not loiter or keep moving forward. That kick chase law interpretation should be applied. I remember David Wilson had a version on this when Australia ran off the top from a lineout. He'd head straight off the back of the lineout across the opposition back line, well in front of the ball. Whatever about obstruction it's difficult to argue he's not an interference without sounding silly.

[plastic]

Again, agree with OE on this
Wantonly running in front of the ball should be penalised, whether you are "actively obstructing" or not.
Intentionally holding an offside position should be penalised.
A dummy runner is fine but not when he continues 5,6, 7 yards + downfield

[mtcmolloy]

Again, agree with OE on this
Wantonly running in front of the ball should be penalised, whether you are "actively obstructing" or not.
Intentionally holding an offside position should be penalised.
A dummy runner is fine but not when he continues 5,6, 7 yards + downfield

Before rugby started taking the p!ss with these runners,
the old rule was that you could pass the ball behind a player,
but that player could not run in front a ball being carried.

Partially difficult to ref, mind, but this rule was, i thought
a good way to stop this kind of BS.