Interpretation of Rules

[Braveheart81]

The important part is whether or not an offside player has prevented a tackle. I'm just saying I thought the defender was too committed to the inside centre to change his mind and tackle BOD instead. So while the guy was technically offside, the move was timed so well it didn't have an effect so play on was fair enough.

I agree with you that the issue is about whether or not the decoy runner has prevented the defender from making a tackle and in this instance I certainly think he has. If there was no decoy runner at all then I think that defender was close enough to BOD to make an attempt at a tackle.

The decoy runner has prevented the defender from running in a straight line at where BOD was running.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Yeah but the defender had committed to #11 while he was still onside. That's why I say it was timed well. By the time the ball had been released and BOD ran behind (making him technically offside) it was too late for the defender to change his mind.

By saying he would have certainly made the tackle without the decoy there is saying that if you took away an onside player the tackle would have been made.

If you think there is a convincing case that the tackle would have been made had #11 disappeared off the face of the earth the second BOD ran around, then OK. But I don't think the probability is high enough. I like obstruction penalties to be clear and obvious infringements to allow for a little creativity with the decoys.

 

[Bullrush]

You do wonder that if BOD had been smashed while the ball was in the air, if the tackler would have been penalised for tackling without the ball. Given that pretty much everyone except BOD himself knew that he wasn't giving up possession, I think the tackler probably would have.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the crucial point of whether the defender is obstructed or not is when you can draw a straight line from BOD through the decoy runner to the defender. At that point, the defender is only a couple of metres from BOD and the decoy runner is in an off side position relative to BOD. If the decoy runner wasn't there, the defender could make an attempt at a tackle at this point.

I think that is why this should be obstruction. The defender is left with little choice but to take the decoy runner and hope for a penalty to be called.

 

[yourmatesam]

Penalty obstruction. Nothing wrong with the "pass".

 

[qwerty51]

He passed it forward to himself deliberately, that's illegal

 

[yourmatesam]

qwerty51 What pass are you looking at?

 

[Shiggins]

Got a question. In the force reds game. Alcock charges the ball down, so the ball goes into the end goal off blue. Why doesn't the red player have to ground the ball? Why can he unintentionally hit the ball into touch in goal and its a 22. I thought you had to place the ball. I'm pretty sure you can't slap the ball purposely into touch in goal. is the right? to

 

[qwerty51]

qwerty51 What pass are you looking at?

On closer review, he probably throws it backwards but he's not allowed to do it to himself intentionally?

 

[Sully]

Why not? Is there a law for that

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Braveheart81]

Why not? Is there a law for that

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I don't think there is any problem with the throwing the ball to yourself. It just needs to be ignored and treated as if the player held the ball the whole time. Obstruction still applies and the player should still be able to be tackled even if not currently holding the ball.

 

[swingpass]

in rugby as in life timing is everything

 

[elementfreak]

Got a question. In the force reds game. Alcock charges the ball down, so the ball goes into the end goal off blue. Why doesn't the red player have to ground the ball? Why can he unintentionally hit the ball into touch in goal and its a 22. I thought you had to place the ball. I'm pretty sure you can't slap the ball purposely into touch in goal. is the right? toView attachment 3348

I am 99% sure you are right, give me a second to look in my lawbook.

Can't find the relevant law sorry, but have a read of law 22, that is all about in-goal.

 

[qwerty51]

Why not? Is there a law for that

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not sure, I was always told you can't. What's stopping a playing throwing the ball over an opponent's head so he can't tackle you?

 

[Sully]

I'm not sure, I was always told you can't. What's stopping a playing throwing the ball over an opponent's head so he can't tackle you?

That would be purposely throwing the ball forward and is not allowed. I'm sure backwards is fine.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[qwerty51]

As in the video that ball can travel forwards but be thrown backwards

 

[Rassie]

Perfectly legal. Nothing wrong with it nor did the crossing prevent a defender from putting a hand on him.

 

[Sully]

As in the video that ball can travel forwards but be thrown backwards

I'm pretty certain I said thrown forward not traveled forward.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

 

[qwerty51]

I'm pretty certain I said thrown forward not traveled forward.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD

Like I said you throw a ball over an opposition's head without throwing it forward. If you throw it straight up with your momentum it will go with you.