• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Interpretation of Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Bruwheresmycar said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Bruwheresmycar

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
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

Bullrush

John Hipwell (52)
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

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
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.
 
Shiggins

Shiggins

Steve Williams (59)
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
ImageUploadedByTapatalk 21363846316.280879.jpg
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Sully said:
Why not? Is there a law for that

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

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.
 
elementfreak

elementfreak

Trevor Allan (34)
Shiggins said:
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
Click to expand...
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

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Sully said:
Why not? Is there a law for that

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

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

Sully

Tim Horan (67)
Staff member
qwerty51 said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Rassie

Rassie

Trevor Allan (34)
Perfectly legal. Nothing wrong with it nor did the crossing prevent a defender from putting a hand on him.
 
qwerty51

qwerty51

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Sully said:
I'm pretty certain I said thrown forward not traveled forward.

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top