counter measure to pass behind

[Not Kurt Weaver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMLgRb4jtCQ&feature=player_embedded#!

At :47 -:49 ish in the video there is a pass behind to BOD. Obviously an accepted tactic, but at first glance it appeared obstructive to me.

What would be wrong with the defending Welsh player tackling the snot out of the decoy runner? Enough so that the same runner would hesitate to do it again. That decoy runner is in fact offside.

Nothing against the Irish, The ploy is used plenty.

 

[Drift]

The defenders didn't fall for it so play on IMO.

 

[Simon Thomas]

not material - play on

 

[Taff]

What would be wrong with the defending Welsh player tackling the snot out of the decoy runner? Enough so that the same runner would hesitate to do it again. That decoy runner is in fact offside.

not material - play on

I think NKWs point is what would have happened if the Welsh had "tackled the snot" out of the decoy runner?

Ie could the Welsh have been penalised for playing the man without the ball?

 

[Davet]

The dummy runner did not take any time or space away from anyone who was in a position to tackle the ball carrier, or subsequent ball carrier, and by the time he was in front of O'Driscoll then it was quite clear he did not have the ball - so any tackle on him could well have been penalised (though only after calling advantage, which since a try was scored became over).

Other sitiuations it may be less clear that the decoy hasn't got the ball, and in those cases an otherwise legal tackle may well simply be part of the price he pays, and we would play on.

Each case on its merits, use your judgement.

 

[L'irlandais]

...Other sitiuations it may be less clear that the decoy hasn't got the ball, and in those cases an otherwise legal tackle may well simply be part of the price he pays, and we would play on.

Each case on its merits, use your judgement.

Speaking of "other less clear situations" :

After 48 minutes 40 seconds of play (about 3 minutes into these short match highlights) the Welsh score their first try of the game.

Red 12 draws the tackler before he then runs into Green11, allowing Zebo's opposite number Red14 to run in unopposed.

A Green tackler (#12) missed the man with the ball, no issue with that ; the dummy runner successfully drew him. But does anyone feel Red 12 has actually obstructed Green11 preventing him from tackling his man?

The downside of all this, I find, is that telly-Rugby is misleading much less-skillful players to try and do likewise at grassroots level.

 

[Davet]

9 to 10 to 14 and then 12 runs a dummy line coming from behind and getting in front, drawing 2 potential tacklers - who may well have been close enought actually get to 14 if 12 had not got in the space.... marginal, but... I would have no problem with a ref who treated it as "crossing" and called it obstruction.

 

[L'irlandais]

Hi Davet,
Thanks for the reply. I not really suggesting blowing for crossing though, as I agree with you that was very marginal.

The way I see it :
Red 14 has come off his wing to come into the line. His opposite number (#11) has spotted it and covered across, leaving the blindside wing unmanned.

If coaches want to be taken seriously, the dummy runner must be running into space, otherwise it's clear there was never any intention for him to receive the ball. :shrug:

Here Red12, is not running into space, but deliberately getting into Green11's face.
In fairness to the referee it all happens so fast at International level, it's hard to spot. Technically #10 could decide, on the spur of the moment, to pass behind, to a player (#14) running a better line. That's not what's happening though, it's clearly a move from the training paddock "Right #12 you'll get up right into #11's face to prevent the tackle." It's so blatant.

Even more marginal, (not suggesting for a moment that it should have been blow) but none the less a coached move - this following example (from 2 mins 48 secs on) :
England v Scotland game : 53 minutes 43 sceonds of play White#20 (Haskell) obstructs by running a similiar line in front of the ball carrier (#10), to run into the cover as it seeks to cover across. Material as it allows Farrell the time and space to get away a superbe floated pass to the try scorer.

 

[didds]

well this was the argument that SCW was drawn into years ago isn't it?

use fo dummy runners and whether they are obstructing or not?


isn;t this where the French with passage a vide have effectively prevented any sort of dummy tun or switch close to the defence? (not necessarily a bad thing, just a different take)

didds

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

Well guys thanks for taking my original question elsewhere.

I am looking for a defensive solution to the dummy or decoy runner. Right now, based on answers above. The counter I would encourage is to deliver a hard driving tackle to the unsuspecting decoy runner which may or may not include a forearm to the back gliding up the back to ensure the face contact the ground.(Is that material?) What is the downfall? 3 pts to 7pts.? a YC, big deal I'll just send a goon in after the 10 minutes are up.

 

[L'irlandais]

Yeah,
Also called "Écran" = a screen. The translation of the Laws of the game, have lead to a few notable differences of Interprétation.

Oops crossed with NKW, this is a referee forum. Surely you don't what us to help you coach players to play outside the Laws of the Game? Playing the man without the ball is a "Non Non!" as they say in France.

 

[L'irlandais]

well this was the argument that SCW was drawn into years ago isn't it?...

Hi didds,
I'm sure you're correct in saying Sir Clive Woodward had an issue with it ;
however I cannot see any Clarifications in Law request about it from the RFU at the time.

WRFU didn't raise the issue either, after this "Smith angered by crossing claims" incident back in Nov, 2004.

 

[Davet]

NKW - my #5 did answer your question.

In the BOD clip then tackling the non-ball carrier could well be pinged.

If your answer is merely to send in the goons and try to hurt players then I would expect the goons to get red carded and banned.

 

[Account Deleted]

....WRFU ....

Can anyone here tell me what the WRFU is?

 

[4eyesbetter]

Well guys thanks for taking my original question elsewhere.

I am looking for a defensive solution to the dummy or decoy runner.

Simple; find a Rugby League coach who's crossed codes to coach defence, and ask him. I hear there's one or two of them washing around.

 

[L'irlandais]

Can anyone here tell me what the WRFU is?

Ah, I see what you mean. Not the Western Rugby Football Union in the United States. The iRB link is to Undeb Rygbi Cymru of course, that's "Fédération galloise de rugby" to you or I.

(In fairness ATTR, that's a little pentadic ; many Welsh fans on Gwladrugby(dot)com also call it WRFU. So I suspect most folks on here realise which Union the link was referring to.)

 

[Account Deleted]

(In fairness ATTR, that's a little pentadic ; many Welsh fans on Gwladrugby(dot)com also call it WRFU. So I suspect most folks on here realise which Union the link was referring to.)

In fairness, most posters on Gwlad have not a clue about rugby and few get WRU wrong. It tends to be people outside of Wales that use the term (WRFU). The WRU is pretty famous and due to the inept running of the Welsh game on Gwlad, the letters WRU stand for:

Worst Run Union.

it may be pedantic. But I just thing effort should be made to get common courtesies right. Call me Old fashioned or pompous in that if you choose.

 

[L'irlandais]

Fair enough, I don't spend enough time on Gwladrugby to know if it's members are knowledgeable or not.

I don't think Wales is the worst run of the home Unions by a long chalk. Scottish Rugby Union seem to have their fair share of problems too. I'm just not convinced that a the provincial set-up suits Wales, since the support is club based. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with that opinion however :

Here are three strategies that David Moffett thinks would work to address this threat to Welsh rugby.
First, the WRU could create four genuine Welsh rugby provinces and divest some of the centralised functions to them.
Secondly, the WRU and money-men could jointly own the provincial teams on a 50-50 basis.
Thirdly, as the WRU and provincial teams would jointly own the players’ contracts, central contracting becomes superfluous. (Players who play outside Wales would not be selected for the national side.)

Source : Wales on-line

Looks like some folks still want to continue down that road.

Ps. Pendatic = Who, What, When/Where, Why & How?

 

[Account Deleted]

Sorry to appear to "have a go" at you. Names are a bug bear with me. Mine is always spelt incorrectly (and my name is not, incorrectly. - Just thought I'd get that one in first.). I understand that people will assume the "common" spelling until advised. Yet I have people who have known me for over 20 years, with whom I regularly correspond who ignore my spelling when replying. So it does get my goat.

 

[L'irlandais]

Well, I can understand that. My first name is Conor, the number of folks who spell it Connor, even after I've corrected them several times is quite astounding. That said it's not something that's ever particularly bothered me ; I've been called much worse.