Scenario 3

[Robert Burns]

Blue Scrum,

Ball goes in, Blue win the ball.

Number 8 and Scrum half both reach for the ball, then run in different directions away from the scrum, Scrum Half then passes ball out to Fly Half whilst No. 8 Gets a huge tackle from Red Flanker.

Any offence here?

If so what?

 

[Plod]

Blue Scrum,

Ball goes in, Blue win the ball.

Number 8 and Scrum half both reach for the ball, then run in different directions away from the scrum, Scrum Half then passes ball out to Fly Half whilst No. 8 Gets a huge tackle from Red Flanker.

Any offence here?

If so what/QUOTE]Which offence would you like to manage best? I cannot imagine this actually happening in real play as the non putting in number 9 must have been asleep as he/she should have picked and gone. So lets treat it as a law thought. 1. Play advantage by seeing if oppo 9 picks and goes, happy days. 2. Penalise no 9 by F.K. LAW 20 .9 (h) for attempted dummy 3.penalise red flanker for tackling number 8 without the ball? Answer has to be to see if 1 develops if not apply 2, I would suggest you cannot really apply 3. as it was aided and abetted by numbers 9 and 8.

 

[Robert Burns]

Anythings possible at the lower levels plod, such a unique game in itself, lol

 

[didds]

Anythings possible at the lower levels plod, such a unique game in itself, lol

SH hasn't dummied, so no FK for that.

Depends on what No. 8 did really. If he obstructed oppo SH or flanker from getting to No 9 then that's a penalty. Otherwise play on... its a harsh call to ping the flank for tackling w/out the ball when the entire operation was intended to deceive him into such a manouvre.

didds

 

[Robert Burns]

What about an unbinding before the scrums over on the No. 8?

is there a right or wrong? does the No 8 deserve the hit?

 

[didds]

What about an unbinding before the scrums over on the No. 8?

Good query of course. Something else that would need checking.


>is there a right or wrong? does the No 8 deserve the hit?

its seems harsh to penalise the flank for the no. 8 tackle if it is a genuine dummy manouvre - after all the whole point is to draw the oppo. As long as following the tackle and realising the "mistake" the flank releases the No. 8 "immediately".... the paralell here is Cohen and Larkham in the RWC final when L tackled C following a dummy run... but if you watch the replays you see that having made the tackle on a non-ball carrier because of the dummy, Larkham then continues to hold on to Cohen's foot rather than releasing him.

I don;t feel that the "tackle the non-ball carrier" law was intended to penalise players that tackle dummying players in this way - its there to stop players takling out support runners generally (ie no Grid Iron style "blocking"). And as I said elsewhere if you go on a dummy run and get tackled that is hardly the tacklers fault (other than being brilliantly duped).

didds

 

[Robert Burns]

I fully agree.

I think the flanker would rightly feel hard done by if pinged for a tackle off the ball.

 

[Davet]

Blue Scrum,

Ball goes in, Blue win the ball.

Number 8 and Scrum half both reach for the ball, then run in different directions away from the scrum, Scrum Half then passes ball out to Fly Half whilst No. 8 Gets a huge tackle from Red Flanker.

Any offence here?

If so what?

Well, the 9 took the ball so no dummy there.

When the 8 unbound - presumably with the ball at his feet - then the scrum was over anyway.

If the 9 picked up the ball, from in front of the 8s feet (which surely must be the case otherwise the 8 couldn't pretend to pick it up....) then the 9 must be infrint of the 8 - who must therefore be onside. So he can't really be penalised for obstruction.

The Flanker who bought the move then tackled a player without the ball - and I suppose could be pinged, but that would seem very harsh, and I guess the side whose manouvre paid off would prefer the advantage anyway.

Though in reality, if I saw this at my level it would almost certainly be down to a fortuitious lack of communication & co-ordination by the 8 and 9; rather than some brilliant rehearsed move

 

[Robert Burns]

Though in reality, if I saw this at my level it would almost certainly be down to a fortuitious lack of communication & co-ordination by the 8 and 9; rather than some brilliant rehearsed move

Ha ha, yes, I believe you are very right here.

looks good though.

 

[Pablo]

Surely this simply boils bown to a mater of timing?

Scrum half puts hands on ball, therefore scrum is over, so 8 can unbind. There's no dummy there, neither is there an early release.

No8 unbinds, does NOT pick up ball, then SH plays it... consider if the action of the 8 obstructed the oppo flank/SH from reaching his SH: if yes, PK; if no, play on.

Various other permutations of timing exist, I'm sure, but from the way you describe it, I don't think there was any pre-planning involved by the players!...

 

[AndyKidd]

its a harsh call to ping the flank for tackling w/out the ball when the entire operation was intended to deceive him into such a manouvre.

didds

But isn't that exactly what Mr Watson did to Larkham in the world cup final ..... pinged him for buying the dummy?

 

[didds]

But isn't that exactly what Mr Watson did to Larkham in the world cup final ..... pinged him for buying the dummy?

IMO no. Larkham bought the dummy and made the tackle... but failed to release Cohen when it was clear Cohen no longer had the ball.

Watson pinged him for not releasing in effect - not for the initial tackle per se.

YMMV.

Didds