Post by Alan LuchettiWhether he is in front of or behind the ball carrier is irrelevant if he
doesn't obstruct. Surely you know this.
No, it is not irrelevant. As a general rule, the laws say any player
is offside when he is in front of the ball carrier.
Fortunately, the laws now also state that a player is not to be
penalised automatically when he is offside, but not interfering with
play. This is a great blow to beady-eyed pommy pedants as they now
have to spend more time quietly going about their work instead of
blowing themselves into the spotlight.
What law 11.1 does actually say is:
"(a)A player who is in an off-side position is liable to penalty only
if the player
does one of three things:
Interferes with play or,
Moves forward, towards the ball or
Fails to comply with the 10-Metre Law (Law 11.4).
A player who is in an off-side position is not automatically
penalised.
A player who receives an intentional throw-forward is not off-side.
A player can be off-side in the in-goal.
(b)Off-side and interfering with play. A player who is off-side must
not
take part in the game. This means the player must not play the ball or
obstruct an opponent."
So every time a decoy runner is in front of the ball carrier and
continues moving forward, he is offside and in breach of the laws, and
should be penalised. It is up to the referee to decide is he is
interfering with play or obstructing. But what other purpose would he
have if he is in front of the ball carrier and continues moving
forward? If he is not there to deliberately interfere with the defence
from an offside position, then he should be moving back behind the
ball carrier so he can take part in play.
Post by Alan LuchettiMotives are irrelevant to the obstruction law. If it was accidental you are
no less guilty. If they obstruct, ping 'em; if not, don't.
Of course. But opinions vary considerably on what constitutes
obstruction. Refs have been very lenient on the Australian
interpretation and that should change.
Post by Alan LuchettiI'm not inside Eddie's head, but I suspect he'd prefer his decoy runners to
be potential ball recipients in order to be credible decoys.
I wonder if such generosity would be extended to non-Australian
coaches.
Post by Alan LuchettiI suspect he'd
prefer his ball carriers to have multiple passing options at as may
different widths and angles as possible. And I'm sure he doesn't want to
give penalties away to the likes of England, or even NZ.
Nobody does. Doesn't stop anybody from getting away with what they can
though, does it?
Post by Alan LuchettiYou can't impede defenders legally
Pointless statement, Al. You do whatever you can get away with.
Post by Alan Luchettiand distraction is not of itself illegal.
A moot point. A referee might consider a player in an offside position
and making no attempt to get back on side has no business doing
anything, including distracting.
Post by Alan LuchettiAgreed. Except to note that players ahead of the ball carrier are not
likely to deceive defenders that they are about to receive a pass from the
ball carrier.
Remember what it was like playing rugby, Al? You didn't have time to
sit back and ruminate about the pros and cons of a couple of attacking
players coming at you. You instinctively stopped to cover the attacker
heading in your direction. In the half a second it took you to realise
he was ahead of the ball carrier and wasn't a threat, the ball carrier
had changed direction and was coming through the hole you should have
been covering.
-- rick boyd