Dummy runners, crossing and obstruction of defences

I know that these issues have been covered before, and that the current interpretation in RU is much more lenient than in rugby league, i.e. that penalties are only awarded when the attacking player in front of the ball clearly obstructs a would-be tackler.

One thing I've noticed in the RWC (at least much more obviously than before) is that several teams (Australia being one of the big exponents of this, but they are not alone) are having the dummy runner run to the defensive line and then slow down, just a bit in the way of the inside defender who is drifting outwards. The ball carrier is then following through on a cut back so as to go through the half hole that has been created. By the time the ball carrier is getting to the defence, the dummy runner has got out of the way, but he's just slowed the inside defender up by a step.

Surely this should be given as a penalty for obstruction, although so far I haven't seen one given.

dummy_half wrote:I know that these issues have been covered before, and that the current interpretation in RU is much more lenient than in rugby league, i.e. that penalties are only awarded when the attacking player in front of the ball clearly obstructs a would-be tackler.

One thing I've noticed in the RWC (at least much more obviously than before) is that several teams (Australia being one of the big exponents of this, but they are not alone) are having the dummy runner run to the defensive line and then slow down, just a bit in the way of the inside defender who is drifting outwards. The ball carrier is then following through on a cut back so as to go through the half hole that has been created. By the time the ball carrier is getting to the defence, the dummy runner has got out of the way, but he's just slowed the inside defender up by a step.

Surely this should be given as a penalty for obstruction, although so far I haven't seen one given.

Some interesting points. Genia made a break vs Ireland that was pulled up for crossing, though from memory that one was pretty blatent.

If the inside runner is level with or behind the ball carrier then by definition he's on-side and entitled to be there - that's why the obstruction call against McCaw the other day was regarded as controversial.

All Blacks had a try ruled out against Tonga for it. I remember the general conscensus was that it was overly officious refereeing. Seems this has become such a part of the game.

Kiwi

England got pinged for crossing twice against Georgia, both times were totally correct and were simply from breakdown in communication in the back line (and both iirc were because the ball carrier drifted behind an outside player running a straight line).

The examples I'm thinking of (I certainly remember Aus trying this against Ireland, and am pretty sure the Boks did something similar against Wales) is where the ball is passed behind the dummy runner who then runs a straightish path into the defensive line and slows up the drifting cover defence. The ball carrier is then running to pretty much the same spot as the dummy runner went through - it's not the sort of blatent obstruction that gets pinged, but does seem to me rather like a block.

I have no problem with the idea of using a dummy runner to distract a defence, but in the cases I'm thinking of the guy in front of the ball carrier is pysically getting in the way of a defender rather than just taking his eye, and so is interfering with the defensive positioning while in an offside position.

I've noticed that Samo is often standing around in the line and Genia runs towards him a lot. Probably happens with every team to some extent but Genia is such and dangerous runner and Samo is so big that it really stands out.