When's a dummy run a dummy run and a block a block?

So a promising Italian attack is penalised for blocking (Italian player - cant remember his name runs in to Welsh defender due to a miss-pass and definitely does block), meanwhile the Cuthbert try is created due to a miss-pass with the dummy runner definitely blocking the Italian defence giving Cuthbert an unhindered run to the line.
Lucky Wales unlucky Italy, or is there an unbiased scholar of rugby rules who can put me right on this area of play?

it was just unlucky, ref missed one and caught the other. Could of easily happened the other way round.

This is definitely a grey area, the SH has been doing it for years and Wales more recently. A runner who runs into the opposing defender thus taking him out of the defensive line without the ball is surely blocking.

Wales were comfortably the better team - but as so often happens in that case also got the rub of the green with decisions. It looked like a clear block to me, but different anbgles will give different impressions.

LT, absolutely, this is not about having a go at Wales, they were good for their win for sure, it's more about the laws regulating this part of play. Can anyone shed light on this?

I think its do to with the space. The Italian number 7 just blindly ran into the welsh player blocking. Whereas Jonathon Davies ran at the space between the defender (as you would do usually in a match) and Canale (?) made the decision to tackle him. I agree it is a grey area but like so many aspects of the game it could go either way, and at the end of the day you have to play the ref, and remember that the ref is only human (although I actually thought poite wasn't bad!!)

Blocking can sometimes be seen as tackling someone without the ball.Who would be a referee?

I have to say if that of that wasn't a block I don't know what is.... There was no way the defender could have tackled cuthbert.

It's a grey area and something all sides do but I was surprised it wasn't pulled up.

If it continues it would be a real shame... This isn't American football.

I've been waiting for the anti-welsh vitriol. You've also forgot to mention the other time the Italians blocked the Welsh defence in the first half and got away with it. Luckily for us they dropped the ball after making the break.

The ball left Biggar's hands before the Italian defence came up so it can't be a block. Read the rules or try playing a game of rugby.

LondonTiger wrote:Wales were comfortably the better team - but as so often happens in that case also got the rub of the green with decisions. It looked like a clear block to me, but different anbgles will give different impressions.

Surely your illegitimate try against France is more of a hot topic. That and having Joubert in your back pocket is what I call the rub of the green.

Morgannwg wrote:I've been waiting for the anti-welsh vitriol.

Still waiting then.

Oh and you need to change the bait on that rod of yours, your next post is poor by your standards of fishing.

Morgannwg wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:Wales were comfortably the better team - but as so often happens in that case also got the rub of the green with decisions. It looked like a clear block to me, but different anbgles will give different impressions.

Surely your illegitimate try against France is more of a hot topic. That and having Joubert in your back pocket is what I call the rub of the green.

I love mixed metaphors on this forum! That's quite an image

Rob Andrew always used to have a comb in his pocket - as a schoolboy anyway

Morgannwg wrote:I've been waiting for the anti-welsh vitriol. You've also forgot to mention the other time the Italians blocked the Welsh defence in the first half and got away with it. Luckily for us they dropped the ball after making the break.

The ball left Biggar's hands before the Italian defence came up so it can't be a block. Read the rules or try playing a game of rugby.

Errr no it didn't, it was a far more obvious block than the Italian penalty.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:I've been waiting for the anti-welsh vitriol. You've also forgot to mention the other time the Italians blocked the Welsh defence in the first half and got away with it. Luckily for us they dropped the ball after making the break.

The ball left Biggar's hands before the Italian defence came up so it can't be a block. Read the rules or try playing a game of rugby.

Errr no it didn't, it was a far more obvious block than the Italian penalty.

Jesus. This post just goes and proves you've never played the damn game. How about your non-try against France? Surely you can see how incredibly lucky England are to have a settled team playing against an out of sorts France and injury depleted Ireland and Wales teams.

There goes the thread...

Morgannwg wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:I've been waiting for the anti-welsh vitriol. You've also forgot to mention the other time the Italians blocked the Welsh defence in the first half and got away with it. Luckily for us they dropped the ball after making the break.

The ball left Biggar's hands before the Italian defence came up so it can't be a block. Read the rules or try playing a game of rugby.

Errr no it didn't, it was a far more obvious block than the Italian penalty.

Jesus. This post just goes and proves you've never played the damn game. How about your non-try against France? Surely you can see how incredibly lucky England are to have a settled team playing against an out of sorts France and injury depleted Ireland and Wales teams.

Your post just goes to prove that you are a typical chip on the shoulder jealous type - you're not English, get over it, jeez!

This post is about blocking, not about the English try, which anyone can see was fortunate, just like the Cuthbert try you chump

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:There goes the thread...

yep, yet another one ruined by this biitter Holly Wilaboobie - mods ffs ban him!, I am sick of him ruining every good discussion on this board.

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:

A World Cup and 3 Finals wrote:

Morgannwg wrote:I've been waiting for the anti-welsh vitriol. You've also forgot to mention the other time the Italians blocked the Welsh defence in the first half and got away with it. Luckily for us they dropped the ball after making the break.

The ball left Biggar's hands before the Italian defence came up so it can't be a block. Read the rules or try playing a game of rugby.

Errr no it didn't, it was a far more obvious block than the Italian penalty.

Jesus. This post just goes and proves you've never played the damn game. How about your non-try against France? Surely you can see how incredibly lucky England are to have a settled team playing against an out of sorts France and injury depleted Ireland and Wales teams.

Your post just goes to prove that you are a typical chip on the shoulder jealous type - you're not English, get over it, jeez!

This post is about blocking, not about the English try, which anyone can see was fortunate, just like the Cuthbert try you chump

And thank god I'm not English. I would hate to be that arrogant .

Yeah I see what your post is about, but I've proven there was no blocking for Cuthberts try. I shouldn't need to tell you this, you can just read up on the laws of the game. But as usual I have to explain things. So as there is no discussion here I've presented you with a more feisty topic, England's illegitimate try.

I'll try to put my view on this, but you'll just think I'm biased! But he goes anyway:

I've re-watched this try about 8 times now. I think the Cuthbert try was fine for one main reason. If the defender wanted to tackle Cuthbert but Davies ran into his path to stop him, then yes that would be clear blocking. However, the welsh line advances forward as one. The Italian player picked Davies out as the likely receiver and advances towards him to tackle him. The wrong choice by the defender and the commitment to the wrong tackle does not mean it is blocking. That's the key difference. The defender moved to tackle Davies, rather than being stopped from tackling Cuthbert. That's the skill of dummy running, and I suppose a bit of a grey area. I've seen much more deliberate blocks where players get in the way of the defender trying to tackle someone else. In this one, the defender lines up Davies wrongly. Not Davies' fault.

Griff wrote:I've re-watched this try about 8 times now. I think the Cuthbert try was fine for one main reason. If the defender wanted to tackle Cuthbert but Davies ran into his path to stop him, then yes that would be clear blocking. However, the welsh line advances forward as one. The Italian player picked Davies out as the likely receiver and advances towards him to tackle him.

After a similar number of watchings, why I deem it to be blocking is that the one player who does not move up together with the rest is cuthbert who is coming from the blindside wing. He runs behind JD2 and into the gap created by JD2 running into the italian. Cuthbert was not part of the line, was Inside JD2 when the ball was passed to him and was directly behind JD2 at the point of impact. Had he been outside JD2 at the time of the pass he would have been fine.

It was less clear cut than I had thought on my original viewing though.

When I watched the game I thought it was close but ok as the defender wouldnt have got to him. Having just watched scrum v, I think it was defo a block.

Watch it several times, from all the various angles and perspectives, then slow it down and repeat. Watch it on rewind slo-mo if you have the technological means.

Try all day, it's not as if a welsh player kicked the ball forward into his team mate and then ran it in unopposed. What's most revealing is that no Italians appealed for it as a block.

It could easily have been given as a block but fortunately it wasn't a deciding factor in this game.

How is it a block? It was a simple miss pass where the defender tackled the man without the ball. There was no crossing involved, JD and Cuthbert were running directly towards the try line, and the defender made his decision early. How anyone can claim blocking is beyond me. You would have to outlaw the miss pass otherwise.

If it was a block, and therefore should have been penalised, then that gives defending teams carte Blanche to dive at the wrong man and cry 'penalty' IMO. There'd be penalties at most attacking moves by going for any man and saying that he drew the oppositon player in. Dummy runners are allowed in the game. Creating confusion about who is going to get the ball is part of the game, and a valid tactic. I'm still convinced that Davies didn't stop the player, didn't get in his way. He just lined up Davies as the receiver and got the wrong man.

On first viewing I thought block too, but the final decision is simple...

It is a block if Cuthbert takes the ball at a point of either directly behind Davies or on the right hand side and crossing Davies's path to his left.

Cuthbert recieves the ball just to Davies's left, meaning Davies isn't guily of causing crossing.

The other issue for me is does Davies deter his run in any way to obstruct the defender?

IMHO he doesn't, his dummy run is direct and doesn't make an attempt to obstruct, if the player who commits to Davies had gone for Cuthbert then I'd agree the obstruction may have been given, but because the defender just hits Davies and doesn't make any attempt at Cuthbert I can't see how an obstruction can be given.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjEIuqeUF5E

9 seconds in is when Cuthbert recieves the ball (no crossing)
11 seconds in is when the defender looks back to realise Cuthbert is in, and just stops making contact with Davies.

or 46 and 48 seconds for the front on shot

if you run into a gap - dummy/decoy

if you run into a defender - block/obstruction.


unfortunately the play happens so quickly the decoy runs sometimes look like obstruction. With the TMO having more ruling power hopefully the ref can check if there's uncertainty when a try is involved

Disagree dallym...

If you run a straight line and make contact with a defender who has clearly earmarked you for the tackle how can that be a block, it is a dummy run thatss bamboozled the defender.

If you run into the space between the defender drifting across and the ball carrier then youve obstructed the defender from getting too the ball carrier!

Very marginal one - from the main camera angle it looks like a block, but from the camera near the posts it's obvious that Canale chooses to take JD2 and could have got outside him to make the tackle on Cuthbert (or at least to be in the position to make an effort).

Would have been penalised in League, where the interpretation is much more in favour of the defensive side.

More generally, it is an area that the IRB need to take a look at - teams are really pushing the intention of the laws, by running dummy runners in to the defensive line and then having the ball carrier follow through the hole that the dummy runner has widened. Australia in particular really push the limits all the time

For me, the law (or at least the interpretation) should be that it is obstruction when the dummy runner physically blocks the direct line between the potential tackler and the ball carrier - using this case as an example, I would have no problem with JD2 running a line to Canale's left shoulder, as it's then up to Canale as to who he targets, but JD2 running to his right shoulder puts him into the same space in the defensive line should be considered obstruction. This case, the line JD2 runs is pretty straight head-on into the defence, so is right on the borderline (probably just the right side).

Higher_Ground wrote:How is it a block? It was a simple miss pass where the defender tackled the man without the ball. There was no crossing involved, JD and Cuthbert were running directly towards the try line, and the defender made his decision early. How anyone can claim blocking is beyond me. You would have to outlaw the miss pass otherwise.

not true. When the pass is made Cuthbert is on the inside of JD2 having come from his own wing and passes behind JD2. When he gets the ball he is directly behind JD2. It is not as clear cut as I originally thought, I completely understand why it was not picked up, but it was a block - though a block that teams get away with nowadays. If it is deemed OK, then the laws should be changed.