Discussion:
Blocking runner
(too old to reply)
Ali Day
2003-10-16 12:09:50 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm

Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?

A
didgerman
2003-10-16 12:40:08 UTC
Permalink
"Ali Day" <***@cern.ch> wrote in message news:bmm1qe$efl$***@sunnews.cern.ch...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
A
To me this comes back to the only rule I'm not clear about.....:
Are you allowed to run into an offside position on purpose? Loitering is the
only thing that addresses this as far as I can see.
I don't like to see 'blocking runners' or any off the ball play tbh.
Mike Thompson
2003-10-16 12:57:36 UTC
Permalink
"Ali Day" <***@cern.ch> wrote in message news:bmm1qe$efl$***@sunnews.cern.ch...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
Burke pulled up short of the defence AND had his hands behind his back. He
blocked absolutely no one from getting to Roff.

The Argentine outside centre believed Burke was to get the ball and he came
'in' from his position, leaving a massive hole for Roff to run into. That was
the problem for the Argies, nothing else.

Woodward just seems to hate try scoring.

--
Mike
Ben L
2003-10-16 13:08:22 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Mike Thompson
Burke pulled up short of the defence AND had his hands behind his back. He
blocked absolutely no one from getting to Roff.
Butter wouldn't melt. Neil Back swears blind he always binds.
Post by Mike Thompson
The Argentine outside centre believed Burke was to get the ball and he came
'in' from his position, leaving a massive hole for Roff to run into. That was
the problem for the Argies, nothing else.
Woodward just seems to hate try scoring.
Eddie obviously doesn't. Ask the All Blacks.
--
Ben Longman
Mike Thompson
2003-10-16 13:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben L
<snip>
Post by Mike Thompson
Burke pulled up short of the defence AND had his hands behind his back. He
blocked absolutely no one from getting to Roff.
Butter wouldn't melt. Neil Back swears blind he always binds.
But refuses the Pollygraph (sp?) test, right?


--
Mike
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-21 09:59:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben L
<snip>
Post by Mike Thompson
Burke pulled up short of the defence AND had his hands behind his back. He
blocked absolutely no one from getting to Roff.
Butter wouldn't melt. Neil Back swears blind he always binds.
So which defender did Burke prevent from getting to Roff?
Ali Day
2003-10-16 13:05:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Thompson
Burke pulled up short of the defence AND had his hands behind his back. He
blocked absolutely no one from getting to Roff.
The Argentine outside centre believed Burke was to get the ball and he came
'in' from his position, leaving a massive hole for Roff to run into. That was
the problem for the Argies, nothing else.
I'm not talking about that incident, to me that's just all the coaches
trying to get under each other skin, same as Jonesy going on about rolling
mauls.

But if you clatter into someone that was a dummy runner and he'd run in
front of the ball carrier, do you get a penalty?
We have a kiwi ref here who pinged me once cos I'm too fat a lazy to run
back on side, I had my hands up and his comment was if you have time to put
your hands in the air you have time to get back onside, an exaggeration but
pretty fair point.

Cheers

A
Tim Fitzmaurice
2003-10-16 14:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
But if you clatter into someone that was a dummy runner and he'd run in
front of the ball carrier, do you get a penalty?
Likely you get pinged for crossing whether someone clatters into the
runner. If its a straight dummy run then it'll depend on if the ref
decides there was obstruction.

Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Stomper
2003-10-17 11:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
Post by Mike Thompson
Burke pulled up short of the defence AND had his hands behind his back. He
blocked absolutely no one from getting to Roff.
The Argentine outside centre believed Burke was to get the ball and he
came
Post by Mike Thompson
'in' from his position, leaving a massive hole for Roff to run into.
That
Post by Ali Day
was
Post by Mike Thompson
the problem for the Argies, nothing else.
I'm not talking about that incident, to me that's just all the coaches
trying to get under each other skin, same as Jonesy going on about rolling
mauls.
But if you clatter into someone that was a dummy runner and he'd run in
front of the ball carrier, do you get a penalty?
YES... IF the dummy runner impeded you in your ability to tackle the player
with the ball.... otherwise... NO

Kalr aka Stomper
Simon Stovin-Bradford
2003-10-16 13:35:49 UTC
Permalink
"Mike Thompson" <none by e-mail> wrote in message news:3f8e95c3$0$21649$***@news.optusnet.com.au...
<snip>
Post by Mike Thompson
Woodward just seems to hate try scoring.
Yep, he must do - after all, we never ever score any do we? Or maybe he's
just fed up with yet another whinging Aussie moaning about England (Neil
Back this time) in the press. How you lot can ever call us whinging poms I
don't know. If there was a moaning world cup, Aussie would win hands down.
Eales' remarks will probably make refs scrutinize Back, and Jones will kiss
his ass all day in an attempt to endear himself with the public. Woodwards
remarks he probably hopes will make them look at dummy runners, which he's
been on about for ages. It won't matter a damn though, because Aussies are
jammy bastards who are allowed to get away with anything. They're not
cheating - just raising the game to new levels, like Campese did with his
knock on in '91. Anyone not Australian is a cheat and unsporting though.
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-16 21:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben L
<snip>
Post by Mike Thompson
Woodward just seems to hate try scoring.
***MISPLACED SARCASM ALERT***
Post by Ben L
Yep, he must do - after all, we never ever score any do we? Or maybe
***WHINGING ABOUT WHINGING ALERT***
Post by Ben L
he's just fed up with yet another whinging Aussie moaning about
England (Neil Back this time) in the press. How you lot can ever call
***WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
us whinging poms I don't know. If there was a moaning world cup,
***LOST IRONY ALERT***
Post by Ben L
Aussie would win hands down. Eales' remarks will probably make refs
***WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
scrutinize Back, and Jones will kiss his ass all day in an attempt to
endear himself with the public. Woodwards remarks he probably hopes
***BUTTER WILL NOT MELT ALERT***
Post by Ben L
will make them look at dummy runners, which he's been on about for
ages. It won't matter a damn though, because Aussies are jammy
***WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
bastards who are allowed to get away with anything. They're not
***MAJOR WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
cheating - just raising the game to new levels, like Campese did with
his knock on in '91. Anyone not Australian is a cheat and unsporting
though.
Graduate School
2003-10-16 21:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by Ben L
<snip>
Post by Mike Thompson
Woodward just seems to hate try scoring.
***MISPLACED SARCASM ALERT***
Post by Ben L
Yep, he must do - after all, we never ever score any do we? Or maybe
***WHINGING ABOUT WHINGING ALERT***
Post by Ben L
he's just fed up with yet another whinging Aussie moaning about
England (Neil Back this time) in the press. How you lot can ever call
***WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
us whinging poms I don't know. If there was a moaning world cup,
***LOST IRONY ALERT***
Post by Ben L
Aussie would win hands down. Eales' remarks will probably make refs
***WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
scrutinize Back, and Jones will kiss his ass all day in an attempt to
endear himself with the public. Woodwards remarks he probably hopes
***BUTTER WILL NOT MELT ALERT***
Post by Ben L
will make them look at dummy runners, which he's been on about for
ages. It won't matter a damn though, because Aussies are jammy
***WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
bastards who are allowed to get away with anything. They're not
***MAJOR WHINGE ALERT***
Post by Ben L
cheating - just raising the game to new levels, like Campese did with
his knock on in '91. Anyone not Australian is a cheat and unsporting
though.
Boy, that certainly was a witty response, wasn't it chaps? Full of pith
and irony.

William Clark
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-16 21:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graduate School
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by Ben L
<snip>
Post by Mike Thompson
Woodward just seems to hate try scoring.
***MISPLACED SARCASM ALERT***
Post by Ben L
Yep, he must do - after all, we never ever score any do we? Or maybe
***WHINGING ABOUT WHINGING ALERT***
Post by Ben L
he's just fed up with yet another whinging Aussie moaning about
England (Neil Back this time) in the press. How you lot can ever
call ***WHINGE ALERT*** us whinging poms I don't know. If there was
a moaning world cup, ***LOST IRONY ALERT*** Aussie would win hands
down. Eales' remarks will probably make refs ***WHINGE ALERT***
scrutinize Back, and Jones will kiss his ass all day in an attempt
to endear himself with the public. Woodwards remarks he probably
hopes
***BUTTER WILL NOT MELT ALERT***
Post by Ben L
will make them look at dummy runners, which he's been on about for
ages. It won't matter a damn though, because Aussies are jammy
***WHINGE ALERT*** bastards who are allowed to get away with
anything. They're not ***MAJOR WHINGE ALERT*** cheating - just
raising the game to new levels, like Campese did with his knock on
in '91. Anyone not Australian is a cheat and unsporting though.
Boy, that certainly was a witty response, wasn't it chaps? Full of
pith and irony.
Wait ... don't tell me ... it's ... it's ... IRONY?
Brent
2003-10-16 22:08:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Wait ... don't tell me ... it's ... it's ... IRONY?
No.

I think we need a FAQ on this.

Cheers

Brent
Greig Blanchett
2003-10-17 23:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brent
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Wait ... don't tell me ... it's ... it's ... IRONY?
No.
I think we need a FAQ on this.
Cheers
Brent
Damn right. I always thought irony was the fine art of flattening
things. I've no idea what obfuscated semantics you youngsters are
indulging in these days.
rick boyd
2003-10-16 23:03:13 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:03:29 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
***MISPLACED SARCASM ALERT***
There's Aussie Dean, rushing to defend his homeland once again. Is
there a bigger Wallaby fan anywhere in the world?

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-18 00:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:03:29 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
***MISPLACED SARCASM ALERT***
There's Aussie Dean, rushing to defend his homeland once again. Is
there a bigger Wallaby fan anywhere in the world?
How have you enjoyed the world cup so far, Aussie Rick?

A bit stressful for you is it? That's a pity.

Maybe if you weren't so uptight you might in fact be enjoying it. That is
the whole point of being a fan, I'd have thought.
rick boyd
2003-10-18 06:14:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:06:57 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
How have you enjoyed the world cup so far, Aussie Rick?
Are you talking to me?

Average, if you must know. Australia-Argentina was a bit dire. The New
Zealand games have not risen to any great heights. I am looking
forward to tonight's game though. I'm not asking for much from the
world cup. A win would be nice, I suppose, but winning the tri nations
and Bledisloe Cup is about all I could honestly ask of this current
All Black team.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
A bit stressful for you is it? That's a pity.
No, not really. Not at all, in fact.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Maybe if you weren't so uptight you might in fact be enjoying it. That is
the whole point of being a fan, I'd have thought.
If you'd have thought, it'd be a first.

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-18 07:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 13:06:57 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
How have you enjoyed the world cup so far, Aussie Rick?
Are you talking to me?
What do ya reckon, Aussie Rick?

You seem to have been replying to a lot of my excellent posts of late. I've
been pretty much ignoring them to date, but thought it might be the polite
thing to acknowledge you for a change. Obviously a mistake on my part.
Post by rick boyd
Average, if you must know. Australia-Argentina was a bit dire. The New
Zealand games have not risen to any great heights. I am looking
forward to tonight's game though. I'm not asking for much from the
world cup. A win would be nice, I suppose, but winning the tri nations
and Bledisloe Cup is about all I could honestly ask of this current
All Black team.
You seem to demand very high standards, particularly of the AB's. Kind of
hypocritical really, when one considers what a boring, talentless second
what hack you are.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Ernest the Sheep
A bit stressful for you is it? That's a pity.
No, not really. Not at all, in fact.
Are you sure?

I was becoming increasingly concerned about the bizzare nature of your angst
ridden posts in here. Perhaps it's just a hormone imbalance brought on by
the onset of the male menopause. There are pills you can take for that,
Aussie Rick.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Maybe if you weren't so uptight you might in fact be enjoying it.
That is the whole point of being a fan, I'd have thought.
If you'd have thought, it'd be a first.
Slicing and dicing, eh Aussie Rick? You still got it!!
rick boyd
2003-10-18 09:29:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:04:44 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
What do ya reckon, Aussie Rick?
Well make your mind up.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
You seem to have been replying to a lot of my excellent posts of late.
"Replying" might be a little bit strong. Pointing out your lamentable
inadequacy would be closer to the truth.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
You seem to demand very high standards, particularly of the AB's.
Yes, something you Australians have trouble understanding, I know.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Kind of
hypocritical really, when one considers what a boring, talentless second
what hack you are.
As opposed to your own carefully constructed grammar, you mean?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
I was becoming increasingly concerned about the bizzare nature of your angst
ridden posts in here. Perhaps it's just a hormone imbalance brought on by
the onset of the male menopause. There are pills you can take for that,
Aussie Rick.
I can recommend some for you, too. Cyanide springs readily to mind.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Slicing and dicing, eh Aussie Rick? You still got it!!
Yes, yes, I know. "It's just a flesh wound", right?

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-18 10:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 20:04:44 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Well make your mind up.
You gotta speed it up

And then you gotta slow it down ....
Post by rick boyd
"Replying" might be a little bit strong. Pointing out your lamentable
inadequacy would be closer to the truth.
If you say so, Uncle Rick
Post by rick boyd
Yes, something you Australians have trouble understanding, I know.
I'm a Kiwi, Aussie Rick.

BTW how's the weather out there in "the west"?
Post by rick boyd
As opposed to your own carefully constructed grammar, you mean?
If there's one thing worse than a second rate hack, then it's a second rate
hack with delusions of worth. That'll be you, Aussie Rick.
Post by rick boyd
I can recommend some for you, too. Cyanide springs readily to mind.
You really need to stop obssessing over me, Aussie Rick!
Post by rick boyd
Yes, yes, I know. "It's just a flesh wound", right?
Stop tickling me with that wet lettuce, Uncle Rick!
rick boyd
2003-10-18 23:00:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:31:33 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
You gotta speed it up
I can see you having problems with that.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
And then you gotta slow it down ....
That would be more your style.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
If you say so, Uncle Rick
Boy, you really now how to counter-punch, don't you?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
I'm a Kiwi, Aussie Rick.
Are you? Good Lord. I must be Madagascan.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
BTW how's the weather out there in "the west"?
Currently sizzling in a tropical 19 degrees. How's the weather in your
foreign country?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
If there's one thing worse than a second rate hack, then it's a second rate
hack with delusions of worth. That'll be you, Aussie Rick.
Which one of us makes a living from writing again...?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
You really need to stop obssessing over me, Aussie Rick!
Is that the same as "toying" or is that just your masterful grammar at
work again?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Stop tickling me with that wet lettuce, Uncle Rick!
Sorry, I'll move down to something less painful for you. A waft of
warm beeze should do the trick.

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-19 00:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 23:31:33 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
I can see you having problems with that.
What a counter-punch!!
Post by rick boyd
That would be more your style.
And another!! Gee you're good.
Post by rick boyd
Boy, you really now* how to counter-punch, don't you?
I have no answer!!

*Note: no comment about carefully constructed grammar here. You'd need to be
anal retentive or desperate, or both, to do so.
Post by rick boyd
Are you? Good Lord. I must be Madagascan.
Wait .. don't tell me ... it's ... it's sarcasm!
Post by rick boyd
Currently sizzling in a tropical 19 degrees. How's the weather in your
foreign country?
huh??
Post by rick boyd
Which one of us makes a living from writing again...?
You make a living from writing, Aussie Rick? I thought you were merely an
amatuer in love with the sound of your own voice? But I guess as you're
probably the only one out west who knows anything about rugby you got the
gig more or less by default.

But let's have a gander st some of your recent work. I'd be interested to
see just how much of a two faced obnoxious wanker you can really be.
Post by rick boyd
Is that the same as "toying" or is that just your masterful grammar at
work again?
Beats me, Aussie Rick!!
Post by rick boyd
Sorry, I'll move down to something less painful for you. A waft of
warm beeze should do the trick.
Only if it's that breeze whistling thru your shorts
rick boyd
2003-10-19 00:53:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:34:07 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
What a counter-punch!!
Can you get your own gags please?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
And another!! Gee you're good.
Thanks. As if you'd know.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
I have no answer!!
So what else is new?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
*Note: no comment about carefully constructed grammar here. You'd need to be
anal retentive or desperate, or both, to do so.
Or actually have started a limp jibe about somebody's writing
ability...
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Wait .. don't tell me ... it's ... it's sarcasm!
Go on, you just read that in a book.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by rick boyd
Currently sizzling in a tropical 19 degrees. How's the weather in your
foreign country?
huh??
You know, New Zealand, the country to which you are so resentfully
exiled.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
You make a living from writing, Aussie Rick?
No, I do, Kiwi Rick, the New Zealand citizen currently sucking your
country dry.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
I thought you were merely an
amatuer in love with the sound of your own voice?
Like yourself you mean?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
But I guess as you're
probably the only one out west who knows anything about rugby you got the
gig more or less by default.
Undoubtedly. There's only a million and half people here after all.
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Beats me, Aussie Rick!!
But then doesn't everything?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Only if it's that breeze whistling thru your shorts
You've been spending time with Anthony, I can tell.

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-19 01:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 13:34:07 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Ooh, Aussie Rick, look how quickly you replied, you sad, strange
little man. Are you sitting by your computer like some sad, lonely
spinster, waiting for me to post? Is this what your pathetic life
amounts to?
Post by rick boyd
Can you get your own gags please?
No.
Post by rick boyd
Thanks. As if you'd know.
You'r right, I don't.
Post by rick boyd
So what else is new?
You talking to me?***
Post by rick boyd
Or actually have started a limp jibe about somebody's writing
ability...
Oh diddims .. Poor Aussie Rick! Did I hurt your feelings?
Post by rick boyd
Go on, you just read that in a book.
I have no books
Post by rick boyd
You know, New Zealand, the country to which you are so resentfully
exiled.
If you say so.
Post by rick boyd
No, I do, Kiwi Rick, the New Zealand citizen currently sucking your
country dry.
Well, you do suck
Post by rick boyd
Like yourself you mean?
That's a rather good retort, Aussie Rick. I must remember it!
Post by rick boyd
Undoubtedly. There's only a million and half people here after all.
And none of them know I thing about rugby.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Beats me, Aussie Rick!!
But then doesn't everything?
*LOL*- I didn't see that one coming!

What a witty man you are, Aussie Rick!!
Post by rick boyd
You've been spending time with Anthony, I can tell.
Please don't.


***(c) Aussie Rick (but really Robert DeNiro, but who can tell the diff
anyway!)
rick boyd
2003-10-19 21:37:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:32:02 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Ooh, Aussie Rick, look how quickly you replied, you sad, strange
little man. Are you sitting by your computer like some sad, lonely
spinster, waiting for me to post? Is this what your pathetic life
amounts to?
I'm a busy man, Aussie Dean, I do my rsru in bits in pieces when I
can. If you were fortunate enough to be blessed by a quick reply then
you should feel unusually grateful. A little smug even. There can't be
much you can feel smug about in your life, can there?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by rick boyd
Can you get your own gags please?
No.
The piss off, parrot.
-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-20 00:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:32:02 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Ooh, Aussie Rick, look how quickly you replied, you sad, strange
little man. Are you sitting by your computer like some sad, lonely
spinster, waiting for me to post? Is this what your pathetic life
amounts to?
I'm a busy man, Aussie Dean,
That's a matter of opinion, on both counts.
Post by rick boyd
I do my rsru in bits in pieces when I
can.
A likely story! You live for it, you sad pathetic little man!!
Post by rick boyd
If you were fortunate enough to be blessed by a quick reply then
you should feel unusually grateful. A little smug even. There can't be
much you can feel smug about in your life, can there?
Like yourself you mean? (pretty red hot, eh Aussie Rick?!!)
Post by rick boyd
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by rick boyd
Can you get your own gags please?
No.
The piss off, parrot.
Masterfull!!

You're a priceless laugh, Aussie Rick. You're f**king hilarious. I
slice and dice you with one liners, but you snip them all!

You know what you are, Aussie Rick? You're my puppet. I've never met
anyone so easily manipulated. How does it feel being a marionette?
rick boyd
2003-10-20 11:20:54 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:13:48 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
You know what you are, Aussie Rick? You're my puppet. I've never met
anyone so easily manipulated. How does it feel being a marionette?
Hmm, that has vaguely familiar sound to it. Oh yes, that's exactly
what I said to YOU last time you ran off sobbing and hid for a while.

Here Polly, have a cracker.

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-23 00:36:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:13:48 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Here Polly, have a cracker.
Behold the dancing bald-twit parrot.

Squawk! Squawk!Squawk!!
rick boyd
2003-10-23 13:57:44 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:36:57 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by rick boyd
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 13:13:48 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Here Polly, have a cracker.
Behold the dancing bald-twit parrot.
Has Polly got a mirror in her cage?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Squawk! Squawk!Squawk!!
Here, have another cracker. That'll shut you up.

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-24 02:58:20 UTC
Permalink
Polly have another cracker
Behold, ladies and gentlemen ......

The unbelievably bald

The incredibly boring

The magnificient, the stupendous!

I present to you the grotesque Bald ugly bald-twit parrot-bore!!!


Squawk! Squawk! Oink! Oink!
Greig Blanchett
2003-10-24 06:41:23 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:58:20 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Polly have another cracker
Behold, ladies and gentlemen ......
The unbelievably bald
The incredibly boring
The magnificient, the stupendous!
I present to you the grotesque Bald ugly bald-twit parrot-bore!!!
Squawk! Squawk! Oink! Oink!
If there's anything that illustrates your Australian heritage, it's
the complete inability to realize Rick's been shitting on you from a
great height for ages, yet you still think you can slug it out in a
battle of wits. Buffoon.
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-24 23:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greig Blanchett
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:58:20 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Polly have another cracker
Behold, ladies and gentlemen ......
The unbelievably bald
The incredibly boring
The magnificient, the stupendous!
I present to you the grotesque Bald ugly bald-twit parrot-bore!!!
Squawk! Squawk! Oink! Oink!
If there's anything that illustrates your Australian heritage, it's
the complete inability to realize Rick's been shitting on you from a
great height for ages, yet you still think you can slug it out in a
battle of wits. Buffoon.
Oh looky look! It's Mr Personality himself, Greg "Dull Buffoon" Blandshit!!

Thing is Greggy boy, you f**king dullard, I don't give a toss.

But it is comforting to know you've been following this thread, along with
my other good pal Ken-Paul. In fact I reckon it would be quite an idea for
you two boys to get together. With your brains and Ken-Paul's personality
you two would make quite a team!

As for our other good friend, Aussie Rick. I admire him, really I do. It
cannot be easy for him, living as he does out in the back of beyond, where
he's fritted away the best years of his life. He's bitter, he's twisted, and
he's ugly. But he puts on a brave face. You gotta admire that. All those
pathetic dreams of success and happiness he's desperately clung to have
gradually receded from the horizon and out of view, along with his hair
line. Yet thru the bitter disappointment of his unfulfilled ambitions, thru
the onset of the male menopause and mid-life crisis, he still manages to
bravely soldier on. Even taking time out from his busy schedule to read
every single one of my posts! Isn't that polite of him, even if he is a
obnoxious second rate hack with delusions of worth. I still appreciate the
attention. Sure he keeps regurgitating all the same lame lines he's being
using for yonks on usenet, and then getting miffed when I fail to stand and
applaud them, but what more can you expect from a tired old hack? You gotta
love the sad git!
alvey
2003-10-25 03:32:36 UTC
Permalink
snippo
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by Greig Blanchett
If there's anything that illustrates your Australian heritage, it's
the complete inability to realize Rick's been shitting on you from a
great height for ages, yet you still think you can slug it out in a
battle of wits. Buffoon.
Oh looky look! It's Mr Personality himself, Greg "Dull Buffoon" Blandshit!!
Thing is Greggy boy, you f**king dullard, I don't give a toss.
But it is comforting to know you've been following this thread, along with
my other good pal Ken-Paul.
Really got the trifecta up there haven't you?
It's always a giggle this tactic that Big Tough Greigy has trotted out
here. The "You're getting shit on nyah nyah." Never any actual evidence
or demonstration of exactly how, just, "You're getting shit on nyah nyah
nyah." Top stuff. Groupstink I believe it's called.

But I must disagree with your tactic of denigrating Rikki because of a
physical shortcoming, vis a vis his lack of hair. It's irrelevant and
absolutely unnecessary.




alvey
Greig Blanchett
2003-10-25 05:17:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:59:41 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by Greig Blanchett
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:58:20 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
[...]
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Post by Greig Blanchett
If there's anything that illustrates your Australian heritage, it's
the complete inability to realize Rick's been shitting on you from a
great height for ages, yet you still think you can slug it out in a
battle of wits. Buffoon.
Oh looky look! It's Mr Personality himself, Greg "Dull Buffoon" Blandshit!!
Buffoon? That was my line, you illiterate plagiarist. But how
Australian - born to steal, were we?
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Thing is Greggy boy, you f**king dullard, I don't give a toss.
You so don't give a toss, you respond to my 4 line post with a 20+
line dummy spit. Are other Australians embarrassed by you?

[...]

kenhiggs8
2003-10-24 07:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Polly have another cracker
Behold, ladies and gentlemen ......
The unbelievably bald
The incredibly boring
The magnificient, the stupendous!
I present to you the grotesque Bald ugly bald-twit parrot-bore!!!
Squawk! Squawk! Oink! Oink!
I would have thought that someone who claims to hold several PhD's
would have been able to come up with something a bit more witty than
that.

Perhaps you've been spending too much time commanding your own
personal airforce, performing multiple heart transplants on the poor
of Calcutta and having sex with every entrant to the Miss World
contest.

You poor, sad little creature

Higgsy
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-25 00:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenhiggs8
Post by Ernest the Sheep
Polly have another cracker
Behold, ladies and gentlemen ......
The unbelievably bald
The incredibly boring
The magnificient, the stupendous!
I present to you the grotesque Bald ugly bald-twit parrot-bore!!!
Squawk! Squawk! Oink! Oink!
I would have thought that someone who claims to hold several PhD's
would have been able to come up with something a bit more witty than
that.
Perhaps you've been spending too much time commanding your own
personal airforce, performing multiple heart transplants on the poor
of Calcutta and having sex with every entrant to the Miss World
contest.
You poor, sad little creature
Oh ... is it you again, Ken-Paul?

*Yaaaaawn*

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz......................
rick boyd
2003-10-24 22:01:46 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:58:20 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
<***@BAABAAsheepBAABAA.org> wrote:


-1000 out 10.

Now try again, and this time use one of your own lines. You know, one
of those red-hot sizzlers like "if you say so".

-- rick boyd
Ernest the Sheep
2003-10-25 00:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greig Blanchett
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 15:58:20 +1300, "Ernest the Sheep"
-1000 out 10.
Now try again, and this time use one of your own lines. You know, one
of those red-hot sizzlers like "if you say so".
If you say so.

Ooops - silly me! Not good enough!

How about this ...

If you say so, baldy

Is that up to standard?
stumpy
2003-10-16 13:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/
australia/3187240.stm
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner
is being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have
someone "accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball
carrier, and you then get a penalty for offside?
A
We played a team trying the dummy runner thing, it worked pretty well
for them until half time when we decided to kick the ball at them as
soon as they were offside. They stopped doing it pretty soon after that.
Groundhog
2003-10-16 16:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by stumpy
We played a team trying the dummy runner thing, it worked pretty well
for them until half time when we decided to kick the ball at them as
soon as they were offside. They stopped doing it pretty soon after that.
Sounds great - but...umm...how do you kick the ball at them when they have
posession - I thought "dummy runners" were at attacking ploy ?
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-16 15:35:47 UTC
Permalink
"Ali Day" <***@cern.ch> wrote in message news:bmm1qe$efl$***@sunnews.cern.ch...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
Woody & Loffreda are talking bollocks. Burke angled in toward the
insider of two 2 defenders, the outsider following him in. Roff's hole
was where the outsider had been and where the insider would never have
been unless he had hared outwards, in which case the ball would have
gone to Burke for a try under the posts. The outsider should have left
Burke for the inside man and covered Roff. Decoy, not obstruction.
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-16 15:51:27 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner
is
Post by Ali Day
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier,
and
Post by Alan Luchetti
you
Post by Ali Day
then get a penalty for offside?
Woody & Loffreda are talking bollocks. Burke angled in toward the
insider of two 2 defenders, the outsider following him in. Roff's hole
was where the outsider had been and where the insider would never have
been unless he had hared outwards, in which case the ball would have
gone to Burke for a try under the posts. The outsider should have left
Burke for the inside man and covered Roff. Decoy, not obstruction.
And how about this lunacy from O'Sullivan ...
"I spoke to Clive a long time ago and I know how he feels on the matter.
One way of resolving it would be to prevent teams passing behind
players' backs. I wouldn't have any dramas about that because it would
solve the problem straightaway."
Peter Ashford
2003-10-16 21:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner
is
Post by Ali Day
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have
someone
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier,
and
Post by Alan Luchetti
you
Post by Ali Day
then get a penalty for offside?
Woody & Loffreda are talking bollocks. Burke angled in toward the
insider of two 2 defenders, the outsider following him in. Roff's
hole
Post by Alan Luchetti
was where the outsider had been and where the insider would never have
been unless he had hared outwards, in which case the ball would have
gone to Burke for a try under the posts. The outsider should have
left
Post by Alan Luchetti
Burke for the inside man and covered Roff. Decoy, not obstruction.
And how about this lunacy from O'Sullivan ...
"I spoke to Clive a long time ago and I know how he feels on the matter.
One way of resolving it would be to prevent teams passing behind
players' backs. I wouldn't have any dramas about that because it would
solve the problem straightaway."
Heh. How about we ban players from running angles as well? Just get
them to run strictly parrallel to the sideline and the whole problem
just fades away :o)

Peter.
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-17 04:33:03 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Post by Peter Ashford
Post by Ali Day
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner
is
Post by Ali Day
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have
someone
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier,
and
Post by Alan Luchetti
you
Post by Ali Day
then get a penalty for offside?
Woody & Loffreda are talking bollocks. Burke angled in toward the
insider of two 2 defenders, the outsider following him in. Roff's
hole
Post by Alan Luchetti
was where the outsider had been and where the insider would never have
been unless he had hared outwards, in which case the ball would have
gone to Burke for a try under the posts. The outsider should have
left
Post by Alan Luchetti
Burke for the inside man and covered Roff. Decoy, not obstruction.
And how about this lunacy from O'Sullivan ...
"I spoke to Clive a long time ago and I know how he feels on the matter.
One way of resolving it would be to prevent teams passing behind
players' backs. I wouldn't have any dramas about that because it would
solve the problem straightaway."
Heh. How about we ban players from running angles as well? Just get
them to run strictly parrallel to the sideline and the whole problem
just fades away :o)
8^)
Then Woody would want to ban change of pace.
Stomper
2003-10-17 11:12:02 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/austr
alia/3187240.stm
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Peter Ashford
Post by Ali Day
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner
is
Post by Ali Day
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have
someone
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier,
and
Post by Alan Luchetti
you
Post by Ali Day
then get a penalty for offside?
Woody & Loffreda are talking bollocks. Burke angled in toward the
insider of two 2 defenders, the outsider following him in. Roff's
hole
Post by Alan Luchetti
was where the outsider had been and where the insider would never have
been unless he had hared outwards, in which case the ball would have
gone to Burke for a try under the posts. The outsider should have
left
Post by Alan Luchetti
Burke for the inside man and covered Roff. Decoy, not obstruction.
And how about this lunacy from O'Sullivan ...
"I spoke to Clive a long time ago and I know how he feels on the matter.
One way of resolving it would be to prevent teams passing behind
players' backs. I wouldn't have any dramas about that because it would
solve the problem straightaway."
Heh. How about we ban players from running angles as well? Just get
them to run strictly parrallel to the sideline and the whole problem
just fades away :o)
8^)
Then Woody would want to ban change of pace.
and passing

Karl aka Stomper
Colin Lord
2003-10-19 10:06:32 UTC
Permalink
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Post by Ali Day
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner
is
Post by Ali Day
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have
someone
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by Ali Day
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier,
and
Post by Alan Luchetti
you
Post by Ali Day
then get a penalty for offside?
Woody & Loffreda are talking bollocks. Burke angled in toward the
insider of two 2 defenders, the outsider following him in. Roff's
hole
Post by Alan Luchetti
was where the outsider had been and where the insider would never have
been unless he had hared outwards, in which case the ball would have
gone to Burke for a try under the posts. The outsider should have
left
Post by Alan Luchetti
Burke for the inside man and covered Roff. Decoy, not obstruction.
And how about this lunacy from O'Sullivan ...
"I spoke to Clive a long time ago and I know how he feels on the matter.
One way of resolving it would be to prevent teams passing behind
players' backs. I wouldn't have any dramas about that because it would
solve the problem straightaway."
How many times does a halfback pick up from a ruck/maul and pass behind a
forward who has just come off the ruck/maul? That would be laughable if
implemented.
rick boyd
2003-10-19 22:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Lord
How many times does a halfback pick up from a ruck/maul and pass behind a
forward who has just come off the ruck/maul? That would be laughable if
implemented.
Sounds a bit dodgy, Coles. If the detaching player gets in the way of
a defender attempting to access the halfback, he should be penalised
for obstruction.

-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2003-10-16 23:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/australia/3187240.stm
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
This has been a Brumbies and Wallabies ploy for some time. In my
opinion it is nothing short of cheating and should be penalised at
every opportunity.

The Australians like to promote themselves as squeakly clean,
especially while they had Mr Fucking Perfect Eales at the helm, but
under his reign they developed into one of the most negative and
cynical teams in world rugby.

The decoy runner is a blatant attempt to obstruct and distract
defences from targeting the ball carrier, and is little short of
running interference. Even if the decoy runner is not actually
physically obstructing defenders, he causes hesitation, may obstruct
the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a defensive
pattern.

It is an entirely negative ploy and should have no place in positive
rugby.

This, along with other tricks such sudden spates of convenient
injuries whenever the Wallabies are stretched, exposed the Wallbaies
as kings of the professional foul in the late 90s, early 00s.

-- rick boyd
Mike Thompson
2003-10-17 00:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/austral
ia/3187240.stm
Post by Ali Day
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
This has been a Brumbies and Wallabies ploy for some time. In my
opinion it is nothing short of cheating and should be penalised at
every opportunity.
The Australians like to promote themselves as squeakly clean,
especially while they had Mr Fucking Perfect Eales at the helm, but
under his reign they developed into one of the most negative and
cynical teams in world rugby.
The decoy runner is a blatant attempt to obstruct and distract
defences from targeting the ball carrier, and is little short of
running interference. Even if the decoy runner is not actually
physically obstructing defenders, he causes hesitation, may obstruct
the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a defensive
pattern.
It is an entirely negative ploy and should have no place in positive
rugby.
This, along with other tricks such sudden spates of convenient
injuries whenever the Wallabies are stretched, exposed the Wallbaies
as kings of the professional foul in the late 90s, early 00s.
Your post is something Anthony Webb would be proud off.

--
Mike
John Hill
2003-10-17 07:32:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:27 +1000, "Mike Thompson" <none by e-mail>
Post by Mike Thompson
Your post is something Anthony Webb would be proud off.
Why ? Anthony is usually wrong.

JH
Mike Thompson
2003-10-17 07:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:27 +1000, "Mike Thompson" <none by e-mail>
Post by Mike Thompson
Your post is something Anthony Webb would be proud off.
Why ? Anthony is usually wrong.
Yes. Wrong and desperately trolling.

--
Mike
alvey
2003-10-17 21:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Mike Thompson wrote:

snip
Post by Mike Thompson
Yes. Wrong and desperately trolling.
Nahhh. Rikki doesn't troll. Not in usenet anyway...


alvey
rick boyd
2003-10-17 23:33:40 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:02:27 +1000, "Mike Thompson" <none by e-mail>
Post by Mike Thompson
Your post is something Anthony Webb would be proud off.
I doubt it. My post is:
- devoid of references to anal masturbation
- actually about rugby
- entirely true.

YOUR'S on the other hand...

-- rick boyd
Rodger Donaldson
2003-10-18 21:47:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
YOUR'S on the other hand...
Rick. A misplaced apostrophe. You may as well slit your wrists now,
you know.
--
Rodger Donaldson ***@diaspora.gen.nz
rick boyd
2003-10-18 23:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rodger Donaldson
Post by rick boyd
YOUR'S on the other hand...
Rick. A misplaced apostrophe. You may as well slit your wrists now,
you know.
Roger Roger Roger. The apostrophe is a possessive for the implied
"your post".

-- rick boyd
Johnno
2003-10-19 09:38:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Rodger Donaldson
Post by rick boyd
YOUR'S on the other hand...
Rick. A misplaced apostrophe. You may as well slit your wrists now,
you know.
Roger Roger Roger. The apostrophe is a possessive for the implied
"your post".
-- rick boyd
Is that a specific New Zealand usage? Because in English, there is
definitely no apostrophe. "Yours" is a pronoun meaning the thing belonging
to you. Maybe you don't have a dictionary after all?
alvey
2003-10-19 09:59:14 UTC
Permalink
Johnno wrote:


snippo
Post by Johnno
Post by rick boyd
Roger Roger Roger. The apostrophe is a possessive for the implied
"your post".
-- rick boyd
Is that a specific New Zealand usage? Because in English, there is
definitely no apostrophe. "Yours" is a pronoun meaning the thing belonging
to you. Maybe you don't have a dictionary after all?
Gawd Rikki, *another* usage error!
Quick! You'd better write a piece on how this doesn't mean anything,
that you're just winding up the gullible poms, not a real test of
knowledge etc etc etc.



alvey
rick boyd
2003-10-19 22:03:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 19:59:14 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
Gawd Rikki, *another* usage error!
Quick! You'd better write a piece on how this doesn't mean anything,
that you're just winding up the gullible poms, not a real test of
knowledge etc etc etc.
This is about grammar, Trollvey. It's most unlikely to interest you.

-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2003-10-19 22:02:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johnno
Post by rick boyd
Roger Roger Roger. The apostrophe is a possessive for the implied
"your post".
-- rick boyd
Is that a specific New Zealand usage? Because in English, there is
definitely no apostrophe. "Yours" is a pronoun meaning the thing belonging
to you. Maybe you don't have a dictionary after all?
Ask someone who knows.

-- rickboyd
Stomper
2003-10-17 11:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/aust
ralia/3187240.stm
Post by Ali Day
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
This has been a Brumbies and Wallabies ploy for some time. In my
opinion it is nothing short of cheating and should be penalised at
every opportunity.
The Australians like to promote themselves as squeakly clean,
especially while they had Mr Fucking Perfect Eales at the helm, but
under his reign they developed into one of the most negative and
cynical teams in world rugby.
The decoy runner is a blatant attempt to obstruct and distract
defences from targeting the ball carrier, and is little short of
running interference. Even if the decoy runner is not actually
physically obstructing defenders, he causes hesitation, may obstruct
the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a defensive
pattern.
Ricky am I missing the obvious irony or have you lost your marbles????

What the fuck is wrong with having a decoy runner "he causes hesitation, may
obstruct the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a
defensive pattern"

Surely that gets to the essence of attacking rugby????

Otherwise what are you left with.... rolling mauls?

Karl aka Stomper
rick boyd
2003-10-17 23:45:43 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:15:14 GMT, "Stomper"
Post by Stomper
Ricky am I missing the obvious irony or have you lost your marbles????
What the fuck is wrong with having a decoy runner "he causes hesitation, may
obstruct the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a
defensive pattern"
Surely that gets to the essence of attacking rugby????
No. The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle.

The aim of modern rugby has been to promote positive play that creates
opportunities, rather than much of the old negative play that aimed to
create problems. Decoy runners do not promote positive play. They
clutter the field and aim to deprive the defence of fair access to the
ball carrier. I see this as being equivalent to obstruction and
shepherding.

This is not the essence of attacking rugby. Anything the attack can do
to confuse, distract and mislead the defence while they are BEHIND the
ball carrier is fair game. Loops, cut out passes, dummies etc. The
defence has a fair opportunity to access the ball carrier and any
mistakes are purely their own fault.

-- rick boyd
alvey
2003-10-18 02:59:29 UTC
Permalink
rick boyd wrote:

snip
Post by rick boyd
No. The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle.
So the rolling maul should be banned too then Rikki?



alvey
rick boyd
2003-10-18 06:20:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:59:29 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
snip
Post by rick boyd
No. The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle.
So the rolling maul should be banned too then Rikki?
It's unlikely that the rolling maul will be 'banned' as this would
involve altering the laws of rugby. It is equally unlikely that
referees will penalise legitimate rolling mauls, but they should
probably penalise any player hanging off the back of a rolling maul in
an unbound fashion. Exactly what constititutes 'unbound' may be open
to question by the individual referee.

Rolling mauls can be halted and they can be turned.

I realise that as I am talking about rugby you don't have the first
idea what I'm talking about, but I'm a charitable chap like that.

-- rick boyd
alvey
2003-10-18 08:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 12:59:29 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
snip
Post by rick boyd
No. The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle.
So the rolling maul should be banned too then Rikki?
It's unlikely that the rolling maul will be 'banned' as this would
involve altering the laws of rugby.
Don't they change the laws in rah rah like, weekly? And if the Laws
weren't changed re the "decoy" runner, then why is a penalty given now?
Post by rick boyd
It is equally unlikely that
referees will penalise legitimate rolling mauls, but they should
probably penalise any player hanging off the back of a rolling maul in
an unbound fashion. Exactly what constititutes 'unbound' may be open
to question by the individual referee.
Rolling mauls can be halted and they can be turned.
Well and good Rikki. But that has absolutely nothing to do with your
statements about how the defending side should have an unobstructed go
at the ball carrier. Let's repost this magnificent dictum;

"The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle."
Post by rick boyd
I realise that as I am talking about rugby you don't have the first
idea what I'm talking about, but I'm a charitable chap like that.
Meanwhile, back at the Tipsters Cap scoreboard...
Trolling know-nothing 2 - Omnipotent font 0.


alvey
in brisbane, saying good onya to NZ for demolishing Aus in the RL Test
today. Lengthy domination by one side is not good for any game.
rick boyd
2003-10-18 09:46:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:04:56 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
Don't they change the laws in rah rah like, weekly? And if the Laws
weren't changed re the "decoy" runner, then why is a penalty given now?
You really wouldn't understand. Or care.
Post by alvey
Well and good Rikki. But that has absolutely nothing to do with your
statements about how the defending side should have an unobstructed go
at the ball carrier. Let's repost this magnificent dictum;
"The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle."
I do apologise, I was assuming that this being a rugby newsgroup, most
of the respondents would understand what conditions applied to rucks
and mauls.

If you don't understand the basics, either ask for the beginner's ABC,
or don't concern yourself in things above your head.
Post by alvey
alvey
in brisbane, saying good onya to NZ for demolishing Aus in the RL Test
today. Lengthy domination by one side is not good for any game.
Oh piss, did they? I always support Australia in the bumsniffers. NZ
league doesn't need the boost. NZ isn't big enough for two codes. The
bigger and more frequent the losses, the better by me.

-- rick boyd
alvey
2003-10-18 12:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 18:04:56 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
Don't they change the laws in rah rah like, weekly? And if the Laws
weren't changed re the "decoy" runner, then why is a penalty given now?
You really wouldn't understand. Or care.
Much the same as it appears impossible for you to admit you fuck up.
Surprising that,
given the frequency of opportunities 'n all.
snip sidestep that's fooled no-one.
Post by rick boyd
If you don't understand the basics, either ask for the beginner's ABC,
or don't concern yourself in things above your head.
Actually I have far more trouble following your chuckleheaded &
contradictory gibberish than this silly game.
Post by rick boyd
Post by alvey
alvey
in brisbane, saying good onya to NZ for demolishing Aus in the RL Test
today. Lengthy domination by one side is not good for any game.>
Oh piss, did they? I always support Australia in the bumsniffers.
Now that's something that just doesn't make any logical sense to moi.
Rah rah's calling Leagies "bumsniffers" that is. RL has four less
forwards on the paddock, has fewer scrums & are "token" scrums at that,
does not have the "fondle a friend" group grope known as ruck'n mauls,
and *certainly" doesn't have chaps grasping other chaps thighs to lift
their bums up to nose level.
Post by rick boyd
NZ league doesn't need the boost. NZ isn't big enough for two codes. The
bigger and more frequent the losses, the better by me.
I have approximately the same philosophy with yawnion in Aust. I always
cheer loudly for whoever Oz are playing.

You will be pleased to know though that there were fuck all punters at
the RL Test. but despite the low attendance I'm confidently expecting a
disproportionately large space in the NZ media.


alvey
Ian Stewart
2003-10-18 14:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
You will be pleased to know though that there were fuck all punters at
the RL Test.
21,296, Alvey. Only 3704 short of the Stadium capacity.
Post by alvey
but despite the low attendance I'm confidently expecting a
disproportionately large space in the NZ media.
The coverage of League on the net in the NZ media has certainly reached
a new level with the success of the Warriors, so it would be no surprise
to see this Kiwi victory receive the same sort of coverage.

Ian
Post by alvey
alvey
alvey
2003-10-18 21:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Stewart
Post by alvey
You will be pleased to know though that there were fuck all punters at
the RL Test.
21,296, Alvey. Only 3704 short of the Stadium capacity.
My apologies. I really should know better than to listen to Rabbits. I
thought I heard him say a couple of times that the crowd was
"disappointing". And being RL, there's far, far fewer opportunities for
crowd shots than there are in RU.
Post by Ian Stewart
Post by alvey
but despite the low attendance I'm confidently expecting a
disproportionately large space in the NZ media.
The coverage of League on the net in the NZ media has certainly reached
a new level with the success of the Warriors, so it would be no surprise
to see this Kiwi victory receive the same sort of coverage.
I've often wondered what would happen in Kiwiland if the RU side had an
extended run as crap but the RL side(s) were #1. One positive could be
mass suicides in the Uncle Bully/Rikki B social class. Whoops! I said
"in Kiwiland", so anything they did wouldn't apply.



alvey
Ian Stewart
2003-10-18 21:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by alvey
Post by Ian Stewart
Post by alvey
You will be pleased to know though that there were fuck all punters
at the RL Test.
21,296, Alvey. Only 3704 short of the Stadium capacity.
My apologies. I really should know better than to listen to Rabbits. I
thought I heard him say a couple of times that the crowd was
"disappointing".
He did. He also said that, the crowd grew at a rapid rate just before
kick off.
Post by alvey
And being RL, there's far, far fewer opportunities for
crowd shots than there are in RU.
Touché. :-)
Post by alvey
Post by Ian Stewart
Post by alvey
but despite the low attendance I'm confidently expecting a
disproportionately large space in the NZ media.
The coverage of League on the net in the NZ media has certainly
reached a new level with the success of the Warriors, so it would be
no surprise to see this Kiwi victory receive the same sort of coverage.
I've often wondered what would happen in Kiwiland if the RU side had an
extended run as crap but the RL side(s) were #1.
Not much would change. It's in the blood you see. Nothing wrong with
that, although it would be nice to see more Kiwis support other Kiwi
teams without wishing horrible things on them.

I support NZ in everything and would never cheer for the opposition in
any instance.

Ian
Post by alvey
alvey
rick boyd
2003-10-18 23:07:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:25:58 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
Much the same as it appears impossible for you to admit you fuck up.
Surprising that,
given the frequency of opportunities 'n all.
Go on Alvina, tell us again about how the players in front of the ball
in a maul are "offside". If you can't keep up, I suggest you limp back
to rsrl. There must be some excuses you can make for the world's
greatest league team losing to an embarrassingly minor club sport in
New Zealand.
Post by alvey
Actually I have far more trouble following your chuckleheaded &
contradictory gibberish than this silly game.
Two zeroes are still zero, Mother Alvey.
Post by alvey
Now that's something that just doesn't make any logical sense to moi.
Rah rah's calling Leagies "bumsniffers" that is. RL has four less
forwards on the paddock, has fewer scrums & are "token" scrums at that,
does not have the "fondle a friend" group grope known as ruck'n mauls,
and *certainly" doesn't have chaps grasping other chaps thighs to lift
their bums up to nose level.
Perhaps it's because leaguies spend the entire game sniffing around
each other' arses after every tackle.
Post by alvey
I have approximately the same philosophy with yawnion in Aust. I always
cheer loudly for whoever Oz are playing.
The difference is, I don't troll in the league newsgroup constantly
whining about thickhead crashball.
Post by alvey
You will be pleased to know though that there were fuck all punters at
the RL Test. but despite the low attendance I'm confidently expecting a
disproportionately large space in the NZ media.
Lucky if it gets a mention six pages in. There is a real sports event
on at present you know, grandma.

-- rick boyd
alvey
2003-10-19 05:04:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:25:58 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
Much the same as it appears impossible for you to admit you fuck up.
Surprising that, given the frequency of opportunities 'n all.>
Go on Alvina, tell us again about how the players in front of the ball
in a maul are "offside".
Could you point out where I told you before please?
Post by rick boyd
If you can't keep up,
If you believe that you're doing well here then that's all that matters.
Post by rick boyd
I suggest you limp back
to rsrl. There must be some excuses you can make for the world's
greatest league team losing to an embarrassingly minor club sport in
New Zealand.
Could you tell me why would I make excuses?
Could you tell me which other sports in NZ get a crowd of > 20k then?
Post by rick boyd
Post by alvey
Actually I have far more trouble following your chuckleheaded &
contradictory gibberish than this silly game.
Two zeroes are still zero, Mother Alvey.
Actually Rikki, it's three zeroes you've now got from three attempts to
convert your infinite rahrah knowledge into superior game predictions.
Post by rick boyd
Post by alvey
Now that's something that just doesn't make any logical sense to moi.
Rah rah's calling Leagies "bumsniffers" that is. RL has four less
forwards on the paddock, has fewer scrums & are "token" scrums at that,
does not have the "fondle a friend" group grope known as ruck'n mauls,
and *certainly" doesn't have chaps grasping other chaps thighs to lift
their bums up to nose level.
Perhaps it's because leaguies spend the entire game sniffing around
each other' arses after every tackle.
That's right. I forgot that Union boys can't tackle. Thanks for
reminding me.
Post by rick boyd
Post by alvey
I have approximately the same philosophy with yawnion in Aust. I always
cheer loudly for whoever Oz are playing.
The difference is, I don't troll in the league newsgroup constantly
whining about thickhead crashball.
Good decision that *ick***d. Never mind cutting, you wouldn't even make
an impression on the mustard there. Mind you, they haven't heard your
comedy turns on what comprises a "real" rep game. Or how decoy runners
in the backlines are negative play, so you might *just* get a short gig
as a novelty item.
Post by rick boyd
Post by alvey
You will be pleased to know though that there were fuck all punters at
the RL Test. but despite the low attendance I'm confidently expecting a
disproportionately large space in the NZ media.
Actually I got it wrong. There were 23k there.
Post by rick boyd
Lucky if it gets a mention six pages in. There is a real sports event
on at present you know, grandma.
Indeed. And Zimbabwe are 1/44 at the moment in it.


cheers


alvey
rick boyd
2003-10-19 21:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:04:33 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
Could you point out where I told you before please?
Have you completely lost track of the point?
Post by alvey
Actually Rikki, it's three zeroes you've now got from three attempts to
convert your infinite rahrah knowledge into superior game predictions.
I don't make game predictions, whatever that has to do with anything.
Post by alvey
That's right. I forgot that Union boys can't tackle. Thanks for
reminding me.
I understand you don't recognise it. After all, it can't be a tackle
when it's not three on one in a sort of vertical wrestle that results
in the attacker collapsing to the ground, wriggling like a trout on a
line, to have his face pushed into the dirt as the game stops and
everyone gets back in position.
Post by alvey
Good decision that *ick***d. Never mind cutting, you wouldn't even make
an impression on the mustard there. Mind you, they haven't heard your
comedy turns on what comprises a "real" rep game. Or how decoy runners
in the backlines are negative play, so you might *just* get a short gig
as a novelty item.
If only you could be so effective here! But alas, who has the time or
the inclination to make a complete fool of himself in a newgsroup
about a sport so monotonous even the very mention makes me zzzzzzzzzz

- zzzzzzzzzz
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-21 09:20:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 22:25:58 +1000, alvey
Go on Alvina, tell us again about how the players in front of the ball
in a maul are "offside". If you can't keep up, I suggest you limp back
to rsrl. There must be some excuses you can make for the world's
greatest league team losing to an embarrassingly minor club sport in
New Zealand.
When there are no defenders engaged, the players in the so-called maul who
are ahead of the ball carrier are all guilty of obstruction. Rarely is such
obstruction pinged.
rick boyd
2003-10-21 11:50:57 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:20:33 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
When there are no defenders engaged, the players in the so-called maul who
are ahead of the ball carrier are all guilty of obstruction. Rarely is such
obstruction pinged.
Could this be a brilliant new way to stop the rolling maul? Disengage
all defenders and wait for the ref to penalise the attacking players
for obstruction?

-- rick boyd
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-22 01:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:20:33 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
When there are no defenders engaged, the players in the so-called maul who
are ahead of the ball carrier are all guilty of obstruction. Rarely is such
obstruction pinged.
Could this be a brilliant new way to stop the rolling maul? Disengage
all defenders and wait for the ref to penalise the attacking players
for obstruction?
Trust a ref? You're kidding.
Stomper
2003-10-18 05:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:15:14 GMT, "Stomper"
Post by Stomper
Ricky am I missing the obvious irony or have you lost your marbles????
What the fuck is wrong with having a decoy runner "he causes hesitation, may
obstruct the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a
defensive pattern"
Surely that gets to the essence of attacking rugby????
No. The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle.
The aim of modern rugby has been to promote positive play that creates
opportunities, rather than much of the old negative play that aimed to
create problems. Decoy runners do not promote positive play. They
clutter the field and aim to deprive the defence of fair access to the
ball carrier. I see this as being equivalent to obstruction and
shepherding.
This is not the essence of attacking rugby. Anything the attack can do
to confuse, distract and mislead the defence while they are BEHIND the
ball carrier is fair game. Loops, cut out passes, dummies etc. The
defence has a fair opportunity to access the ball carrier and any
mistakes are purely their own fault.
-- rick boyd
BUT at the point at which the ball was passed the decoy runner/s were behind
the ball carrier?? Surely, as with a cut out pass, that goes in front of the
decoy runner, the decoy has the same effect. UNLESS, as with any other move,
the decoy runner interferes physically with the opposition's ability to
tackle the ball player.

Isn't it this move similar in context to the decoy runners that are used in
tap ball moves? What is the purpose of those runners but to confuse and
disrupt the opposition?

If, during the Aust v Arg game the defenders had stuck to man on man defense
rather than trying to double up on the decoy runner, then the gap wouldn't
have been created the try wouldnt have been scored.

Karl aka Stomper
rick boyd
2003-10-18 06:56:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:46:00 GMT, "Stomper"
Post by Stomper
BUT at the point at which the ball was passed the decoy runner/s were behind
the ball carrier??
Then at least he's on side to start with. But his sole purpose is not
to take part in the advancement of the ball, but to charge in, usually
at a divergent angle to the ball carrier, to draw defenders toward him
and away from the ball carrier for a second or two, and split the
defence.

This in itself would not be illegal if he remained behind the ball
carrier, but the referee should be asking himself if this action
deprives the defence of fair access to the ball carrier, even in less
obvious ways.
Post by Stomper
Surely, as with a cut out pass, that goes in front of the
decoy runner, the decoy has the same effect.
And it doesn't always go in front of the decoy runner. I've seen
plenty where the pass goes behind the decoy runner. This ploy is
abusing the modern leniency on offside play that does not interfere
with the game-- except in my opinion these plays usually interfere
with the game in some way.
Post by Stomper
UNLESS, as with any other move,
the decoy runner interferes physically with the opposition's ability to
tackle the ball player.
It can be a close call. And referees vary markedly. If the decoy stays
behind the ball carrier and avoids directly impeding the defence
coming across to cover, but merely tries to distract them for a seocnd
or two until they realise he doesn't have the ball -- well, I don't
like it but few refs would penalise it.
Post by Stomper
Isn't it this move similar in context to the decoy runners that are used in
tap ball moves? What is the purpose of those runners but to confuse and
disrupt the opposition?
It is. And as long as they stay behind the ball carrier and don't
impede the defence accessing the ball carrier, once they finally work
out who he is, they are likely to get away with it. At least that has
some moral justification as it is punishing the offending side for
some transgression.
Post by Stomper
If, during the Aust v Arg game the defenders had stuck to man on man defense
rather than trying to double up on the decoy runner, then the gap wouldn't
have been created the try wouldnt have been scored.
They were using a slide defence, weren't they? It has flaws.
Particularly in their case.

-- rick boyd
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-21 09:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 05:46:00 GMT, "Stomper"
Post by Stomper
BUT at the point at which the ball was passed the decoy runner/s were behind
the ball carrier??
Then at least he's on side to start with. But his sole purpose is not
to take part in the advancement of the ball, but to charge in, usually
at a divergent angle to the ball carrier, to draw defenders toward him
and away from the ball carrier for a second or two, and split the
defence.
This in itself would not be illegal if he remained behind the ball
carrier, but the referee should be asking himself if this action
deprives the defence of fair access to the ball carrier, even in less
obvious ways.
What if the "decoy runner" is running an angle which makes him a serious
candidate for a flat pass from the ball carrier? (after all, he's not much
of a decoy if he doesn't credibly threaten to recieve the ball) He can't
stop dead so as not to get ahead of the passer and if he doesn't physically
impede a would-be tackler, where's the problem?

It's OK to say with hindsight about e.g. Aus v Arg that Burke was a decoy
runner for Roff, but it's equally true to say that Roff was a decoy runner
for Burke. It's all about presenting multiple pass options for the ball
carrier and so long as there is no obstruction there is no problem.

Obstruction should always be penalised but deception and obstruction are two
very different things. I don't understand how so many people confuse them.
(I do understand why Woody does)
rick boyd
2003-10-21 11:58:52 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:43:42 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
What if the "decoy runner" is running an angle which makes him a serious
candidate for a flat pass from the ball carrier? (after all, he's not much
of a decoy if he doesn't credibly threaten to recieve the ball) He can't
stop dead so as not to get ahead of the passer and if he doesn't physically
impede a would-be tackler, where's the problem?
None, IF he is behind the ball carrier, and IF he doesn't impede any
defender. Or the entire back line would be guilty of being decoy
runners.

But apart from a creditable job of being Eddie's PR man here, Al, you
know very well that the Brumbies' and Australia's decoy runners are
not designed to receive the ball, even when they are onside. They are
designed to distract and impede the defenders, legally or illegally.
Post by Alan Luchetti
Obstruction should always be penalised but deception and obstruction are two
very different things. I don't understand how so many people confuse them.
(I do understand why Woody does)
It's a fine line, of course, and the referee must always ask himself
where deception ends and obstruction begins. It is not as simple as a
defender actually having to stop or swerve because the decoy runner is
directly in his path to the ball carrier.

If the decoy runner is ahead of the ball carrier, or was ahead of the
ball at any stage, the referee should be very sure he is not directly
or indirectly affecting the game in any way, even by deception, as he
has no right to do so.

-- rick boyd
Ian Daley
2003-10-21 12:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
If the decoy runner is ahead of the ball carrier, or was ahead of the
ball at any stage, the referee should be very sure he is not directly
or indirectly affecting the game in any way, even by deception, as he
has no right to do so.
Deception is part of the game Rick. Next you'll call for the ourlawing of
dummy passes and sidesteps.

Such deception at work!
rick boyd
2003-10-21 13:05:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 22:11:54 +1000, "Ian Daley"
Post by Ian Daley
Post by rick boyd
If the decoy runner is ahead of the ball carrier, or was ahead of the
ball at any stage, the referee should be very sure he is not directly
or indirectly affecting the game in any way, even by deception, as he
has no right to do so.
Deception is part of the game Rick. Next you'll call for the ourlawing of
dummy passes and sidesteps.
Such deception at work!
NOT if you're in front of the ball carrier. And that was the key part
of that whole para, Dales. If you're in front of the ball carrier you
have no business affecting the game in any way.

-- rick boyd
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-22 03:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:43:42 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
What if the "decoy runner" is running an angle which makes him a serious
candidate for a flat pass from the ball carrier? (after all, he's not much
of a decoy if he doesn't credibly threaten to recieve the ball) He can't
stop dead so as not to get ahead of the passer and if he doesn't physically
impede a would-be tackler, where's the problem?
None, IF he is behind the ball carrier, and IF he doesn't impede any
defender.
Whether he is in front of or behind the ball carrier is irrelevant if he
doesn't obstruct. Surely you know this.
Post by rick boyd
Or the entire back line would be guilty of being decoy
runners.
But apart from a creditable job of being Eddie's PR man here, Al, you
know very well that the Brumbies' and Australia's decoy runners are
not designed to receive the ball, even when they are onside.
Motives are irrelevant to the obstruction law. If it was accidental you are
no less guilty. If they obstruct, ping 'em; if not, don't.

I'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 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.
Post by rick boyd
They are designed to distract and impede the defenders, legally or
illegally.

You can't impede defenders legally and distraction is not of itself illegal.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
Obstruction should always be penalised but deception and obstruction are two
very different things. I don't understand how so many people confuse them.
(I do understand why Woody does)
It's a fine line, of course, and the referee must always ask himself
where deception ends and obstruction begins. It is not as simple as a
defender actually having to stop or swerve because the decoy runner is
directly in his path to the ball carrier.
If the decoy runner is ahead of the ball carrier, or was ahead of the
ball at any stage, the referee should be very sure he is not directly
or indirectly affecting the game in any way, even by deception, as he
has no right to do so.
Agreed. 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.
rick boyd
2003-10-23 05:35:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Luchetti
Whether 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 Luchetti
Motives 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 Luchetti
I'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 Luchetti
I 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 Luchetti
You can't impede defenders legally
Pointless statement, Al. You do whatever you can get away with.
Post by Alan Luchetti
and 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 Luchetti
Agreed. 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
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-23 07:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
Whether 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.
"(a)A player who is in an off-side position is liable to penalty only
if the player
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 far so good.
Post by rick boyd
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.
Only if he does "play the ball or obstruct an opponent". There is nothing
in the laws about "continues moving forward" as you airily imagine and for
good reason -- players can't stop on a sixpence. On your wild
interpretation, the clean-out would have to disappear from the game!
Post by rick boyd
It is up to the referee to decide is he is
interfering with play or obstructing.
Next correction: obstructing is defined as a subset of interfering, the
other subset being lpaying the ball. An "or" between interfering and
obstructing is an indication of a confused mind.
Post by rick boyd
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.
Sure -- as soon as he has overcome his forward momentum from the instant he
passed ahead of the ball carrier of the ball carrier passed to a team mate.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
Motives 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.
There is no Australian interpretation. But there have been NZ, Eng and
Irish misinterpretations voiced by Smith, Woodward & O'Sullivan
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
I'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.
I am aware of no coach anywhere who does not want decoy runners to be
credible decoys.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
I 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?
That response is on par with contributing to an argument about reffing by
saying that all refs are dickheads.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
You can't impede defenders legally
Pointless statement, Al. You do whatever you can get away with.
It only appears pointless now because you snipped your assertion to which it
responded:
"They (decoy runners) are designed to distract and impede the defenders,
legally or
illegally.
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
and 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.
Not at all moot. The laws say he can't interfere, ie he can't obstruct or
play the ball. If you want to broaden the definition of interference, take
it up with the IRFB.

[more Ricksnip]
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
Agreed. 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.
Actually, I tended to keep my eye on the ball.
rick boyd
2003-10-23 14:27:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 17:40:32 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
Only if he does "play the ball or obstruct an opponent". There is nothing
in the laws about "continues moving forward" as you airily imagine and for
good reason -- players can't stop on a sixpence.
Yet phrase (a) clearly says players can be penalised if they continue
moving forward while offside. And no, nobody expects players to
freeze, Matrix-like, in mid air.
Post by Alan Luchetti
On your wild
interpretation,
Again with the emotional langauge. Been reading Bobs for too long, Al?
Post by Alan Luchetti
the clean-out would have to disappear from the game!
That is a ruck. Different rules apply. Although since you raise the
point, the clean-out is one of those areas where real refereeing
interpretation is needed, because you'd never guess that it's legal
from reading the laws.
Post by Alan Luchetti
Next correction: obstructing is defined as a subset of interfering, the
other subset being lpaying the ball. An "or" between interfering and
obstructing is an indication of a confused mind.
Keep trying, Al. You'll start a playground name-calling contest sooner
or later.

And let's not obsess with semantics. As we all know only too well, any
given word in the laws can mean anything the referees want it to mean.
The dictionary defines obstruct as "block up, fill with impediments,
make impassable or difficult of passage, prevent or retard progress
of, impede..."

If the referee thinks that the decoy runner has obstructed by
retarding the progress of the defence, then obstruction it is.

Which I think it is.
Post by Alan Luchetti
Sure -- as soon as he has overcome his forward momentum from the instant he
passed ahead of the ball carrier of the ball carrier passed to a team mate.
That's right. And during that time he takes no part in the game.
Post by Alan Luchetti
There is no Australian interpretation. But there have been NZ, Eng and
Irish misinterpretations voiced by Smith, Woodward & O'Sullivan
Of course. Silly of me.
Post by Alan Luchetti
I am aware of no coach anywhere who does not want decoy runners to be
credible decoys.
And how many coaches don't want there to be decoys at all?
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
I 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
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
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?
That response is on par with contributing to an argument about reffing by
saying that all refs are dickheads.
Only if you want to drag this discussion back to the sandpit.

You said "And I'm sure he doesn't want to give penalties..."

I said, nobody wants to give away penalties. But everyone wants to
stretch the law to its absolute maximum and gain the greatest
advantage they can. Mad if they don't, right?

So the desire not to give away penalties is not much of a guarantee
that coaches will be abiding by the letter of the law.

When refs start penalising decoy runners, Eddie may suddenly decide
they're not such a good idea.
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by rick boyd
Post by Alan Luchetti
You can't impede defenders legally
Pointless statement, Al. You do whatever you can get away with.
It only appears pointless now because you snipped your assertion to which it
"They (decoy runners) are designed to distract and impede the defenders,
legally or
illegally.
OK. Why can't you impede defenders illegally? What if the ref misses
it? You've impeded defenders illegally. What if the ref thinks it's
borderline, when you're really offside? You've impeded defenders
illegally. What if the ref's interpretation is to give you leeway
because he is trying to let the game flow? You've impeded defenders
illegally.

Doing something illegally does not contravene the physical laws of the
universe. If you can get away with it, it's a goer.
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by rick boyd
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.
Not at all moot. The laws say he can't interfere, ie he can't obstruct or
play the ball. If you want to broaden the definition of interference, take
it up with the IRFB.
The law also says he can't keep moving forwards. Or break the ten
metre rule. And as I say, obstruction will mean whatever the refs
decide it will mean.
Post by Alan Luchetti
Actually, I tended to keep my eye on the ball.
Whatever.

-- rick boyd
Nigel Evans
2003-10-18 15:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
No. The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle.
Are you in regular contact with Mitchell ? You should be. You'd get on well
together and you could each ensure that the other took his tablets
regularly.
rick boyd
2003-10-18 23:21:36 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:32:20 +0100, "Nigel Evans"
Post by Nigel Evans
Are you in regular contact with Mitchell ? You should be. You'd get on well
together and you could each ensure that the other took his tablets
regularly.
Can't tell you too much at this tage Nige.

-- rick boyd
Nigel Evans
2003-10-19 10:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:32:20 +0100, "Nigel Evans"
Post by Nigel Evans
Are you in regular contact with Mitchell ? You should be. You'd get on well
together and you could each ensure that the other took his tablets
regularly.
Can't tell you too much at this tage Nige.
You turning German ?
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-21 09:16:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:15:14 GMT, "Stomper"
Post by Stomper
Ricky am I missing the obvious irony or have you lost your marbles????
What the fuck is wrong with having a decoy runner "he causes hesitation, may
obstruct the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a
defensive pattern"
Surely that gets to the essence of attacking rugby????
No. The principle behind rugby is that the ball carrier should be the
foremost person down the field. Sending someone ahead of or beside him
with the sole intention of disrupting the defence is contrary to this
principle.
The aim of modern rugby has been to promote positive play that creates
opportunities, rather than much of the old negative play that aimed to
create problems. Decoy runners do not promote positive play. They
clutter the field and aim to deprive the defence of fair access to the
ball carrier. I see this as being equivalent to obstruction and
shepherding.
This is not the essence of attacking rugby. Anything the attack can do
to confuse, distract and mislead the defence while they are BEHIND the
ball carrier is fair game. Loops, cut out passes, dummies etc. The
defence has a fair opportunity to access the ball carrier and any
mistakes are purely their own fault.
A pass that is not a forward pass puts the passer ahead of the ball carrier.
A loop in particular puts the passer between the ball carrier and the
defence. Either ban passing, loops especially, or become less simplistic
and do as the refs do -- forget about who is ahead of who and just focus on
whether or not a defender is obstructed, as opposed to deceived.

One sees far more obstruction in close than one does with decoy runners
wider out.

Anyway, what are you doing supporting the idiotic statements of those 6N
prats, Woodward & O'Sullivan? If I can't appeal to your grey matter, how
about your patriotism?
John Hill
2003-10-21 08:58:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:16:36 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
A pass that is not a forward pass puts the passer ahead of the ball carrier.
A loop in particular puts the passer between the ball carrier and the
defence.
No it doesn't


JH

Either ban passing, loops especially, or become less simplistic
Post by Alan Luchetti
and do as the refs do -- forget about who is ahead of who and just focus on
whether or not a defender is obstructed, as opposed to deceived.
One sees far more obstruction in close than one does with decoy runners
wider out.
Anyway, what are you doing supporting the idiotic statements of those 6N
prats, Woodward & O'Sullivan? If I can't appeal to your grey matter, how
about your patriotism?
Alan Luchetti
2003-10-21 10:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Hill
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:16:36 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Good of you to snip all context again, John.
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
A pass that is not a forward pass puts the passer ahead of the ball carrier.
A loop in particular puts the passer between the ball carrier and the
defence.
No it doesn't
Not always, I must admit. Make that "tends to put" or "often puts".

(and if anyone is puzzled why I am stating the obvious for no apparent good
reason, wind back the thread to before John wrecked it where Rick is
uncomprehendingly sprouting stuff that is way far from obvious)
John Hill
2003-10-21 11:01:55 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:14:02 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
Good of you to snip all context again, John.
Better than reading a year's worth of irrelevance before getting to
the point Alan
Post by Alan Luchetti
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
A pass that is not a forward pass puts the passer ahead of the ball
carrier.
Post by John Hill
Post by Alan Luchetti
A loop in particular puts the passer between the ball carrier and the
defence.
No it doesn't
In a loop the passers follows behind the receiver(s). how can it ever
often put or tend to put the passer between the ball carrier and the
defence. Unless there is an Australian version of the loop.

JH
Post by Alan Luchetti
Not always, I must admit. Make that "tends to put" or "often puts".
(and if anyone is puzzled why I am stating the obvious for no apparent good
reason, wind back the thread to before John wrecked it where Rick is
uncomprehendingly sprouting stuff that is way far from obvious)
rick boyd
2003-10-21 12:11:14 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:14:02 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
where Rick is
uncomprehendingly sprouting stuff that is way far from obvious)
Thank you for the serious debate.

I can call you a brainless twat too, if you like.

-- rick boyd
rick boyd
2003-10-21 12:09:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:16:36 +1000, "Alan Luchetti"
Post by Alan Luchetti
A pass that is not a forward pass puts the passer ahead of the ball carrier.
It does. And that player can take no further part in play until he is
back on side.
Post by Alan Luchetti
A loop in particular puts the passer between the ball carrier and the
defence. Either ban passing, loops especially, or become less simplistic
and do as the refs do -- forget about who is ahead of who and just focus on
whether or not a defender is obstructed, as opposed to deceived.
Just stick to the facts, Al. There is no need to go "simplistic" on
me. "Simple" will do quite nicely.

Loops always run the risk of being penalised where the passing player
puts the receiving player in such a position as to shepherd him from a
a defender. This is nothing new, and has been discussed here before.

Refs, and everyone else including me, are quite happy for the passing
player to be ahead of the receiving player provided he has no effect
on the game from that position and gets himself back on side ASAP. For
most players of course that just means slowing down or stopping until
the new ball carrier goes past.
Post by Alan Luchetti
One sees far more obstruction in close than one does with decoy runners
wider out.
Which doesn't make it OK.
Post by Alan Luchetti
Anyway, what are you doing supporting the idiotic statements of those 6N
prats, Woodward & O'Sullivan? If I can't appeal to your grey matter, how
about your patriotism?
We said it in New Zealand first!

-- rick boyd
alvey
2003-10-17 21:14:16 UTC
Permalink
rick boyd, rsru's most original thinker, wrote:

snip great stuff

Jaysus Rikki! Take my eye off you for a second and what do you do?
Write something really stupid. Again.

Only you could manage to interpret trying to score a try as "an entirely
negative ploy."

This is a classic. Right up there with your hilarious definition of
"real" representative games.

Lol! I just hope you can maintain this standard thoughout the event.

Keep 'em coming.



alvey
in Brisbane, just off to get a scrapbook. (Note: Better make it a big one.)
rick boyd
2003-10-17 23:35:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 07:14:16 +1000, alvey
Post by alvey
snip great stuff
There can be little to interest you here, Miss Alvey. My post was
about rugby.

-- rick boyd
Ian Diddams
2003-10-24 08:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by rick boyd
The decoy runner is a blatant attempt to obstruct and distract
defences from targeting the ball carrier, and is little short of
running interference. Even if the decoy runner is not actually
physically obstructing defenders, he causes hesitation, may obstruct
the line of sight, and interferes with the organisation of a defensive
pattern.
More to the point, and which seems to be missed by everyone, its not
just the "immediate" tackle it interferes with.

For instance

D= defender, B = blocker, A=attacker

D (x)

B



A

All players are running forwards. B has gone on a dummy run, to hold
defender D in place, with a view to releiving pressure on A later. It
is unlikely that B will get called for obstruction as of course D is
not actually near A to get to him as the ball arrives in A's hands.

HOWEVER - if we consider the vectors that the players are running, it
is clear that A in fact would not run at A and then veer away in a
looping cover, but instead would look to head straight across the
pitch (left to right as we see it above) in order to intercept A (at
point x) ... this is perfectly feasible given the ditances are pretty
much the same.

Howveer, all it takes is B to take a couple of more strides... and
then stop (a la Burke maybe ), and NOW B is blocking the direct line D
needs to take to get to point x to tackle A.


D B (x)


A

It is most unlikely still that B will get penalised for blocking D as
the perspective is that D was never anywhere near A... but the
reality is that B HAS blocked D getting to A at the intercept point of
x. And this is merely a very simple version; in practise there are
all sorts of angles going on, but a ref can't be expected to handle
all those vectors (although allegedly some WW2 fighter pilots
preferred to fire their cannons w/out the gyroscopic "vectoring"
devices switched on as they could work out the vectors better than the
mechanical devices).


Now - not all decoy runner moves do the above, and I don;t quite agree
with CW and Rick's stance of "never, not ever", because I suspect you
open a can of worms regarding back lines operating behind the tackle
line following phase ball, especially if play switches sides; but it
is very interesting that in France for years switch moves were almost
impossible to operate close in because the prevailing interpretation
was "passage a vide" - in effect crossing, so clearly the french have
always had reservations about players in front of the ball, and this
is a nation that surely nobody can accuse of stodgy play (at least
running with the ball. I was going to say "ball in hand" but after
the RWC99 semifinal thought that might be misconstrued!)


If nobody else understands the above, at least Bill Taylor our
resident mathematician will I hope! :-)

didds
Bryce
2003-10-17 01:34:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ali Day
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/a
ustralia/3187240.stm
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
A
Yer its highly entertaining as it didnt stop the english team from doing
it against the georgians ;)

i think its more to do with Eddie and Woodie not liking each other much
--
Bryce
Stomper
2003-10-17 11:08:00 UTC
Permalink
"Ali Day" <***@cern.ch> wrote in message news:bmm1qe$efl$***@sunnews.cern.ch...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/rugby_world_cup/team_pages/austr
alia/3187240.stm
Post by Ali Day
Its been Woody's bugbear for quite along time, that the decoy runner is
being used as a blocker. But surely it would be simple to have someone
"accidentally" run into him if he is infront of the ball carrier, and you
then get a penalty for offside?
A
Woody is a fuckwit... and wrong to boot!!!!!

Karl aka Stomper
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...