Decoy rules

[King Salvo]

I hate this aspect of the game and wonder how and when it came into being allowed.

My view is that it should be a penalty every time to the defending team as there is no intention of the ball ever being passed to a decoy runner.

All they do is run at the gap between the two defenders and have these defenders commit to a tackle thus taking one or both out of play and creating a 4 on 3 / 3 on 2 etc.

It is deemed legal as long as the pass is caught on the outside shoulder of the decoy and the decoy runner runs through the line and doesn't stop or take a defender out of play who isn't attempting a tackle

You see defenders make a mistake by attempting to tackle the decoy with the bunker ruling it as a defensive error - defenders shouldn't attempt a tackle and just move in front of the decoy and be knocked over as it should then be a penalty every time to the defensive team as no tackle was being attempted.

The only decoy's that should be allowed are the one's where the ball carriers dummies to a support player either side of them and defending players then attempt to tackle the support player thus allowing the ball carrier to go through the defensive line.

What are other posters view on this ?

[Easts75]

I hate this aspect of the game and wonder how and when it came into being allowed.

My view is that it should be a penalty every time to the defending team as there is no intention of the ball ever being passed to a decoy runner.

All they do is run at the gap between the two defenders and have these defenders commit to a tackle thus taking one or both out of play and creating a 4 on 3 / 3 on 2 etc.

It is deemed legal as long as the pass is caught on the outside shoulder of the decoy and the decoy runner runs through the line and doesn't stop or take a defender out of play who isn't attempting a tackle

You see defenders make a mistake by attempting to tackle the decoy with the bunker ruling it as a defensive error - defenders shouldn't attempt a tackle and just move in front of the decoy and be knocked over as it should then be a penalty every time to the defensive team as no tackle was being attempted.

The only decoy's that should be allowed are the one's where the ball carriers dummies to a support player either side of them and defending players then attempt to tackle the support player thus allowing the ball carrier to go through the defensive line.

What are other posters view on this ?

No intention of hitting the decoy runner funniest shit i have read.
So all those time we hit Cordner flat and he scored doesn't count ???

[King Salvo]

No intention of hitting the decoy runner funniest shit i have read.
So all those time we hit Cordner flat and he scored doesn't count ???

Obviously you don't understand the decoy runner play - I suggest you revisit NRL games to understand it.

It is obviously that in your words " hit Cordner flat and he scored " that play is not a decoy runner play as the ball is not passed to decoy runners - the "hit Cordner flat and he scored " play is a short pass to a support player in or before the defensive line as after all he can only score if the ball is passed to him.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...a325bc2c909edf

https://www.nrl.com/news/2012/08/20/...ule-explained/

[OMR]

There are so many rules that need to be looked at , first and foremost the stupid 6 again. If the indiscretions are inside your half then it’s a penalty kick . Bunker should not be involved in every suspected tackle, there’s a MRC to look at these things after the match, let the game flow. If the ref sees a crusher he gives a penalty, if he doesn’t then the MRC charges the player next day.

[Hawkeye]

One result of the fallout from the decoy/obstruction rule is when the player realises somethings in the play has gone wrong so to avoid incurring a penalty, he just falls to the ground and takes no advantage so not to be penalised. But isnt this in itself a penalty ? Is it a voluntary or involuntary tackle ? I never know the difference ...but you cant just fall to the ground without being tackled. See this all the time now to avoid the obstruction penalty or they do it to avoid being tackled into the ingoal or into touch. BUT in any case, it just seems to be ignored now by the refs !

[Renman]

Quite a few thing that get on the nerves of this old man. This is one of them. I know this is going to sound strange but its almost like an offside play as the interference is in front of the ball.
While we are fixing this...

6 again needs to go unless it is with 20 of the tryline. Other times penalise. Way too arbitrary atm.

Trainers on the field.. really under 6's maybe.

Game management by refs... the crux of the problem. Refs should not call out to players by their name but their number far too palsy.

Flops... Gees there are more flops in the game at the moment than at a game of cards at Hindys place. No use stopping the wrestling if you allow blatant flops. Easy fix.

Sorry but it riles me........ back on the meds I suppose

[ism22]

One result of the fallout from the decoy/obstruction rule is when the player realises somethings in the play has gone wrong so to avoid incurring a penalty, he just falls to the ground and takes no advantage so not to be penalised. But isnt this in itself a penalty ? Is it a voluntary or involuntary tackle ? I never know the difference ...but you cant just fall to the ground without being tackled. See this all the time now to avoid the obstruction penalty or they do it to avoid being tackled into the ingoal or into touch. BUT in any case, it just seems to be ignored now by the refs !

Yeah that's odd ay? I mean if you do a forward pass or you do a high shot, you can't just throw your arms in the air, say sorry and avoid the penalty.

Maybe in this case there's an argument that there's no obstruction if there's no advantage gained? But yeah... it does sorta seem like an advantage has been gained, justit hasn't been capitalised on.

[King Salvo]

One result of the fallout from the decoy/obstruction rule is when the player realises somethings in the play has gone wrong so to avoid incurring a penalty, he just falls to the ground and takes no advantage so not to be penalised. But isnt this in itself a penalty ? Is it a voluntary or involuntary tackle ? I never know the difference ...but you cant just fall to the ground without being tackled. See this all the time now to avoid the obstruction penalty or they do it to avoid being tackled into the ingoal or into touch. BUT in any case, it just seems to be ignored now by the refs !

Surrender is the term they use now for involuntary tackles - can't remember the last time anyone was penalised for a involuntary tackle.

The rule was changed for this decoy runner as the old coaches said it was too hard to score so the attacking side needed something that evened up the contest between attack and defence or some sort of advantage- same for the third defender with the old coaches moaning they couldn't slow the play the ball down - we got the wrestling/judo/ju-jitsu rubbish grab and hold upright defence from that rule change.

[morley101]

Make the rule black and white . If you run behind your own player and take advantage ...gone! If the decoy takes out a defender gone! If defender tries to tackle decoy play-on.

It annoys me when attacking team does run an illegal play but don't score- no penalty. 50% of the time they score within the same set of 6.

[Headless Chook]

Surrender is the term they use now for involuntary tackles - can't remember the last time anyone was penalised for a involuntary tackle.

The rule was changed for this decoy runner as the old coaches said it was too hard to score so the attacking side needed something that evened up the contest between attack and defence or some sort of advantage- same for the third defender with the old coaches moaning they couldn't slow the play the ball down - we got the wrestling/judo/ju-jitsu rubbish grab and hold upright defence from that rule change.

I think you mean voluntary tackle. I would think most tackles are involuntary.

[ism22]

I don't think we're using the term 'voluntary tackle' correctly. A surrender tackle is not a voluntary tackle.

Voluntary tackle...
> A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if he has time to regain his feet and continue play.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/opera...-game-2020.pdf

I think this is distinct from a surrender tackle, which is:

> ...Occurs when the player in possession surrenders his run in or at the line. Defender[s] are permitted to work the player on the ground, move to a bear hug position, lay on...

The drafting is shyte as it includes the word 'surrender'. However, I think it's safe to say that a surrender tackle isn't about the actual tackle (except when it comes to what the defenders can do), it's about the fact you haven't tried to avoid the tackle. It's not a voluntary tackle though, because a defender's grabbed you and tackled you.

---

FWIW I think the Cam Murray 'succumb and then offload' is a penalty because he's already tackled.

> A player in possession is tackled...
> ...when, being held by an opponent, the tackled player makes it evident that he has succumbed to the tackle and wishes to be released in order to play-the-ball.

TBH this p!sses me off more than what our OP's mentioned. Souffs always get away with 'succumbing' (i.e. it is evident that they've stopped moving) and then offloading if the ref hasn't called 'heeeeld'. FWIW the rules note that the ref can call 'held' or 'play on' when there's a dispute about whether somebody's been tackled.

The heeeeld call p!sses me off but it makes me wonder whether Teddy asks for it to be called all the time in order to keep players honest when it comes to succumbing? (i.e. Ball's live until the ref calls 'held'). Be interesting to know why some refs seem to love their voice more than others in that respect.

[Waylander]

There’s no such thing as a voluntary tackle anymore. You can only “succumb” or “surrender”.

https://www.nrl.com/siteassets/opera...tions_2020.pdf

[milanja]

Penrith were denied a chance to go up by 6 against the storm last week because a 6 again was blown 10m out.

this is what makes it a ridiculous rule.

[Mickie Lane]

I like the run around, chip over the top & regather but my favourite is the halfback retrieving the ball from the scrum & diving as he passes to the 5/8.

IMG_1135 (3).JPG

[Random Rooster]

I like the run around, chip over the top & regather but my favourite is the halfback retrieving the ball from the scrum & diving as he passes to the 5/8.

IMG_1135 (3).JPG

Hahahaha how unnecessary was those dives!! I love them- bring 'em back