Usain Bolt's middle name isn't Bolt either....

Just saying like.

Bore off.

I'm with Gilder and Lister. The attacker made contact and took out JJB. JJB would not have made the tackle but that misses the point. He would have been able to continue sliding out and the eventual overlap may not have occured. Because JJB was denied the opportunity to take his place in the defensive line no try is correct.

The dummy run is fine, the contact was not.

I'm in this camp.

The modern game has taken the concept of dummy runners way too far, to the extent that players think it is now their right to wander about in front of the ball in the defensive line (and coaches and speccies defend it too much).

If a player gets in front of the ball it should be his responsibility to keep out of the way of everything, if he doesn't, penalty every time.

If the dummy runners don't like it, don't run offside.

Completely agree. It's naff all to do with which hole the ball carrier goes through. For me it's all about the decision the defender in question (in the case JJB) makes. If the defender decides he is going to tackle the lead runner as he gets the ball, the contact is fair and it is play on. If the defender decides he has no interest in the lead runner (as JJB didn't IMO, he tried to go around him) then it is a penalty. Your dummy runner needs to be convincing enough that he is going to get the ball. Wigan's wasn't there, and JJB had time to slide on to the next man, until he was blocked.

Having said all that, with the climate of refereeing as it is, I wouldn't have been surprised to see it given, nor would I have moaned about it, we're bound to be on the right end of a few of those this season.

Its hard to make rules entirely consistent once you allow attacking players in front of the ball and in the defensive line - mistakes are going to be made. The only real 'black and white' approach is to ban it completely.

Having said that, I think dummy runners are an important part of the game. The NRL has generally had a much more relaxed approach to dummy runners, with it basically being down to judgement as to whether the runner blocked a defender from stopping a try. Partly this is because defenders will quite often deliberately run into the dummy runner and claim they were taken out when they are miles away from the play. Without a video ref its sometimes very hard for the ref in the field to be able to make a call.

I do accept that its a different thing altogether if the attacking player applies real force to the defender - that is a penalty, but not necessarily obstruction.

In this case I agree with Gilder, Lister, G1, Maverick and Matt.

That said I think Silverwood actually ruled the score out as he didn't want to see any replays of the Charnley try celebration.

It was a correct penalty due to the laws of the game but to me you need to use some common sense sometimes. OK, contact was made, but did it really effect the play? JJB would have got no where near either way.

I suppose it's a question (or rather I think it should be) of whether the dummy runner deliberately took out JJB or whether they just collided. If the latter, I don't think the laws should have an issue with it (although they probably do at present) and it should only be a penalty if it obstructs the tackler from getting to the ball. If the dummy runner goes through the line and deliberately takes out an opponent, then that sounds like an off-the-ball challenge to me, which is clearly a penalty.

Intent is a tricky thing to prove mind you.

I'd still have given that try though.

No try was the correct call IMO based on the laws of the game. There is a fine line between what is clever deception by the attacking team and blatant obstruction. In my early playing days refs blew the whistle if the ball was not passed in front of a dummy runner.

Some teams (and Wigan in particular) often have so many dummy runners running different angles in front of the ball receiver to the extent that it not only obstructs the ability of the defence to slide but totally obstructs the defenders view of the ball with a wall of bodies. IMO this gives an unfair advantage to the attacking side and is clear obstruction even though actual contact is not made.

IMO where a dummy runner makes contact with a defender it should be a penalty unless there is clear evidence that the collision was due to the defender deliberately changing course .

Charnley did a goodjob of making himself look look foolish by

1. Sporting that 1920s hairstyle
2, That ridiculous celebration
3, Undertaking said ridiculous celebration for naught after it was ruled out.

I noticed his subsquent three tries were celebrated in a much more sombre fashion. Probably ruined his night.

JJB would have got nowhere near what? The try scorer? You miss the point. He would have been able to slide outwards giving defenders outside him the opportunity to get somewhere near. Once he's taken out, the overlap is created and whilst the try may be scored three or four defenders wide of JJB it is created where he is defending and obstructed.

What G1 said.

Exactly.

Still think the try would have been scored.....but once the dummy runner makes deliberate (lifting his shoulder) contact to impede the defender it's 'no try' for me.

Indeed, in fact I'm pretty sure it would have been scored, and a very good try it would have been too...if some numpty hadn't decided to allow the video ref to chalk it off for a stupid offence earlier in the move.