PDA

View Full Version : "Scooping Leg at Ruck" illegal?



tbayer
15-05-07, 03:05
I am having some discussion with our local referee society about this issue. a ball carrier goes down at the tackle point, his teamate comes in to ruck the standing player off the ball. Rucking player scoops the front leg, drives the player back a few steps and clears ruck. He does not leave his feet, does not dive over, has at least one arm bound on the body of opposition and his head is above his hips while engaging in the rucks. Is this illegal and unsafe? I see it all the time and it is the first time a warning has been issued.

Thanks

Jacko
15-05-07, 03:05
That sounds ok in theory, but it is impossible to judge if something is dangerous without seeing it in the flesh.

Sounds like a good clear out to me...

Dickie E
15-05-07, 08:05
I would have no problem with it unless the outcome was dangerous (eg the standing player ended up on his head). I would put the onus on the driving player to ensure a safe outcome.

Gareth-Lee Smith
15-05-07, 09:05
Was there not some discussion about this before guys? Genuine question.

I'm not about to go trawling the forums at this time in the morning, but I have the impression that we established that it is TECHNICALLY playing a man without the ball, but is such an established and warranted part of the game that it is rarely enforced as illegal.

I'd be interested to know if your referee on this occasion had any playing experience, not that I'd expect you to know or to find this out.

Otherwise it does hinge on danger.

Davet
15-05-07, 09:05
I suspect we have a small confusion. The action as described is probably OK. However if we had an established maul, and a Red player reaches in and lifts the leg of a Blue player then we may consider tis as likely to collapse the maul and dissallow it. Normally by a verbal of "Don't lift his leg!" before using the whistle if ignored.

That call may be getting transferred to the slightly different situation, one on one, as described above.

Its the danger of collapsing a maul, and dropping 8 x 15 stones onto someone at the base that makes it a problem in a maul. One on one at a clear out then it seems to be as safe as anything else in Rugby.

Gareth-Lee Smith
15-05-07, 09:05
I suspect we have a small confusion. The action as described is probably OK. However if we had an established maul, and a Red player reaches in and lifts the leg of a Blue player then we may consider tis as likely to collapse the maul and dissallow it. Normally by a verbal of "Don't lift his leg!" before using the whistle if ignored.

That call may be getting transferred to the slightly different situation, one on one, as described above.

Its the danger of collapsing a maul, and dropping 8 x 15 stones onto someone at the base that makes it a problem in a maul. One on one at a clear out then it seems to be as safe as anything else in Rugby.

Interesting - where does your thoughts of the existence of maul come from? The ball carrier has been tackled to the ground, hasn't he?

OB..
15-05-07, 10:05
I am uncomfortable with much of what happens under the heading "clearing out".

If a player joins or forms a ruck and then drives an opponent out, that is legal. When the contact happens to the side of a ruck, IMHO it is illegal, though it seems to be generally allowed within a metre or so.

If the situation is deemed to be a ruck, then grabbing the leg is likely to cause it to collapse, which is illegal. I would treat it as in a maul.

If it is not a ruck, then it is clearly playing a man without the ball.

deanshaw24
15-05-07, 11:05
i think he clearly played the man without the ball.
steve

Dixie
15-05-07, 12:05
The last four posts touch on, then get to the heart of, the issue in my view. Law 10.4(i) - players must not intentionally collapse a scrum, ruck or maul. Penalty: Penalty Kick. This law is perhaps the most serious in the book, and is headed Dangerous Play and Misconduct.

Question: Does the ref have to wait until the collapse takes place before blowing under this law, or can he penalise action that is likely to lead to the illegal outcome? Refs generally take the second view - which is why Davet brought the collapsed maul into the equation. This is where we usually see this action (outside the Guiness Premiership).

If we accept that the ref will consistently penalise the lifting of a leg in the scrum, ruck or maul to prevent a collapse, let's look at the action described. 4th man in tries to "Clear Out" 3rd man by lifting his leg and driving. As soon as contact is made above or near the ball on the ground, a ruck forms. 4th man then lifts the leg of an opposition player in the ruck. Outcome - penalty.

There will be times when this dos not happen. In such cases, the ref will have decided that looked at in the round, the play wasn't dangerous, or was done in a way that was unlikely to collapse. But in my games, the default position is that lifting a leg in the scrum, ruck or maul is a penalty. And like OB, I don't consider that calling a phase of play "clearing out" stops it being what the law defines it to be - either a ruck or playing the man without the ball, depending on the proximity of the abll on the deck.

SimonSmith
15-05-07, 13:05
I have in fact seen the outcome of the original question. Here's the official edict that the RefSoc issued:

Question 2- Is lifting 1 leg on rucks legal? Reason why I'm asking is that [some clubs names listed] all meet their opponent on the rucks, then they reach down and lift 1 leg before driving over. Their coaches told us it was legal and that we should do it if we want to take it to the next level.

Reply: ABSOLUTELY NOT!
See Laws 16.2(a), 16.2(b) and mostly 16.3(c). It's tough to pull an opponent's leg without coming in shoulders below hips or not binding properly to a team mate. It is dangerous play to collapse a ruck. A referee may penalize the attempt without waiting for the actual collapse. Similar law applies to mauls. Law 10.4(i) also includes the prohibitions on collapses.
I have personally seen the practise you describe in U19 games several times recently and verbally stop it immediately.
All coaches are advised to stop teaching the practise. If I learn of any coach that continues to encourage pulling the leg of an opponent in a ruck, maul, or scrum, they will be reported to the Disciplinary Committee.
This reply has received approval from the Chair of the national Referee and Laws Committee

Robert Burns
15-05-07, 13:05
Was there not some discussion about this before guys? Genuine question.

I'm not about to go trawling the forums at this time in the morning, but I have the impression that we established that it is TECHNICALLY playing a man without the ball, but is such an established and warranted part of the game that it is rarely enforced as illegal.

I'd be interested to know if your referee on this occasion had any playing experience, not that I'd expect you to know or to find this out.

Otherwise it does hinge on danger.
No, what we discussed before was a player coming in at speed at another player, and forming what technically is a ruck, but is more akin to a tackle.

A player who forms a ruck properly must drive their opponant back to win possession on the ball, lifting the leg of a player is as said before, collapsing a ruck and should be penalised before the collapse happens to ensure no injuries. If you are there quick enough and can tell the player not to lift the leg, and they comply, then no problem play on.

didds
15-05-07, 13:05
so what if...

1) red lifts blue's leg but merely drives him backwards past the ball
2) red binds onto blue, shoulders above hips etc, but still manages as a rult to drive blue into the ground

??????

didds
ps i do not coach leg lifiting at ruck/maul as i would rather concerntrate on not overcommitting and fully counter rucking (or driving/splitting mauls)

FlipFlop
15-05-07, 13:05
Lifting a leg does not mean collapsing.

One on one, lifting the leg is a tactic that is used in tackle situations, and ruck situations at most levels of the game. In the ruck situation the player is usually driving low to high, and lifting the leg to destabalise the oppostioon player and make his job easier.

So to say lifting a leg in 1-on-1 situations is dangerous is wrong IMHO. And I would say it is a legitimate tactic to secure ball.

SimonSmith
15-05-07, 13:05
Lifting a leg does not mean collapsing.

One on one, lifting the leg is a tactic that is used in tackle situations, and ruck situations at most levels of the game. In the ruck situation the player is usually driving low to high, and lifting the leg to destabalise the oppostioon player and make his job easier.

So to say lifting a leg in 1-on-1 situations is dangerous is wrong IMHO. And I would say it is a legitimate tactic to secure ball.

Not in a ruck it isn't.
Thinking of the way that a ruck works in law, the only outcome from anyone lifting a leg is that the ruck will collapse.

People joining an established must do so from the back foot and bind upon their own team-mates - thereby rendering it difficult to bind on an opponent.

That means that the only people able to pull a leg are those already bound on to an opponent. The ruck will collapse as a result of the leg being lifted.

You cannot put a ruck and a tackle conceptually in the same place, and in fact undermine your own argument. The reason to do so in the tackle is indeed to destabilise your opponent and put him on the ground; to make that the objective of your actions in a ruck is ipso facto dangerous play.

Penalty.
16.3.c, 10.i,

FlipFlop
15-05-07, 15:05
Not in a ruck it isn't.
Thinking of the way that a ruck works in law, the only outcome from anyone lifting a leg is that the ruck will collapse.



That is what I disagree with. I have seen, and used it when I used to play, this tactic, and have not ended up on the ground. I've seen it coached, and been coached it.

Definition of ruck - one player from either side, on their feet, in contact, over the ball on the floor. (Law 16 - definition) So no need for binding as some have said (only binding requirement is for joining the ruck - you must bind to your team mates).

So ruck forms with 1 player from each side. One player lifts the others leg, drives payer back say 1m, then lets go. His side have won ball, and he has prevented the opposition from gaining a platform (or more normally the blindside getting hands on the ball). This is what is normally referred to as clearing out at the tackle, but is inessence a ruck.

His team will probably get quick ball now (if they are in possession) or a penalty (against ball carrier if they aren't in possession) for holding on/playing on ground. This is positive play, and as such I think it should be rewarded.

I would even go as far as to say that if the player above drives his opponent off the ball and out of the ruck/tackle area and then they go to ground as per a tackle (and safely) then play on. They are no longer "near the ball" and therefore not in a ruck anymore, so not collapsing a ruck. In fact as soon as the players have gone beyond the ball the ruck is over.

Ask yourself what both sides would agree if fair rucking, and I've never had a complaint from a team about this. Lifting legs in mauls, and in rucks with more than 2 players - yes I understand, but 1-on-1 rucking (clearing out) I'm happy with it.

SimonSmith
15-05-07, 18:05
You may be creating a consistency problem.

How would you explain letting it go with 1 -1, but not with 2 or more. They are both still rucks in the eyes of the law

Davet
15-05-07, 18:05
I am with flip-flop on this. The one-on-one situation is the effective creation of a ruck. Indeed it might not get to be a ruck - they may be within 1metre of the ball rather than over the ball. That would seem to me to be clearing out.

One-on-one I don't see it as a safety issue any more than a tackle is a safety issue.

If a proper has ruck has formed with say two-on-two then lifting a leg destabilises a mass of bodies, and becomes increasingly dangerous the more bodies there are involved.

Like most things in this complex game, its a matter of degree, and judgement on a case-by-case basis.

FlipFlop
15-05-07, 18:05
I am with flip-flop on this.

Wahey - I have a supporter :D

SimonSmith
15-05-07, 18:05
One-on-one I don't see it as a safety issue any more than a tackle is a safety issue.

If a proper has ruck has formed with say two-on-two then lifting a leg destabilises a mass of bodies, and becomes increasingly dangerous the more bodies there are involved.

I tend to agree with your statement about use of judgement, and degree, but I do have an issue here.

What's the difference in your mind between 1 - 1 and a "proper ruck"? Because I'm not sure I have one.

mkottke
15-05-07, 21:05
I also have to agree with flipflop. After the ruck has been formed, I do not see anything wrong with a players lifting one leg in an effort to put the opposition off balance and off the ball.
Yes, there is a fine line that needs special attention to keep the phase safe from collapse. If the ruck does collapse from the leg lift, then penalize. But if clean ball is won, then why not play on.

OB..
15-05-07, 22:05
One player lifts the others leg, drives payer back say 1m, then lets go.
That means the opponent is having to hop backwards under duress. You are trying to tell me that is safe. I disagree.

I suspect that on most occasions, the grabbing player ducks his shoulders to make the grab - so you can get him under 16.2 (a).

Davet
15-05-07, 22:05
Simon - one-on-one is a proper ruck, in the legal sense - so fair comment.

But - I hoped what I was sayiong was clear enough without having to be spelled out in detail.

One-on-one, whether ruck or clearout within 1m of ball on floor, with both players aware of and involved in what is happening doesn't present any greater danger than does a tackle.

Where more players are involved then it is correspondingly more and more dangerous as more people get involved. A collapse can the lead to several players landing on someone's neck. That's not the case one-on-one; or at least no more so than a tackle.

So lifting a leg to get an advantage in driving an opponent back when one-on-one is not dangerous play.

Lifting the leg of a player in a ruck or maul where more players are involved si more dangerous.

Judgement needs to be used, not simply a prescriptive numbers game.

Davet
15-05-07, 23:05
OB "so you can get him under 16.2 (a)."

The objective is not to "get" players. It is to have an enjoyable game, and to help between 30 and 44 other people to have an enjoyable game.

"That means the opponent is having to hop backwards under duress. You are trying to tell me that is safe. I disagree."

More dangerous than a tackle?

Putting opponents at a disadvantage and under physical duress is what the game is all about.

Gareth-Lee Smith
15-05-07, 23:05
Question: can one player collapsing alone as part of the ruck be penalisable? Or must the whole ruck come crashing down?

Robert Burns
15-05-07, 23:05
The problem you have though is the 1 on 1 situation will within seconds be more, if the player holding the leg of their opponent then has another player bind onto them (as they are permitted to do) you now have a good chance that the player that is unbalanced is going to go to ground with the other two players landing on them. Who are you going to penalise if the act is unsafe? the joining player is only doing as allowed in law, the other two have created a ruck, but one player has made it unstable but has been allowed to carry on.

I think management is the issue, stop it before it becomes a problem, quick work of 'not the leg' and we should all be fine without any hassles.

Robert Burns
15-05-07, 23:05
Question: can one player collapsing alone as part of the ruck be penalisable? Or must the whole ruck come crashing down?
Deliberately?

Yes, of course.

OB..
15-05-07, 23:05
OB "so you can get him under 16.2 (a)."

The objective is not to "get" players. It is to have an enjoyable game, and to help between 30 and 44 other people to have an enjoyable game.
Replace "get" with "penalise" if you want. I am simply pointing out that his initial action was probably illegal anyway, so should be stopped without having to 'tackle' the leg-lifting.


"That means the opponent is having to hop backwards under duress. You are trying to tell me that is safe. I disagree."

More dangerous than a tackle?
Yes.

Mat 04
16-05-07, 00:05
If having one leg lifted and having to hop backwards is too "unsafe" or too strenuous for someone - play football, rugby isnt the game for you.

OB..
16-05-07, 01:05
Ken Catchpole's career was ended when his two legs went in opposite directions - one was pulled while the other was trapped.

That was an extreme case, but you get the general idea. Most of the time you can get away with it, just like a scrum collapse. But don't push your luck. I don't buy the flip reference to soccer.

PaulDG
16-05-07, 05:05
That means the opponent is having to hop backwards under duress. You are trying to tell me that is safe. I disagree.

In the context of a tackle, the grabbing one leg and making the opponent hop backwards (when held) was taught to kids as part of "Jonny's Hotshots" (CBBC 2005?). It didn't look particularly dangerous to me though it seemed to be effective when done properly.

I'm not sure I understand why it would be a significant safety issue in any 1 on 1 situation.

Different if there's a mass of players though.

Dixie
16-05-07, 09:05
I do not see anything wrong with a players lifting one leg in an effort to put the opposition off balance and off the ball.
Yes, there is a fine line that needs special attention to keep the phase safe from collapse. If the ruck does collapse from the leg lift, then penalize. But if clean ball is won, then why not play on.

Presumably you'd apply the same thinking to an established maul, which is governed by the same law? It's OK as long as it doesn't go down, and if it does go down you penalise it as dangerous play. But I'd hate to appear in court trying to explain that logic to the barrister of the player in the wheelchair. He might ask why, if it was dangerous, I didn't stop it before it went down. To which my response might well be: er, umm, well, you know, at the time, er ..... I just wasn't thinking about your client's future health and wellbeing, I just wanted people to be able to do what I used to to do.

And his next question might be: do you understand the concept of negligence?

Dixie
16-05-07, 09:05
Indeed it might not get to be a ruck - they may be within 1metre of the ball rather than over the ball. That would seem to me to be clearing out
I've not encountered the term "clearing out" in the laws, so assume it's effectively undefined. If so, people will tend to use it for different things. I have, however, encountered Law 10.4(e) - playing a player without the ball is dangerous play. Penalty: Penalty Kick.

If the ball is too far away for a ruck to be formed when two players come together, then it seems logical to me that Law 10.4(e) must inevitably come into play. Am I incorrect in this?

Why does calling it "clearing out" legitimise this?

OB..
16-05-07, 09:05
You are pulling one leg away from the other - a situation to be avoided.

Dickie E
16-05-07, 11:05
I've not encountered the term "clearing out" in the laws, so assume it's effectively undefined. If so, people will tend to use it for different things. I have, however, encountered Law 10.4(e) - playing a player without the ball is dangerous play. Penalty: Penalty Kick.

If the ball is too far away for a ruck to be formed when two players come together, then it seems logical to me that Law 10.4(e) must inevitably come into play. Am I incorrect in this?

Why does calling it "clearing out" legitimise this?

In the same way that a "sack" isn't defined in law but is apparently legal.

Robert Burns
16-05-07, 11:05
In the same way that a "sack" isn't defined in law but is apparently legal.
But the act of sacking is defined in law rulings, if not actually called that. The act of clearing out has never been defined or catered for.

Deeps
16-05-07, 11:05
My take on the whole business of leg lifting is to judge firstly whether it is safe and secondly whether I consider it to be sportsmanlike or not. Making either of these judgments allows me the full scope of law and its sanctions. A quick early leg lift to destabilise a driving opponent in order to get the shove advantage I might read as a good tactical ploy provided that it is not sustained to the point where a collapse is possible or where it has been taken beyond the bounds of sportsmanlike play.

I may indicate that any collapse or flash point/friction following leg lifting will inevitably be the responsibility of the lifter for whom serious consequences are always possible.

I think Law 10 is adequate without looking too deeply for a specific definition.

SimonSmith
16-05-07, 13:05
The short version, anyway, for USA referees, as I understand it from the Potomac missive, is that it is deemed illegal here, no matter our personal feelings.

FlipFlop
16-05-07, 13:05
Presumably you'd apply the same thinking to an established maul, which is governed by the same law?

From my logic - a maul has more than 2 players, and so is potentially dangerous. It is not the same as 1-1 rucking. And I disagree that a maul is governed by the same law; a maul is governed by law 17 and rucks law 16.


I've not encountered the term "clearing out" in the laws, so assume it's effectively undefined.

It is not in law, it is a general term that 99.9% of players would understand. It is effectively a short lived ruck (two players contesting the ball, over it), in which the team in possesion drive over and clear out any opposition players trying to get hands on the ball.


If the ball is too far away for a ruck to be formed when two players come together, then it seems logical to me that Law 10.4(e) must inevitably come into play. Am I incorrect in this?


No you are not incorrect, but that is another discussion we have had about what is "close".


The short version, anyway, for USA referees, as I understand it from the Potomac missive, is that it is deemed illegal here, no matter our personal feelings.

Fine - but the USA national team do it, as do all the other sides, and so will any touring side. Doesn't make it legal I know, but that's life.

My general view is that to lift a leg in a tackle is fine. If what is occurring is similar to a tackle (but without the ball) in the act of forming a ruck, and not obviously dangerous, I will allow it. To lift a leg in a maul is dangerous, and if what is occurring is more "maul like" (think maul, but ball on floor to get the ruck) then it is dangerous.

The area inbetween those two is a grey area, and will depend on skill and abilities of players and whether I deem it to be safe at the time.

Davet
18-05-07, 12:05
Dixie - calling somethimng clearing out does not legitimate it.

What is happening is that two players are contesting the ball on the ground, in their immediate vicinity. Now if they are directly over the ball then they form a ruck, if the ball happens to be a little off centre then strictly its not a ruck - but its always neen allowed. I would use the definition of "within 1m" ,which appears elsewhere in law, to give definition to "near".

Remember the ball may be moving, the players are moving, the whole situation is imprecise.

Rather than use the long sentence above most people refer to "clearing out", it appears to be well understood generally.

If the ball is further than the approximate 1 metre then 10.4.e comes into effect.

OB - You are not pulling one leg away from the other, you are driving into the opponent with (say) your right shoulder driving into the lower ribs on his right sight, your head to his right, your left hand wrapping round and grasping the back of his shirt / waistband - and you right hand wrapping outside his left leg and then onto the lower part of his left his left thigh, just above the knee. You then pull the thigh up towards you, denying him the opportunity to step back, and drive hard.

It's really is very similar to tackling a player - take away your opponents freedom to use his legs, and then push him over. How is it more dangerous?

As Deeps says - it is a a mangement issue, and requires the ref to judge whether the act is safe, and whether it continues to be safe.

If you feel that 1-on-1 actions like that described are unsafe then surely tackling is unsafe, and we should ban the sport?

PaulDG
18-05-07, 13:05
If you feel that [........] is unsafe then surely [.....] is unsafe, and we should ban the sport?

An off-topic observation; this phrase seems to be the rugby forums equivalent of the more widely seen "Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law)".

In the spirit of free, open and well intentioned debate, may I suggest we all think very carefully before using it?

Dixie
18-05-07, 14:05
Baaaasssilllll! The Germans have arrived.

OB..
18-05-07, 15:05
Davet I must say I do not see this situation in the levels I usually observe. However in the situation you describe it seems to me the natural reaction is to try and maintain balance by hopping backwards. The situation is (intentionally) unstable. The "tackler", or whatever you want to call him, is certainly pulling on one leg only. When the players go to ground it is to be hoped nobody gets injured.


It's really is very similar to tackling a player - take away your opponents freedom to use his legs, and then push him over. How is it more dangerous?Because the classic tackle takes BOTH legs.


As Deeps says - it is a a mangement issue, and requires the ref to judge whether the act is safe, and whether it continues to be safe.
So if I think it looks unsafe, I do not have to wait to see if somebody gets hurt? Seems reasonable.


If you feel that 1-on-1 actions like that described are unsafe then surely tackling is unsafe, and we should ban the sport?OTT.

Davet
18-05-07, 16:05
PaulDG

If you feel that my comment was analagous in any way to Godwin's law, dealing accusations of Nazism, then frankly I despair. Please, get real.

OB - OTT; in what way OTT?

Rugby is a physical contact game. You seem to be saying that a tackle which only takes one leg away is dangerous.


When the players go to ground it is to be hoped nobody gets injured.

Yes, seconded. In fact I hope no-one gets injured in any phase of the game.

Though regardless of my wishes it does sometimes happen.


I repeat - I would not permit actions which destabilise a maul (although in future I may have to), or a ruck formed with more than 2 players.

Where players are 1-on-1, in a contest for the ball on the floor I have no problem with the action I described.

Nor would I have a proble if a ball carrier emerged round the fringe of a maul, creating an open play situation, and was met by an opponenet who did as I described last post.

Would you?

If yes, then in my view you are OTT.

OB..
18-05-07, 23:05
OB - OTT; in what way OTT?

You said
then surely tackling is unsafe, and we should ban the sport?I rest my case.

This discussion has become pointless. I see the action as more dangerous than you do. However it seems to be pretty rare, so I hope it never matters.

Davet
19-05-07, 00:05
I don't know what your case is resting on.

You see the action as dangerous, yet do not see a tackle as dangerous, and do not answer the question I asked about dealing with a ball carrier in such a manner.

My comment about tackling and banning simply highlighted the essential dichotomy of your position. It is a technique which you are fond of using using yourself - reducing to the absurd.

As to it being rare - not really. I have seen it coached and used quite frequently over the years.

FlipFlop
19-05-07, 01:05
As to it being rare - not really. I have seen it coached and used quite frequently over the years.

I would say I see this 5 to 10 times per game as a minimum.

I have no problem with it.

OB..
19-05-07, 11:05
You see the action as dangerous, yet do not see a tackle as dangerous, and do not answer the question I asked about dealing with a ball carrier in such a manner.I have already pointed out that the standard tackle takes BOTH legs. A tackle in the manner you describe borders on being judged dangerous.


My comment about tackling and banning simply highlighted the essential dichotomy of your position. It is a technique which you are fond of using using yourself - reducing to the absurd.You cannot apply reductio ad absurdum to picking a point in the middle of a continuum. We all agree that some tackles are dangerous, and some are not (even though they may sometimes cause damage - ask Danny Hearn). The question is simply where we draw the line in a complex set of conditions. We obviously draw it in different places. For me the essence of the danger lies in the legs going in different directions, particularly with the player resisting.


As to it being rare - not really. I have seen it coached and used quite frequently over the years.We obviously see different types of matches.

Davet
19-05-07, 13:05
For me the essence of the danger lies in the legs going in different directions


They are not.

OB..
19-05-07, 13:05
Davet - may be we are describing things differently, but for me lifting one leg while the other stays on the ground means the legs are being separated.

FlipFlop
19-05-07, 17:05
Davet - may be we are describing things differently, but for me lifting one leg while the other stays on the ground means the legs are being separated.

So running is dangerous then, as the legs clearly go in different directions? :D

Gareth-Lee Smith
19-05-07, 18:05
It's discussions like this at society meetings that made me want to stay away from the remaining ones after my first

Dickie E
19-05-07, 22:05
G L-S,

apparently if you mention the Nazis now the thread will end. I wonder if it works at Society meetings too. :chin:

OB..
19-05-07, 23:05
FlipFlop - I am going to assume that was just a flip remark.