Search:

Yes. For being prezacrt
Well the time from ball in touch to act of making the throw is not open play.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious again...the fact there is NO mention of offside lines in the QTI section on the LOTG (and QTI is not open play) is all the evidence you need.

If that...

Arabchief you need to come to grips that the QTI and the lineout are different things. The only thing they have have in common as that they are forms of restarting play when the ball goes into touch....

I agree with Dickie. Once ball is in touch you can go/be wherever you like. The laws painstakenly describe offside at the lineout and once it forms....but say zip about offside on the Quick Throw. So...

I'd say you identified the issue right there. It seems to be your "material effect" that you need to work on, of when to blow or when to play away, and think less about the count.

If possible try...

LLP

This is in the Oz Game Management Guidelines:
Teams deciding not to engage the maul at lineout
• If the defenders in the line out choose to not engage the line out drive by leaving the line...

It would be a good gap filler in the middle of the week while we wait for the main games on the weekends!
I thought I'd be all rugby'd out by now but I've missed not having midweek games to watch...

Interestingly now players receiving a high tackle want the highest possible sanction (calling for cards) while the perportrators deny any high tackle wasn't high trying to avoid a sanction - it's a...

I'm sorry you feel it was point scoring. Rather that, I was expressing an opinion why I didn't see it as a straight red at full speed. I was also showing that's not a far fetched opinion as others...

amazing...that's precisely Garces nickname!!!!

oh you haven't got a monopoly on that..
at least you end up with assets....we 1) buy poor administrators and 2) buy rogue tweeters, just so we can end up in court and hand out massive compensation...

In slomo I tend to agree.
Reminds me of an article someone infamous wrote...and I quote
"got me to thinking about the merits of using slow motion video to make judgements about potential foul play...

Not really pushback from my point of view. Moreso trying to understand where it's landing, why and what could be refined to get the right balance for the game Just like what occurred with the lifting...

And so the framework which sprouts will make sanctions more consistent has made it....... somehow greater injustices.
How sad.

Maybe so. But Aki did nothing wrong and still ended up with RC.

The rigid framework didn't save him but found him guilty!

Valid point.

Turns out I had read it BUT I thought it was a new one just introduced at the start of the WC! I also didn't really take that much notice of the detail that it included the tacklers...

Sorry I haven't seen this framework so perhaps I should remain silent.

But I find it hard to fathom that an accidental headclash can be considered a 'tackle'. As for arm or shoulder the the head...

Not even WR are the f@cken stupid.

Finally a little sense prevailed in all this sh!t. I'm not usually an Okeefe fan but I think he got this right.
Did the defender lead with the head? No.
Defender lowered for a tackle...ball carrier...

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'chocolate wheel of justice' will let him off.

Play on.

No tackle. Black didnt do enough secure the ball.

Looks like a very disconnected game decision.

And I beg to differ


"
The term ‘reckless’ isdescribed in the following terms:

‘The player knew (or should have known) that there was a risk of committing an act of FoulPlay.’"

Was = past...

that you in all seriousness gave NKW a real option to pursue in response to his sarcastic humour of leaving cause he wasn't funny enough.
I found that funny.

actually it does advance the discussion.

It can only be termed "reckless" if in fact foul play has been committed (ie a law 9 broken).

If I recall the madness of this thread correct, a great...

it's hard to figure out which is funnier...this joke of yours or NKWer's OP????