I've always liked Ireland's call - but it would be a strange choice for an English or UK anthem...
Type: Posts; User: mcroker; Keyword(s):
I've always liked Ireland's call - but it would be a strange choice for an English or UK anthem...
There does seem to be in law - a player is liable to be penalised if they are going forward towards the ball
Not that I was going to ping a retreating blue 9 anyway, but ...
I stand corrected law 10.4(b) specifically says - "Moves forwards towards the ball", and forward is defined as "Towards the...
I use this too
And that is before somebody suggests penalising blue 9 for being in an offside position and running towards the ball :norc:
Being a headless chicken not covered by laws.. crossref’s response still applies
I don't recall many FKs against England at the weekend - weren't they all resets or PKs?
Wouldn't it be easier just to move the technical infringements to be FKs, and leave the dangerous/cynical ones as PKs. Multiple FKs become a PK for repeated offence anyway...
Boring in, pulling...
Our soc. proactively sent us guidance that they have been approved by WR, but NOT by RFU - and therefore they were not legal.
Who are you? and why are you using crossref's account? ;)
£2k fine for slightly disrupting Nz's poise... seems like a bargain to me.
Or give the line out throw to the team calling the mark.
I was bored by the game - however boring is defined...
Agree it's not a great example... isn't the PK against Black 13, who looks like he is loitering and still in front of the back foot when the ball comes out?
After critiquing WB for not allowing the outcome to happen last week and then referring it upstairs (instead blowing and giving a PK for not releasing about 1/2 a sec before the non-score), I’m...
Reffing an U15s ladies game I was still playing advantage when the oppo had the ball, sure enough a handling error gave it back to them a phase later...
Unless Ben Skeen is upstairs, where backwards appears to be optional :eng:
May be tactical. The non-offending team is free to play the ball as they wish.
Just because they wish to try a somewhat puzzling tactic, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't have a tactical...
I think a PT for deliberately coming off feet to prevent the ball being grounded against the post is fair-enough...
If challenged, the best justification is probably under law 13.
I was surprised to see it go back - I thought Wales had had the opportunity to tactically use the ball as they (somewhat strangely) saw fit.
I didn't think Barnes had that great a game at the weekend...
He could easily have waited half a sec, and sent that disallowed try upstairs (I think video would have ruled not held and awarded the...
3 weeks seems incredibly lenient for what was a potentially life-alteringly dangerous bit of foul-play, for me aggravated by the fact it happened after then ball went dead.
So much more helpful and concise than the tackle-framework, and associated videos, flow-charts, explanations, ...
It’s still there in the age-grade resources section https://www.englandrugby.com/participation/coaching/age-grade-rugby/resources
I spotted this at the time too - and thought it a slightly odd call. Ireland had knocked on, and it had resulted in a ruck which Ireland seemed to be competing fairly. NO then said something like...
IRB (as it was then) issues a law clarfication 2014 covering non engagement in a maul following a lineout. Can't find it on the WR site, but this is what we have on our soc. website.
IRB...