Search:

Type: Posts; User: Dickie E; Keyword(s):

Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.15 seconds.

  1. Replies
    0
    Views
    5

    ouch ... this is going to hurt

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/qantas-ends-wallabies-sponsorship-cuts-off-cash-to-cricket-and-soccer-20200923-p55ybh.html
    ...
  2. Replies
    17
    Views
    548

    [Law] Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    yes ...
  3. Replies
    17
    Views
    548

    [Law] Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    yeah, forget pre-binding, flying wedge, etc. That way lies madness.
  4. Replies
    17
    Views
    548

    [Law] Re: Why isn't this pre binding penalised ?

    This is a Law 14 offence:
    8. Other players must:

    a. Remain on their feet and release the ball and the ball-carrier immediately.

    We used to see it here and refs used to call "reload" to tell...
  5. Replies
    8
    Views
    288

    Re: likes and dislikes

    Robbie Burns says that he is currently doing some back room stuff that requires "likes" turned off temporarily
  6. Replies
    42
    Views
    2,054

    Re: How Long will He Likely be Banned for?

    :clap:

    https://www.rugbypass.com/news/uproar-as-farrell-appears-to-get-away-with-yet-another-shoulder-charge/
  7. Replies
    42
    Views
    2,054

    Re: How Long will He Likely be Banned for?

    on the bright side ... at least he's started using his arms in tackles

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIcXitS1aHc
  8. Replies
    63
    Views
    2,441

    Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    that's how you get blokes with 600 games during their career :)
  9. Replies
    63
    Views
    2,441

    Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    the law says this:



    In L8, is it the match organiser's decision that only 5 replacements be allowed?
  10. Replies
    6
    Views
    448

    [Maul] Re: Isn't this obstruction?

    you use the term "shearing off" and that is the critical issue. If the line that the "new" pod moves in is the same as the "old" pod, then it is the same maul irrespective of if a new defender...
  11. Replies
    63
    Views
    2,441

    Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    so a team would be crazy to turn up with less than 23 players?
  12. Replies
    63
    Views
    2,441

    Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    just confirming ... the logic tree only applies if team has < 23 players?
  13. Replies
    63
    Views
    2,441

    Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    I don't think so.

    First hooker goes U/S -> bring on second hooker.

    Second hooker goes U/S -> no questions, uncontested, no man off
  14. Replies
    63
    Views
    2,441

    Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    4040

    maybe the phrase "first time of asking" is significant. If there is a 2nd injury, the ref has no right to ask a second time.
  15. Replies
    63
    Views
    2,441

    Re: STE to hook, Wasps Bath

    I found it interesting that Barnes said that in an uncontested scrum, only designated FR players can be in the front row. Is that a thing?
  16. Replies
    6
    Views
    387

    Re: well done Amy Perrett

    Opinion question: I wonder if this appointment makes her the most accomplished female referee to date or does Joy Neville (or someone else) hold that crown?
  17. Replies
    6
    Views
    387

    well done Amy Perrett

    https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/perrett-set-to-become-first-female-super-rugby-referee-20200828-p55q6c.html
  18. Replies
    58
    Views
    1,967

    [In-goal] Re: Try: Yes or No? Or?

    I think admin should delete that post immediately. :)

    Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.
  19. Replies
    60
    Views
    1,927

    [Law] Re: Why isn't this offisde under 10m law ?

    aren't those 2 statements contradictory?
  20. Replies
    58
    Views
    1,967

    [In-goal] Re: Try: Yes or No? Or?

    that is my fundamental question. Under current protocols, is the referee allowed to say that?
  21. Replies
    58
    Views
    1,967

    [In-goal] Re: Try: Yes or No? Or?

    well, he couldn't really say that cos the AR had said its a try.
  22. Replies
    58
    Views
    1,967

    [In-goal] Re: Try: Yes or No? Or?

    and as Nigel I would reply : "so there is no C&O reason to overule our onfield decision? Thank you" Peep, try.
  23. Replies
    58
    Views
    1,967

    [In-goal] Re: Try: Yes or No? Or?

    it would need a TMO with some serious stones to overule an "onfield we have a try" call because he had doubts on grounding. Doubts about grounding unlikely to pass the C&O test, IMO
  24. Replies
    58
    Views
    1,967

    [In-goal] Re: Try: Yes or No? Or?

    but it appears to me that that isn't an option. It seems that the ref must either say "onfield we have a try" or "onfield we have no try". Then the TMO can only overule if there is C&O evidence to...
  25. Replies
    58
    Views
    1,967

    [In-goal] Re: Try: Yes or No? Or?

    Yes I agree. But current protocol appears to be either "onfield we have a try" or "onfield we have no try". The old (& better) "try, yes or no" seems to have been relegated. I expect it was a...
Results 1 to 25 of 500
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4