Search:

Type: Posts; User: Marc Wakeham; Keyword(s):

Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.04 seconds.

  1. Replies
    28
    Views
    1,146

    [Tackle] Re: Lifting Tackle

    Usually the worst type of spectator!
  2. Replies
    28
    Views
    1,146

    [Tackle] Re: Lifting Tackle

    Why do you say 9.17 requires an immediate release? 9.17 deals with a player who is off the ground. In the scenarios your describe the players were on the ground when they were : tackled, charged,...
  3. Replies
    28
    Views
    1,146

    [Tackle] Re: Lifting Tackle

    Nothing controversial in 9.17 for me. You can't tackle someone who is "off the ground" (normal caveats to allow running apply).
  4. Replies
    5
    Views
    395

    [CLUB RUGBY] Re: Uncontested scrum / numbers debarcle

    I would guess it is because the lack of a STE front row would only become apparent at the next scrum. So you play on and when the next scum comes along "Can you scrummage?" " No Ref". "Ok uncontested...
  5. Replies
    28
    Views
    1,146

    [Tackle] Re: Lifting Tackle

    In line with my thinking. At that age it's off you go. I'd also speake to my society to raise the issue so future refs are ready for it.
  6. Replies
    6
    Views
    312

    Re: What nutrition does broccoli have?

    To be honest. Far too much info to post here so take a look at: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/broccoli
  7. [Maul] Re: Binding in front of the Ball Carrier/back foot.

    Hense my suggestion: "If so is it not time that their trainers re focussed their mindset?"

    - - - Updated - - -



    Quite possibly.

    For me the two sides should be refereed equitably.
  8. [Maul] Re: Binding in front of the Ball Carrier/back foot.

    If so is it not time that their trainers re focussed their mindset?
  9. [Maul] Re: Binding in front of the Ball Carrier/back foot.

    Indeed.
  10. Replies
    27
    Views
    1,385

    Re: Hand-off heights

    True. but the referee always did that with tackles But WR still felt the need to outlaw acts specifically. Contact wit hthe head was specifically outlawed but not in repect of the hand off.

    For...
  11. Replies
    27
    Views
    1,385

    Re: Hand-off heights

    Apologies. The other way round makes more sense.
  12. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    Quack!
  13. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    His point was the Law requires the ref to "run away" he failed until page 7 to admit he was not telling the truth. Once that fact is established. There clearly is not an issue. As stated by others,...
  14. Replies
    27
    Views
    1,385

    Re: Hand-off heights

    I'm not arguing for "exactly the same treatment". Defining something as "foul play" still allows for latitude: PK only, PK +YC or PK+ RC.

    A 6 foot 7 second row faced with trying to tackle a 5 foot...
  15. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    100%! Start with a lie ( "missinterpretation") and the argument is always dead in the water.
  16. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    At last!

    You finally admit the referee is not required by the laws of the game to run away from a flash point.

    Only took you 7 pages to tell the truth. Thank you and good night!
  17. Replies
    27
    Views
    1,385

    Re: Hand-off heights

    If that is the case then the law needs changing. To allow one player to make contact with the head but not another is lacking consistency.

    Either ban contact with the head full stop. OR allow...
  18. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    Still unwilling to explain why you lied by claiming the laws demand the referee runs away (from the potential flashpoint) to award the PT.

    You either lied about the law OR you don't know the law....
  19. Replies
    27
    Views
    1,385

    Re: Hand-off heights

    I understand that. But why can the ball carrier do it where as the tackler cannot? The head is a "red-zone" (for want of a better term) but not if you are a ball carrier. A fend of is never "gentle"....
  20. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    Spot on!
  21. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    Why don't you :

    1: answer the question?

    2: tell the truth?
  22. Replies
    27
    Views
    1,385

    Re: Hand-off heights

    Agreed with the first paragraph.

    For me it is cotact wit hthe head and should be judged within the protocols / guideline for such.
  23. Replies
    27
    Views
    1,385

    Re: Hand-off heights

    Except that the protocols now deem any contact with the head in a tackle situation to be foul play. FOr me it is absure that I can make contact with your head if I am carrying the ball , but not if...
  24. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    But there was no need for his to repeatedly claim that the law demanded something that it does not. Yes be open t oa new way of signalling a PT. However, Crossref did not need to use falsehoods to...
  25. Replies
    85
    Views
    4,046

    Re: Penalty Try

    Well done in totally avoiding answering the actual question. You are not an MP by any chance are you?

    To remind you.

    YOU insisted, as the quote shows, that the referee had to run from the...
Results 1 to 25 of 500
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4