Search:

and LP'S consistency with calling for the ball to be used as soon as it became available.

Of his own making or was he given the steer beforehand?

I didn't say it had anything to do with Biggar. I applaud him. I just said he knew what he was doing.

Still down to game management in my eyes. Not sure a cozy little fireside chat about the clock going back on is particularly equitable. If I was PG I might think I had also been made a fool of. And...

NO's interpretation would certainly provide more consistency, and in line with the interpretation of lost possession and the fly hack that tries to redeem the situation.

In both , the ball is...

Oops! ...deemed Not a knock on. See where ambiguity takes us!

But in anyevnt ball wasn't knocked backwards. it arrived at the ground forward relative to where it was not gathered. But what do I know.

Rightly or wrongly, my personal view is that I would...

So Wayne is in a position to clear up what he says is an 'ambiguity' in the laws? He resolves by determining it is deemed a knock on. As such that doesn't make it an ambiguity. What's that all about?

surely under your scenario 3, on transference of the ball without a maul forming, the ball is deemed to have left the lineout, and the lineout is therefore over?

the simplest explanations are often the best!

As is the case with any situation at the younger age groups, it is likely to be a mess. it serves no purpose to continue any longer than the situation demands, hence the tighter restrictions and the...

The Age grade rules assume the ball is won cleanly and not overthrown, fumbled or otherwise. Outside of that it is use your common sense. The jumper comes to ground, deal with what is there...

There seems to be an asymmetry in the treatment of a ripped ball.

Not a knock on in respect of the player having the ball ripped and it going forward from his hands, yet

A knock on in respect...

Two players moving in the same direction. So a reduced "closing" speed. Always likely to make it look less than the protocol sets out.

Having seen Wayne Barnes call advantage over for something not dissimilar in a Premiership game, it's worth raising the point again.

...A case of too much advantage?

A lame attempt to bind onto his own player was my initial thought

Missed the detail in the OP

The English language is a very dangerous tool and open to many interpretations! Could readily sweep up the point where the ball lands as being within the meaning of kick. But a clarification in the...

So yes, the ref basically messed up under the correct application of the 10m law.

law clarification from all the way back in 2011
...

Apart from being on the wrong side viewing a red card tackle and being confident there was no foul play!

When Read fluffed his lines and was unable to ground the ball, poite reverted to the Standing up infringement. All happened so quickly. So naturally some confusion.

judicial duties of the Law Lords were transferred following the creation of the the Supreme Court back in 2009.

Law Lords no longer exist. Keep up!

Surely could be called obstruction even if it wasn't a long arm transfer! Could be seen as a pk offence even if most would perhaps call it accidental offside.

Clearly jumping into/ over the tackle area to leave the tackler clutching at thin air IMO. Two instances where I thought Garces was both inconsistent, and wrong.

And hardly consistent with...