Search:

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

Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.04 seconds.

  1. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,439

    Re: Penalty Try

    Exactly as stated earlier in the thread :
  2. Replies
    14
    Views
    485

    [Law] Re: 20.10 behind the kicker at a PK

    Possibly because until the "captain's challenge" appeared in the trials. This is the only instance when a captain my bring a "wrongdoing" to the referee's attention?

    "ref He's offiside!"
    ...
  3. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,439

    Re: Penalty Try

    His team might prefer the extras if their kicker is crap.
  4. Replies
    14
    Views
    485

    [Law] Re: 20.10 behind the kicker at a PK

    They are required to "get back and remain" not "remain". The two are not the same.
  5. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,439

    Re: Penalty Try

    Indeed. After all a side can decline a conversion attempt. Therfore, the lack of one is not conclusive evidence of a PT.
  6. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,439

    Re: Penalty Try

    Why not?
  7. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,439

    Re: Penalty Try

    Muy answer is bot ignore. YOu blow for the offence DEal with the IMMEDIATE situation. THEN when all is calm you go under the posts. IT is simple. Unless, of course you want to create problems that...
  8. Replies
    43
    Views
    1,439

    Re: Penalty Try

    Spot on. Should have been the approach when ther was a conversion required. NEVER leave the potential flashpoint unobserved.
  9. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    Failing to understand OR telling lies again. You choose!



    Nothing to do wit hthw 2018 book or highlighting difference it wa about doing the job properly.
  10. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    Missing the point beautifully (Intentionally?).

    A clarification, by definition, will mean that things that are read by some one way will now be not so. That is not a change that is clearing...
  11. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    I agree 100% but Crossref was, and is, claiming some changes were intentional. That implies something clearly sinsister.

    - - - Updated - - -



    100% agree.
  12. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    WR said NO changes.

    You said there are deliberate changes.

    If your statement is true, then WR clearly did not tell the truth or to put it simply: They lied.

    So, yes you did say it.
  13. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    You were not hung drawn and quartered for that. The point was, and still is, that WR said there were no changes just clarifications. Now you may say they lied. That is your perogtive. But no one...
  14. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    It is high time that WR admits the massive cock up the simplification of 2018 was. They need to go back to the 2017 book and compare it to the current book and come up with a definitive version.
  15. Replies
    13
    Views
    934

    Re: New Rugby Roadmap

    We all have different "road maps" Who invented such stupid names? The thread was bound to go off topic.
  16. [Law] Re: When and why the intentional knock-on rule was added to the rugby laws?

    It is in my personal opinion that I think that for me that the possible fact that a law might not be refereed correctly is not a reason for removing it. It is a reason for applying in correctly....
  17. Replies
    46
    Views
    1,343

    [Law] Re: England v France - 24/4/2921

    I'd ping the tackle as dangerous. You don't neeed to go beyond the "H" for it to be so.

    For the the PK. I think she thought or was trying to imply she was playing advantage. Either way it was not...
  18. Thread: rewarding

    by Marc Wakeham
    Replies
    5
    Views
    293

    Re: rewarding

    From me ithe use of "reward" impies the use of the scrum as a penalty winning machine rather than "positive" play . So, teams destabalize and then drive so it is often difficult to stay up etc.
    ...
  19. Replies
    11
    Views
    479

    Re: wheeling scrums

    If you think it is because two props are dominating the other two. Call the stronger ones out: "Look guys you two are far too strong for the LHPs / THPS. Nothing wrong with your scrummaging you're...
  20. Replies
    8
    Views
    657

    [Law] Re: Neverending rugby?

    Very true.
  21. Replies
    8
    Views
    657

    [Law] Re: Neverending rugby?

    And theses days most sides ( at the semi and pro levels) have a kicker who is more than comfortable kicking that sort of distance.
  22. Replies
    8
    Views
    657

    [Law] Re: Neverending rugby?

    Scenario 1
    Team A 21 Team B 12 Team B score with 81 on the clock. Clear and Obvious Foul play after the score by team A. B convert Score 21-19. restart with the PK. Why not? a converted penalty...
  23. Re: Match Official Developer App - your input please

    Superb detail and matches my impressions.

    Incidentally, I also have the ref watch and find that very good in trial situations. Can't wait for the chance to use it "in the middle of the park"
  24. Re: Match Official Developer App - your input please

    I find the MOD app really intuitive.
  25. Re: Match Official Developer App - your input please

    I took a look at that one on Android. Seems messy to me.
Results 1 to 25 of 500
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 4