Roar Guru
Joined February 2013
9k
Views
5
Published
1.7k
Comments
Published
Comments
At every level of rugby there seems to be an obsession with spiralling the ball when making a pass. Spiral passing has been in…
I was so discouraged and frustrated with the Blues vs Lions game on Saturday night that I changed channels and watched Mrs Doubtfire. If…
Jean De Villiers suffered a horrific injury last weekend playing for South Africa against Wales, an injury that will presumably take him out of…
In a recent Currie Cup game, a player carried the ball forward of his own goal-line and was tackled. From the tackle the ball…
In the second Lions versus Wallabies Test, with 71 minutes on the clock, Australia chose to feed a scrum six metres out rather than…
You’re correct. NZ Men were not in the same pool as France.
The Wrap: 'Take them to a dark place' - A quiet round grabs eyeballs for all the wrong reasons
It’s true that players shouldn’t be striking or head butting other players.
It’s also true that players are often illegally driven way past the ruck and quite bizarrely at times, even tackled. It’s just another load of nonsense in the game overall that needs to stop.
Lomani was played without the ball.
The Wrap: 'Take them to a dark place' - A quiet round grabs eyeballs for all the wrong reasons
NZR is a little bit like every other. They can’t give everyone a job.
'It can be something great': Schmidt turns to 'scrum doctor' as next step in Wallabies rebuild
I don’t think Arscott’s tackle on Roigard was any different to his tackle on Lakai a few seconds before that.
Roigard was just unlucky in that he got in a position where maybe he was not expecting the tackle and propped on his left leg at the same time.
I agree. Doesn’t seem to be a hip drop.
There are only two ways rugby can go from here - and there's no middle ground between physicality and safety
Oh give it up will you. I’m not playing any game. I’m simply stating what the pictures shows us.
What on earth has the feeding of the scrum got to do with it. The ball is not at the back of the scrum upon the feed to the scrum. You’re all over the shop. I think you’re right about being distracted.
The Blues didn’t cheat. They were guilty of being naive/foolish. And by the way it wasn’t a penalty.
Have another shot if you must but I’m done!
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
Good on ya.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
Trying hard ? I don’t need to try. I just look at the pictures – they speak for themselves.
I agree with you regards the referee being the sole judge. I’ve said elsewhere the Blues were foolish thinking that was going to work for them once he said “use”.
“definitely at least 3 seconds” – yeah if you’re watching it in slow motion. It’s less than 3 seconds …2.15 to be exact ????.
It’s fair to say the referee, in this instance, was overly hasty and also the Blues were rather naive to think that the outcome would be in their favour.
Regarding the box kicking and penalty try …I have no idea what you mean.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
Quite different to the Foley incident I have to say. Don’t get me started.
Once the referee says use it then he’s made his decision right or wrong.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
The referee ? No he didn’t and I’ve explained elsewhere why.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
It wasn’t fair Jacko however once the referee said “use” he was committed and the Blues should have – were required – played the ball away from the scrum and made subsequent inquiries.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
That part of it is right. The Blues were just being foolish if they thought that was going to go their way after the referee said “use”.
More than one thing can be true. The referee didn’t get this instance right and neither did the Blues.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
again …. stationary and the ball at the back.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
Yes however no way was it static and the ball at the back for three-five seconds.
It has to be both.
If the way this scrum was ruled is correct in law and the way forward then gone are the days where teams can scrum for a penalty – and lets be blunt …they do.
Might not be a bad thing.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
The Springboks, in particular, will be disappointed if Way’s way is the way forward.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
Stationary and the ball at the back to be exact.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
“but once it rumbled he could’ve let it stay in” – but then he would have been changing his decision on the run. Once he said “use” he’s committed.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
Well let’s talk about the law then seeing you raised it.
I don’t think he did follow the law perfectly. I don’t see how he come to the conclusion that the “scrum was stationary” and that ball was “available at the back of the scrum for three-five seconds” – law 19.26. Not even 3 secs let alone 5.
By the time he said “use” the scrum was nudging forward.
When he said “use” the Blues were required to play “the ball out of the scrum immediately” Well he didn’t do that perfectly either as he allowed the Blues to fluff around and gave them a further instruction to use it. That would not be “immediately”.
Another couple of points …Is Christie allowed to play the ball in the scrum with his foot – he being the halfback and thus not within the scrum.
Also is Gordon allowed to come around the scrum as he did whilst the ball was still in the scrum.
The Wrap: Reds light up Melbourne, while it's lights out for TV over Lienert-Brown concussion
“the act of not saying anything is political” – How long would you like to draw this bow.
I never suggested they should be silent. There are more than one way to skin a cat. Choose wisely.
The Wrap: The two massive power shifts shaping Australian and New Zealand rugby
Yes if the TMO can make a call on the run then just get on with it I say.
It’s like when people comment that when a try is scored that the TMO didn’t review such and such. Everything ….everything is checked in the background…more so when a try is scored….even if the referee doesn’t specifically ask.
The Wrap: The two massive power shifts shaping Australian and New Zealand rugby
Captain obvious…
The Wrap: The two massive power shifts shaping Australian and New Zealand rugby
Well I wouldn’t go that far Jacko regards the ref “deciding who wins” – the Chiefs made a significant contribution themselves – however generally that head clash would have resulted in a YC at the very least.
The Wrap: The two massive power shifts shaping Australian and New Zealand rugby
“Every act is a political act” ….playing a game of rugby is not a political act no more so than when I choose to go for a swim later this afternoon.
They could have chosen to simply turn up and play a game of rugby.
The Wrap: The two massive power shifts shaping Australian and New Zealand rugby
Possibly a few people full of their own self importance imposing themselves on others.
The Wrap: The two massive power shifts shaping Australian and New Zealand rugby
I think the Springboks will disagree Jacko. Just saying.
'Gutted': Edmed misses shot after siren as Tahs blow chance of going back-to-back against Kiwis for first time since 2015
He was obviously in pain although he didn’t seem to shirk his duties.
The Wrap: 'Take them to a dark place' - A quiet round grabs eyeballs for all the wrong reasons