Internationals Anzac Test

Foran needs to be given full reigns wether its captaincy included he needs to be given the ok to run the show, you can tell he wants to and that it was most likely not wanting to step on benji's feet stopping him but now its his era and he needs to be given the backing from the coach and the players, he is our quarterback. Benji will have to humble himself and move over.
 

mt.wellington

Warriors Orange Peeler
Foran needs to be given full reigns wether its captaincy included he needs to be given the ok to run the show, you can tell he wants to and that it was most likely not wanting to step on benji's feet stopping him but now its his era and he needs to be given the backing from the coach and the players, he is our quarterback. Benji will have to humble himself and move over.
Totally agree. As the main ball player Foran looks like a natural. He needs to be given complete control.

As you said though, Benji will have to humble himself and move over. Benji, humble, hmmmm. Not with that ego...
 
Totally agree. As the main ball player Foran looks like a natural. He needs to be given complete control.

As you said though, Benji will have to humble himself and move over. Benji, humble, hmmmm. Not with that ego...

Ashley Klein for MOTM - who else can invent "your major infringement trumps their minor infringement" in the middle of a test match and keep a straight face??!!
 
Why is JWHs haka form better than his actual playing form? Looks good a club level but I can't remember him doing anything of note in the black jersey except try to start some shit. Not even half the hitups or metres of Mutts and Bromich. Australia don't get initimadated Jared, they just wait for you to give a string of penalties away. Mckendry was hitting the ball up far faster than the other props on boths sides, never rated him much but his runs had sting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42
Any word on the legality of that call? Is that even a law???

I actually thought that was a rule- if a minor infringement- ie- a knock on is followed by an act that warrants a penalty that the penalty would be given- doesnt sound like anyones has heard of it tho? Otherwise every time someone dropped the ball u would give them a punch in the head and not be penalized.
my problem with it was that I don't think it was worth a penalty- hodges made a play at the ball so nightingale made a play at hodges- that was a try IMO
 
I actually thought that was a rule- if a minor infringement- ie- a knock on is followed by an act that warrants a penalty that the penalty would be given- doesnt sound like anyones has heard of it tho? Otherwise every time someone dropped the ball u would give them a punch in the head and not be penalized.
my problem with it was that I don't think it was worth a penalty- hodges made a play at the ball so nightingale made a play at hodges- that was a try IMO

First infringement bud, only foul play can over ride first infringement, it's like giving the ball back to the team that knocked on first, after each side knocked on.
 
First infringement bud, only foul play can over ride first infringement, it's like giving the ball back to the team that knocked on first, after each side knocked on.

So are u agreeing or disagreeing? Does taking someone out without the ball constitute foul play? I would think so.[DOUBLEPOST=1366494254,1366492851][/DOUBLEPOST]Section 15. Players’ Misconduct

It is illegal to obstruct any opponent not in possession, even one who is offside or one who is endeavouring to get to the ball after it has been knocked on or thrown forward.
 
Section 15. Players’ Misconduct

It is illegal to obstruct any opponent not in possession, even one who is offside or one who is endeavouring to get to the ball after it has been knocked on or thrown forward.
What stops players from throwing the ball up in the air, past the defensive line , catching it, and running as far as they can?
 
What stops players from throwing the ball up in the air, past the defensive line , catching it, and running as far as they can?
I believe the rules state a player can not throw the ball forward intentionally. Therefore throwing it forward to yourself would be an infringement, I would assume.
 
Strictly speaking if Hodges was intentionally taken out and prevented from attempting to reclaim the ball and we gain a serious advantage, then a penalty has to be given.
The situation seldom arises so is very rarely tested.
In this case I thought that Nightingale had committed to tackling him when he thought he had the ball, and stopped the attempted tackle when he realised he had lost it.
But he did impede Hodges.
The shame is we would have scored regardless because the bounce was kind to us.

You can not intentionally throw the ball forward even to reclaim it yourself.

While on the subject of rules, and something that rarely happens I awarded a possible 8 point try yesterday.
Player was hit by a swinging arm while scoring.
Sin binned the offender and the kicker got both kicks over.
 
So are u agreeing or disagreeing? Does taking someone out without the ball constitute foul play? I would think so.[DOUBLEPOST=1366494254,1366492851][/DOUBLEPOST]Section 15. Players’ Misconduct

It is illegal to obstruct any opponent not in possession, even one who is offside or one who is endeavouring to get to the ball after it has been knocked on or thrown forward.

There is a difference between misconduct and foul play, Another way to look at it is, was an advantage taken from the original infringement.

There is no such ruling as a major infringement, they are virtually saying that errors are graded, absolute nonsense to even think it could be a ruling.
 
There is a difference between misconduct and foul play, Another way to look at it is, was an advantage taken from the original infringement.

There is no such ruling as a major infringement, they are virtually saying that errors are graded, absolute nonsense to even think it could be a ruling.

Sorry mate but I gotta take section 15 of the rule book over your personal opinion
 
Sorry mate but I gotta take section 15 of the rule book over your personal opinion

First infringement rule is in play - How can you take someone off the ball when the ball is dead?
edit- rules of advantage 2013
The advantage law applies to all phases of play, but where a
team infringes in a strong tactical position the advantage
should be allowed only if the ball goes immediately into the
possession of the non-offending team.
The Referee is the sole judge of what constitutes an
advantage be it tactical or territorial. An infringement is not
‘negated’ simply because the ball touches or is touched by
an opponent. The opponent must have adequate
opportunity to take advantage and endeavour to do so
before play is allowed to proceed.
Application of the advantage laws does not deprive the
Referee of subsequently dealing with an offending player

Klein made a couple of mistakes in this play, firstly Nightingale is allowed to play at Hodges because he had been in possession of the football, it isn't Gregs fault Hodges knocked on,
There is no such thing as a major infringement and infringements aren't rated they either are or aren't infringements.
 
I believe the rules state a player can not throw the ball forward intentionally. Therefore throwing it forward to yourself would be an infringement, I would assume.
Oh, right. I forgot about that. It explains why, sometimes, when a ball is passed forward the ref might call a penalty instead of a scrum.
 
Yep. The rule about foward passes is basically "do the player's hands promote the ball in a foward direction?", which allows for balls drifting foward, where I guess momentum etc moves the ball foward from the point where it was thrown.
 
First infringement rule is in play - How can you take someone off the ball when the ball is dead?
edit- rules of advantage 2013
The advantage law applies to all phases of play, but where a
team infringes in a strong tactical position the advantage
should be allowed only if the ball goes immediately into the
possession of the non-offending team.
The Referee is the sole judge of what constitutes an
advantage be it tactical or territorial. An infringement is not
‘negated’ simply because the ball touches or is touched by
an opponent. The opponent must have adequate
opportunity to take advantage and endeavour to do so
before play is allowed to proceed.
Application of the advantage laws does not deprive the
Referee of subsequently dealing with an offending player

Klein made a couple of mistakes in this play, firstly Nightingale is allowed to play at Hodges because he had been in possession of the football, it isn't Gregs fault Hodges knocked on,
There is no such thing as a major infringement and infringements aren't rated they either are or aren't infringements.

Well if all infringements are the same why are u penalized for some and not for others?
A knock on is not a penalty- taking someone out without the ball is. Thats why your example of a double knock on is totally irrelevant. Can u see the difference?
 
Did anyone see the article saying that Bluey thought we needed Benji in the team as he provides an extra kicking option? Say what you want about Bluey's time here but I think he has a point. Hoffman, Luke and Foran aren't known for their kicking skills and Johnson has been hit and miss so far. Hell, you know you are struggling for playmakers when one of our best kicks was from freaking Pritchard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sup42

Similar threads

Replies
38
Views
2K
Mone_old
Replies
211
Views
13K
Northern_Union
Replies
4
Views
1K
blain91_old
Replies
45
Views
4K
Tajhay_old