Springboks v Italy II
-
@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:
But the Boks have 11 reasonably experienced players playing alongside the rookies. And none of the rookies are playing in combos with other rookies.
Guess that's kinda my point. We aren't in that position with settled combos quite yet. Good progress though.
SA approach is one we should look at
-
@Victor-Meldrew why? ABs were doing it 20 years ago with Henry, Smith and Hansen with their rest and rotation strategy. This isn’t new. NZ just haven’t been as good at exposing enough up and coming talent to test match rugby because the team has been struggling and winning has been the focus.
-
-
-
Absolutely fucking destroyed
By 14 men, 13 for 10 mins
-
@sparky said in Springboks v Italy II:
@Bones said in Springboks v Italy II:
The fuck? Surely intentionally doing that is a penalty?
SA purposefully ran in front of the kicker at kick off and only kicked it like 2m straight to the guy in front, to force a scrum.
Here's video of the incident:
How is that not a penalty?
-
-
@Bones said in Springboks v Italy II:
@OomPB jumping into the tackle and obstruction.
A case of rejecting reality, to substitute your own Bones. The Copium is real.
Law 9.26
In open play, any player may lift or support a player from the same team. Players who support or lift a teammate must lower the player to the ground safely as soon as the ball is won by a player of either team. -
@PN said in Springboks v Italy II:
Law 12.8(d):
“If the kicker's team is not behind the ball when it is kicked, a free-kick is awarded to the opposing team at the centre of the half-way line.”So the ref cocked up and it should have been a free kick at least?
I'm pretty sure the drafting of the Law assumes the transgression is unintentional.
Will have to check out Laws around intentional transgression of the Laws.
-
A bit of waffle in the preamble to the Law book:
SPIRIT
Rugby owes much of its appeal to the fact that it is played both to the letter and
within the spirit of the laws. The responsibility for ensuring that this happens lies not with one individual - it involves coaches, captains, players and referees. -
-
@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:
@booboo welcome to professionalism.
Rassie is innovative and seeks any advantage within the laws. It isn’t what I call within the spirit of the game. But that is a throwback to the amateur era.
Winning is all that counts now. Any which way.
See above.
He got away with that one through a reffing error.
-
-
The ball must reach the 10-metre line.
Sanction:The non-kicking team has the option of the kick being retaken or a scrum.But 12.5 applies as it's the first offence?
When the ball is kicked:
a. Team-mates of the kicker must be behind the ball.
Sanction:Scrum. -
@stodders said in Springboks v Italy II:
@booboo sanction at a kick off is a scrum to the opposition. Rassie will have done his homework.
It isn’t a penalty or a FK. Look how fast the SA props arrived for the scrum. They knew.
If the ruling under 12.5(a) was correct I'd agree.
But because they deliberately infringed 9.7(a) should apply.
UNFAIR PLAY
7. A player must not:
a. Intentionally infringe any law of the game.
b. Intentionally knock, place, push or throw the ball with arm or hand from
the playing area.
c. Do anything that may lead the match officials to consider that an opponent has committed an infringement.
Sanction: PenaltyAgree about the FK though: I was quoting @PN but am not sure where he got his law from(12.8(d) is quick throw)? Is that maybe a SVNS variant?
-
