Wallabies vs Springboks I
-
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
White on for Tate. Interesting
I thought they'd give Tate another 10 mins or so before injecting White
-
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
White on for Tate. Interesting
I thought they'd give Tate another 10 mins or so before injecting White
@no-quarter said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
White on for Tate. Interesting
I thought they'd give Tate another 10 mins or so before injecting White
Cork
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
This could be a tight rope if both teams do something constructive with the ball.
Please explain
@booboo said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@antipodean said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
This could be a tight rope if both teams do something constructive with the ball.
Please explain
I'm starting to see why they kick...
-
Wallabies looking decent. Boks one dimensional as always, Le Roux calling the mark when oppo is 40m away and AUS have a man in the bin just shows how careful and risk-averse the Boks play. Hope Wobs roll them
@tordah said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
Wallabies looking decent. Boks one dimensional as always, Le Roux calling the mark when oppo is 40m away and AUS have a man in the bin just shows how careful and risk-averse the Boks play. Hope Wobs roll them
"one dimensional" is apt. I should not be surprised, it has been their base line for decades, even when they need not be. For their sometimes fabulous forward strength they simply should not be pushed around in the set pieces.
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
Clear explanation from Pierce.
Merhts talking shit.... again.
He had his hands on it. Therefore if it's out, he's fair game.
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
Clear explanation from Pierce.
Merhts talking shit.... again.
He had his hands on it. Therefore if it's out, he's fair game.
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
Clear explanation from Pierce.
Merhts talking shit.... again.
He had his hands on it. Therefore if it's out, he's fair game.
It's not out until the ball is lifted.
-
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
What the fuck was that?
Ball was out, they tackled faf without the ball. Should've just picked the ball up
@machpants said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
What the fuck was that?
Ball was out, they tackled faf without the ball. Should've just picked the ball up
Replay says "no"
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
Clear explanation from Pierce.
Clear explanation... just completely wrong
-
That's fucking bullshit ref. If the ball is out and his hands are on the little shit is fair game
-
@kiwimurph bollocks. He said the ball was out, and the halfback clearly had his hands on the ball, so fair game.
-
@machpants said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
What the fuck was that?
Ball was out, they tackled faf without the ball. Should've just picked the ball up
Replay says "no"
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@machpants said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
@nta said in Wallabies vs Springboks I:
What the fuck was that?
Ball was out, they tackled faf without the ball. Should've just picked the ball up
Replay says "no"
That's what he said, I missed it
