Rebels v Crusaders
-
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
Once the ball is thrown you can move.
-
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
I looked it up and there's no restrictions on moving into that space once ball is thrown. Cf. the 15m line, which is disallowed.
-
Matera looks hurt
-
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
Once the ball is thrown you can move.
@antipodean said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
Once the ball is thrown you can move.
Right - I knew the 15m rule and that the hooker/opponent could be there. The crucial bit is 29d after "any player in the lineout may...".
*Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. *
If they move in there and AREN'T in a position to receive (i.e. ahead of the ball), then it's a short arm.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Rebels v Crusaders:
T Williams ABs? Wouldn't mind it.
Not so keen on his defence there though
-
@antipodean said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
Once the ball is thrown you can move.
Right - I knew the 15m rule and that the hooker/opponent could be there. The crucial bit is 29d after "any player in the lineout may...".
*Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. *
If they move in there and AREN'T in a position to receive (i.e. ahead of the ball), then it's a short arm.
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
Once the ball is thrown you can move.
Right - I knew the 15m rule and that the hooker/opponent could be there. The crucial bit is 29d after "any player in the lineout may...".
*Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. *
If they move in there and AREN'T in a position to receive (i.e. ahead of the ball), then it's a short arm.
That particular requirement (and to keep moving) is more honoured in the breach...
There is a specific law about the 15m but nothing about the 5m line. Ergo it is fine.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Rebels v Crusaders:
T Williams ABs? Wouldn't mind it.
Not so keen on his defence there though
@Bones especially given the AB defence patterns won't improve him...
-
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
Once the ball is thrown you can move.
Right - I knew the 15m rule and that the hooker/opponent could be there. The crucial bit is 29d after "any player in the lineout may...".
*Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. *
If they move in there and AREN'T in a position to receive (i.e. ahead of the ball), then it's a short arm.
That particular requirement (and to keep moving) is more honoured in the breach...
There is a specific law about the 15m but nothing about the 5m line. Ergo it is fine.
@Damo said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@antipodean said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@NTA said in Rebels v Crusaders:
61:22 - Crusaders throw the ball in. Two of their players move inside the 5m before Whitelock drops it down to them. Is that illegal? Lineout isn't over, after all. Only the hooker could be there I thought?
Once the ball is thrown you can move.
Right - I knew the 15m rule and that the hooker/opponent could be there. The crucial bit is 29d after "any player in the lineout may...".
*Leave the lineout so as to be in a position to receive the ball, provided they remain within 10 metres of the mark of touch and they keep moving until the lineout is over. *
If they move in there and AREN'T in a position to receive (i.e. ahead of the ball), then it's a short arm.
That particular requirement (and to keep moving) is more honoured in the breach...
There is a specific law about the 15m but nothing about the 5m line. Ergo it is fine.
Fucking lawyers
Edit: tongue in cheek I hope it's realised. Your law clarifications are gold dust.
-
Very much a mixed bag out there from the saders, some sublime stuff with some shit stuff.
-
Very much a mixed bag out there from the saders, some sublime stuff with some shit stuff.
@taniwharugby handling errors. Terrible
-
Very much a mixed bag out there from the saders, some sublime stuff with some shit stuff.
@taniwharugby said in Rebels v Crusaders:
Very much a mixed bag out there from the saders, some sublime stuff with some shit stuff.
Jet lag
-
Matera and Blackadder were Hugh for the Crusaders especially in the 2nd half
Bower and Jager put in good shifts.Mounga too.Gallagher,Newell, and Williams are really developing for a 20 year old and 2- 21 year olds especially as they are tight forwards.
It will be interesting to see How Havilli and Christie slot back in next week,Jordan of course will be back at FB.Fantastic to see Goodhue back for a first real game back in a year I thought he went really well he will only get better and better.
Drummond was shit.Bridge even though he did some good stuff his lack of pace showed out at FB.If Jordan has played we probably would have finished off a few more tries.
-
@Duluth said in Rebels v Crusaders:
Crusaders tackling at 97%, Rebels 73%
Somehow it’s only 7-0
That first half we played like a bunch of over excited school kids - needed to just settle down and trust the process.
-
Matera and Blackadder were Hugh for the Crusaders especially in the 2nd half
Bower and Jager put in good shifts.Mounga too.Gallagher,Newell, and Williams are really developing for a 20 year old and 2- 21 year olds especially as they are tight forwards.
It will be interesting to see How Havilli and Christie slot back in next week,Jordan of course will be back at FB.Fantastic to see Goodhue back for a first real game back in a year I thought he went really well he will only get better and better.
Drummond was shit.Bridge even though he did some good stuff his lack of pace showed out at FB.If Jordan has played we probably would have finished off a few more tries.
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
-
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
@ACT-Crusader said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
E noho ra Ennor
-
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
@ACT-Crusader said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
His lack of pace was exposed a few times from FB not his best position.
I can’t see him in the top xv anymore.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
His lack of pace was exposed a few times from FB not his best position.
I can’t see him in the top xv anymore.
@Chris said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@ACT-Crusader said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
His lack of pace was exposed a few times from FB not his best position.
I can’t see him in the top xv anymore.
As I posted earlier, if everyone is fit it’s a fight between him and Ennor for the bench spot.
-
@Chris said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@ACT-Crusader said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
His lack of pace was exposed a few times from FB not his best position.
I can’t see him in the top xv anymore.
As I posted earlier, if everyone is fit it’s a fight between him and Ennor for the bench spot.
@ACT-Crusader said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@Chris said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@ACT-Crusader said in Rebels v Crusaders:
@Chris Bridge played better…..better than Ennor…
His lack of pace was exposed a few times from FB not his best position.
I can’t see him in the top xv anymore.
As I posted earlier, if everyone is fit it’s a fight between him and Ennor for the bench spot.
Good for you.
