NH International Rugby
-
@victor-meldrew said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.
Sonja McLaughlin? Turd.
Beanie. Anti wimnim bully.
Sonja McLaughlan is to post-match interviews what Miles Harrison is to live commentaries.
You wouldn't want to car pool with them.
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@victor-meldrew said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.
Sonja McLaughlin? Turd.
Beanie. Anti wimnim bully.
Sonja McLaughlan is to post-match interviews what Miles Harrison is to live commentaries.
You wouldn't want to car pool with them.
I'm staggered broadcasters actually stick with people like them TBH. They are just so bad at what they do.
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
@booboo said
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
That'll be me. Forgot my password, and changed email address, so I figured it was easier to make a new account.
Am I remembered? That's a worry.
There's a dodgy pub near where I live, I rarely go there. But about once a year, after a night out when my mates have gone home and I should too, I wander in on the way home for a couple more drinks and to talk some crap. I have pretty much the same relationship with that pub as this forum.
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
You're like an Australian Sherlock Holmes. How did you know gibbonrib was gibbonrib?
-
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
You're like an Australian Sherlock Holmes. How did you know gibbonrib was gibbonrib?
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
You're like an Australian Sherlock Holmes. How did you know gibbonrib was gibbonrib?
"Capital, Watson! You are coming along nicely."
-
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.
Sonja McLaughlin? Turd.
Beanie. Anti wimnim bully.
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
Another dreadful interview by this horrible person. Shame, I thought the BBC coverage of this game otherwise was faultless.
Sonja McLaughlin? Turd.
Beanie. Meanie. Anti wimnim bully.Auto correct
-
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
You're like an Australian Sherlock Holmes. How did you know gibbonrib was gibbonrib?
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@booboo said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@kruse said in NH International Rugby:
@pakman said in NH International Rugby:
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@junior it went forward. Or was he standing still?
I can’t be assed to check, but it hit the ground closer to English goal line than when it left his hands can we all agree it was forward?
It depends... are knock-ons defined the same way as forward-passes are now?
ie: "forward out of the hands"
If yes - then I can understand the decision.
If not - then I can not.Nope, I'm pretty sure it's still defined as "towards the opposition's dead ball line"
The critical part of the law, as I read it, is whether the player has "lost possession of the ball" (not "lost control"). If a player drops it they haven't necessarily lost possession (otherwise just about every kick from hand would be a knock on). Posession is defined as "a team or individual in control of the ball or who are attempting to bring it under control". So you could argue that LRZ was still attempting to bring the ball under control at least until it hit his leg, in which case no knock-on.
Having said that, I was pretty surprised it was allowed to stand..
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
You're like an Australian Sherlock Holmes. How did you know gibbonrib was gibbonrib?
Who else is going to call themself @GibbonRib
-
@booboo said
@GibbonRib "joined 2 days ago"?
Are ou the username previously known as "GibbonRib"? Welcome back.
That'll be me. Forgot my password, and changed email address, so I figured it was easier to make a new account.
Am I remembered? That's a worry.
There's a dodgy pub near where I live, I rarely go there. But about once a year, after a night out when my mates have gone home and I should too, I wander in on the way home for a couple more drinks and to talk some crap. I have pretty much the same relationship with that pub as this forum.
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
There's a dodgy pub near where I live, I rarely go there. But about once a year, after a night out when my mates have gone home and I should too, I wander in on the way home for a couple more drinks and to talk some crap. I have pretty much the same relationship with that pub as this forum.
that's beautiful, and i have never been prouder than to have this forum described as a dodgy pub
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
@gibbonrib yeah it certainly was very different than what you thought you saw live
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
@gibbonrib that's brilliantly done by Wales when you get to see that "extra" footage.
Not sure I buy blaming Itoje for the Sheedy break though...
-
@gibbonrib that's brilliantly done by Wales when you get to see that "extra" footage.
Not sure I buy blaming Itoje for the Sheedy break though...
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib that's brilliantly done by Wales when you get to see that "extra" footage.
Not sure I buy blaming Itoje for the Sheedy break though...
Yeah, really smart play. Just a shame the TV coverage didn't properly show out, and went for the outrage angle instead
-
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@gibbonrib that's brilliantly done by Wales when you get to see that "extra" footage.
Not sure I buy blaming Itoje for the Sheedy break though...
Yeah, really smart play. Just a shame the TV coverage didn't properly show out, and went for the outrage angle instead
@gibbonrib that fucking Sonja McLaughlin at it again
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
Bravo Wales.
-
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
Something of a different perspective but still a shit show. Did England have enough time to get the message across? Of course. Did some of their guys fan out? Yes. Did the ref tell England that time was going back on? No. Did he tell Biggar that time was going on? Yes. Did he check that England were ready for time going back on? No.
Though I will concede that the last point is not a required action but it is one that is generally accepted.
However, time to move on. Neither of the two disputed tries were ultimately the reason we lost. Dumb and indisciplined play from us. Intelligent play from the Taffs. A deserved win (and come to that a deserved loss).
-
@gibbonrib said in NH International Rugby:
@sparky said in NH International Rugby:
I like that. Can't see how anyone can say the first try was bogus after watching that.
Something of a different perspective but still a shit show. Did England have enough time to get the message across? Of course. Did some of their guys fan out? Yes. Did the ref tell England that time was going back on? No. Did he tell Biggar that time was going on? Yes. Did he check that England were ready for time going back on? No.
Though I will concede that the last point is not a required action but it is one that is generally accepted.
However, time to move on. Neither of the two disputed tries were ultimately the reason we lost. Dumb and indisciplined play from us. Intelligent play from the Taffs. A deserved win (and come to that a deserved loss).
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
Did the ref tell England that time was going back on
Errr...he blew his whistle and signalled time on?
-
Karma's a bitch Owen
-
@mikethesnow did the ref signal time on?
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@mikethesnow did the ref signal time on?
Nope.
That's what makes it even more glorious.
-
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
Did the ref tell England that time was going back on
Errr...he blew his whistle and signalled time on?
@bones said in NH International Rugby:
@catogrande said in NH International Rugby:
Did the ref tell England that time was going back on
Errr...he blew his whistle and signalled time on?
Errr... Biggar asked when time is back on, Ref said time is on to Biggar. Did not check if England were ready. Blew his whistle and then called "Time is on" when the ball was in flight.
Anyone can pick a hole here or there in the timeline but taken in whole it was a dreadful piece of refereeing and one that you'd all be spewing about if your team were on the arse end of it
