Search results

Cheika's main problem is that he can dish it out but he can't take it!

Get a Law book and read Law 10.1 (a) and (c)

Not if changing his line means playing an opponent who is not carrying the ball No, they cannot. That Law only applies when two players are chasing a loose ball

1 Attacking me does not help your case 2. I'm not a member at The Silver Fern and never likely to be. Too many numties there for my liking Nope, what matters is that he changed direction and intentionally played Savea without the ball. The mantra is "clear and obvious"". It was neither...

Wrong on two counts 1. See my earlier post #1086. That support position was inside Henry Speight's running line not outside it. He was already inside that running line. If Haylett-Petty was trying to run around the back of Henry Speight then he's dumb. He is nowhere near fast enough to catch...

OFF TOPIC I am having some problems with forum. I'm having to post them here because I cannot find a "feedback" forum or a webmaster link. If a mod could please move this to an appropriate forum I would appreciate it. 1. I can't start a topic, I can only post replies to existing topics - at...

Yes, he has the right to hold his line.. What he doesn't have the right to do is what he did, which was to change his direction to intentionally run into a defender. You're right, he does, and that better position was inside Henry Speight's running line not outside it. He was already inside...

Yes, he can advance as long as he remains close to the scrum and keeps both feet behind the ball (his offside line) until his opponent picks it up. What he can't do it go onto the slot between the opponent's flanker and No. 8. The reason for that charge-down is twofold: 1. Phipps' big, slow...

The IRB's statement on the failed appeal. http://www.irb.com/newsmedia/mediazone/pressrelease/newsid=2068413.html#irb statement horwill appeal decision So they waste everyone's time, money and energy, with an ultimately futile appeal, and in so doing, put the Wallaby captain through a torrid...

From the Horwill Decision document "1.1 As a result of an incident in the 3rd minute of this Test Match, the Player was cited by the Citing Commissioner for an offence of foul play, being an alleged offence against Law 10.4(b) in these terms: “Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or...

He is wrong. In his original decision, Nigel Hampton QC (Quade Cooper)'s stated that foot contacting head unintentionally at a Ruck was not an infringement under ruck law. The whole decisison is available here http://www.irb.com/mm/document/tournament/home/02/06/80/23/horwill-decision.pdf Here are the...

Is this what you are looking for