Search results

I think that’s the idea, yes. RahRahs no more. The game of people. Huzzah!

I was using the term loosely to make the point. If you prefer, we can use the words 'Preference Vote' or "Final Say vote"

The 3-person system no doubt works fine for 90% of the cases. However, it would be entirely sensible to concede the casting vote to the coach on players he feels strongly about. To take your point, would you want to be (one of) the other selectors who denied the coach his "captain's pick" or...

Fair point but I don’t buy that whole thing. The coach gets the team he wants. He’s ‘responsible’ for the results and so he has to be allowed to get the casting vote, despite what the clowns at HQ say.

I’m sure that if we each think about, we can all come up with a really good sounding reason why AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) is in the squad. Then we’ll pause and quietly accept the realisation that; yeah/nah, he’s actually there because he’s Cheika’s mate.

All of Randwick and the Gordon/Chatswood/Lindfield nexus are generally just fine It's those Eastern Suburb fuckers you've got to really watch. Getting mown down by a Porsche Cayenne while queuing for a tumeric latte is terribly poor form

I’ll speak up in Lindfield’s defence here in that comp grade. Their boys have always been just fine. Polite and gracious.

lolwut It’s possible that my early ‘Biggsy support’ may have been premature Mate, you can’t hook for the ball when your face is being rammed through your ass LOL peace

Biggsy’s got a point though That scrum when we’re calling Joe Moody for angling in? The very next scrum, on a reset, you can see our TH (I think Tupou was on by that stage) castigates the Hooker for not getting in on him The whole Joe Marler magical-mystery thing is bollox. There’s no way a...

Leaving aside the ABs well deserved dominance... I counted about 5 line breaks where there was no one in support and we got turned over We didn’t challenge any of the kick offs and allowed the AB player to take the ball cleanly We allowed the AB player to attack the ball without a clean out on...

LOL normal service resumed Shit box kicks and miracle passes

Kiap is right Read here, about the horror... https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12257778 On balance, we are, however, blessed that the game will be spared the 109th edition of Owen Franks compendium of shoulder-charging someone’s neck in a ruck So, into every...

Personally, I hope the WBs contain their neck attacks (14 last weekend) and make us proud, instead of ashamed, you know, for the neck attacks

This I’d argue White was making choices at the line and not simply sniping every time. There were a couple of really smart kicks in behind. It’s his decision making that has improved while away. Good on him.

I find I am completely happy to have been wrong about this. I agree, we wuz robbed. Moral victory for the Marlins.

Fair enough.

Sure, but the law is interpreted like that and always has been? Otherwise, why would players take the extra (handling error) risk of kicking the ball out at the end of a tight game?

Well Dave asked what the Law was. Interpretation is a different matter. When I saw it, I immediately though ‘shit, that’s a penalty’.

I was standing 5m from him as he jogged nonchalantly through the in-goal area and then out the back

Law 9.7 - Unfair play. Can’t carry or throw ball into touch intentionally Should have kicked it out but he carried it over the dead ball line.