Search results

Provided you come in from the gate you are allowed to clear people out in any direction, although generally this will be either straight through or to the side. Pulling someone back into a breakdown would probably fall foul of law 16.3 (c) for a ruck and is probably dangerous play...

Or perhaps they can spot an obvious troll and have wisely chosen to ignore it. I wish I could resist the temptation as well but alas.

Just makes the victory sweeter.

I don't know; 30 for 3 is about our usual fare in the top order.

It was the IRB who has mandated this. 3 match tours will be a recurring theme for the next 10 years apparently, with a years off during WC time. And why is the Argentina v Italy game not included here? Just an oversight?

I'm not defending Deans, just trying to interpret what he means. I have always been skeptical of the Deans brigade who claim he is some sort of master coach. I suspect he is just pissed off that a team with all that ball and territory in the second half couldn't find a way to win. There are...

What I am trying to say is that I think Deans is exasperated that the players don't seem to know how to win these games instinctively. I can remember plenty of games the All Blacks have played against the likes of Ireland, Wales or Argentina where we have been in trouble going into the final...

I am hesitant to blame it all on the strategy. The Wallabies had plenty of chances in the second half and should really have been able to score a try through their forwards. I think it was the lack of execution that really cost them. They were unable to get consistent quick ball that is the...

I think a lot of the blame has to go on poor decision making by the captain. I think Pocock deciding to kick for touch rather than kicking for goal was very poor. Even if you miss in conditions like that, you still get the ball back in good field position.

Looks like a 15 point wind to me.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Canes. They have to play the Chiefs and the Crusaders in their last two games.

If a prop engages on a downward angle so that his head is below his hips, he will have a hard time keeping the scrum up unless the bind is perfect. If anything goes amiss on the hit, the scrum will go straight down. It is particularly a problem for tall props, which is why Crockett is...

Such as?

It has occurred to me that perhaps you don't know what "Line of Touch" is defined as, and you think it refers to the touchline. Well it doesn't. From the Preamble to law 19: This is further defined later by the familiar laws regarding kicking it out on the full etc. Basically it is the point...

I had no trouble understanding it. Perhaps you are over-thinking it.

The current law is: The change affects the situation where the ball is kicked out on the full. Now the player will be able to take the QT anywhere between his goal line and where the opposition player kicked it. Should spice things up a bit.

And it will give the option of a lineout when time is up! Also when the defending team does a technical infringement (ie a short arm) the attacking team gets another chance at a lineout, rather than losing that option as currently.

I wouldn't worry about it slowing the game down. My guess is that it will hardly ever be used, the ref will tell the halfback to use it, and he will do so quickly. It just gives the ref some ammunition to tell the player to use it. I know I (as a ref) often will tell a halfback to hurry up...

Either that, or he's inhaling smoke

The SAReferees website, who have provided the clip say this regarding the first one Not for the first time, but I disagree with their analysis here. The Stormers player clearly places it cleanly and Franks gets his hands on it after the Stormers player has let it go. I must admit I didn't...