PhilClinton
Mark Loane (55)
Does anyone really think he's gone to Japan for developmental reasons though?
Brumbies 2022
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
I was unsurprised but saddened when the CBR times reported that Tom Cusack was leaving the game to pursue other options. The usual post game conversations had turned to how his body was struggling to recover and he put it down to the may years of 7's.
This now provides a better insight and, although sad, its positive news; Rugby star played a season with cancer in his body
Tom Cusack has never spoken about why he suddenly ended his rugby career.
Story is behind the Daily telegraph paywall. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...r/news-story/37e7703fc964433c0139af2b7415c144
This now provides a better insight and, although sad, its positive news; Rugby star played a season with cancer in his body
Tom Cusack has never spoken about why he suddenly ended his rugby career.
Story is behind the Daily telegraph paywall. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...r/news-story/37e7703fc964433c0139af2b7415c144
Last edited:
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Hey KOB, here's our chance to see Hooper in action in the second row. Starting there tomorrow night against the Rebels. Recommend you have a look.
Will be an interesting match up with Canham who had an impressive debut for the Rebels last week.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Well called BR…Hooper a talent. Was thinking such a pity frost leaving as given his rate of development I still think he could have been a wallaby rwc bolter. But at least have now swain locked in and hooper showing such promise a potentially equally good pairing of swain and hooper next year. Btw is Neville still around…injured?
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
RN Hooper is a different type of player to Frost but both are exceptionally effective in what they do. I think Frost is a super star in the making and should get plenty of RWC involvement in 2027 even if he misses next year.
Neville's contact expires this year I think. His experience will be crucial to the Brumbies over the next couple of years, even allowing for Swain in the side, so I hope he is re-signed quick smart.
Neville's contact expires this year I think. His experience will be crucial to the Brumbies over the next couple of years, even allowing for Swain in the side, so I hope he is re-signed quick smart.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Looks like the Brumbies (including the Super W side) are set to get more funding from the territory:
Haven't seen any specifics yet, but the focus on the Super W side in the tweet seems like it's another step towards professionalism for the women. Hopefully it sees them at least match Force/Rebels commitments.
Haven't seen any specifics yet, but the focus on the Super W side in the tweet seems like it's another step towards professionalism for the women. Hopefully it sees them at least match Force/Rebels commitments.
Adam84
Rod McCall (65)
Well.. ACT Govt announced last week they were putting $millions behind a NRLW bid for Canberra, so it’s only fair rugby get a bit given there is already a team there.
ACT Govt support for sporting teams:
Raiders - $2.7million a year(5 year deal),
GWS AFL - $2.3million(10 year deal)
Brumbies - $1.78million(2 year deal)
Last edited:
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
Facial fracture, no word on how long he's out for:
Brumbies coach McKellar calls for orange card
Brumbies coach Dan McKellar says it was ridiculous that Tom Banks was given a red card for an accidental head clash.
www.rugby.com.au
I agree.Facial fracture, no word on how long he's out for:
Brumbies coach McKellar calls for orange card
Brumbies coach Dan McKellar says it was ridiculous that Tom Banks was given a red card for an accidental head clash.
Free kick = minor infraction collapsed scrum etc
Penalty = infraction. offside etc
Yellow card = 10 minute sin bin, repeated infringements etc.
Orange card = 20 minute sin bin must be replaced. Unintentional dangerous play.
Red card = sent off. intentional foul play
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Be careful what you wish for. Assessing intention will lead to a lot of inconsistency.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Perhaps the orange card should also automatically attract the Reviewing Official's assessment allowing the on field refs to be a bit conservative with their sanctions.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Agreed, intention is one you do want to leave for post match scrutiny.
Terminology is key here so why not about forget the intentional / unintentional terms and move to a more simplified concept; call it , the fcukwittery scale if you want.
EG; so punching, hitting, cheap shots, leading with a shoulder, forearm to head, blatant neckroll (so all neck/head and nothing but neck/head), stomping, eye gouging. late hit or taking players out in a dangerous way (and I don't care how they land, its what how you could have potentially injured them - unlike the current rule that is akin to you stabbed a person, but you missed the vital organs so they survived so its ok to play on!) etc. all are a slam dunk regardless. Its foul play so you don't deserve to be on the field principle.
The moment "mitigation" enters the conversation, or its not clear cut, there are elements or factors and there is possible doubt, its orange and its dealt with after the game.
The other part I would like is foul play related high/ head clashes, blood, injury etc treated evenly. So, if a players takes out your #10, gets a card for it (yellow/ orange/red) with a high shot and the #10 has to go off for a head check then cant return it can turn a game. Yes, the infringing team might suffer through a yellow, orange period, even red, but it still may be a greater loss to the team losing a #10 or other similarly critical player. So if we could have equivalent time off field for his direct opposite it balances it out even for both teams.
Terminology is key here so why not about forget the intentional / unintentional terms and move to a more simplified concept; call it , the fcukwittery scale if you want.
EG; so punching, hitting, cheap shots, leading with a shoulder, forearm to head, blatant neckroll (so all neck/head and nothing but neck/head), stomping, eye gouging. late hit or taking players out in a dangerous way (and I don't care how they land, its what how you could have potentially injured them - unlike the current rule that is akin to you stabbed a person, but you missed the vital organs so they survived so its ok to play on!) etc. all are a slam dunk regardless. Its foul play so you don't deserve to be on the field principle.
The moment "mitigation" enters the conversation, or its not clear cut, there are elements or factors and there is possible doubt, its orange and its dealt with after the game.
The other part I would like is foul play related high/ head clashes, blood, injury etc treated evenly. So, if a players takes out your #10, gets a card for it (yellow/ orange/red) with a high shot and the #10 has to go off for a head check then cant return it can turn a game. Yes, the infringing team might suffer through a yellow, orange period, even red, but it still may be a greater loss to the team losing a #10 or other similarly critical player. So if we could have equivalent time off field for his direct opposite it balances it out even for both teams.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
Arguably we have already introduced an Orange Card and it is working well.
MarkJ
Bob Loudon (25)
Banks red card overturned
www.rugby.com.au
Tom Banks issued warning as Dane Zander receives suspension for high tackle
The Brumbies and Reds have received mixed fortunes ahead of Saturday's top-of-the-table clash at Suncorp Stadium, with Tom Banks cleared of wrongdoing for his high tackle whilst Dane Zander received a three-match ban.
www.rugby.com.au
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Right decision imo and happy to see it not recorded as a red card on his record.
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
I find it a perplexing decision but from a purely selfish Wallabies view I'm fine with it. Banks needs as much game time as possible and I want him to continue his good run of form. In saying that, is he injured for a while now?Banks red card overturned
Tom Banks issued warning as Dane Zander receives suspension for high tackle
The Brumbies and Reds have received mixed fortunes ahead of Saturday's top-of-the-table clash at Suncorp Stadium, with Tom Banks cleared of wrongdoing for his high tackle whilst Dane Zander received a three-match ban.
Wilson
Phil Kearns (64)
I don't think his game time would've been effected either way, can't imagine Banks will be back within the 3-4 weeks he would've gotten.
Eyes and Ears
Bob Davidson (42)
My understanding is that it was downgraded to Yellow Card due to initial contact.