Crashy
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Thanks team Australia. You're a fucking fluffybunny.I hope this arrogant team gets 60 put on them, lack of effort and want from them
Thanks team Australia. You're a fucking fluffybunny.I hope this arrogant team gets 60 put on them, lack of effort and want from them
Good one ‘Champ’!I hope this arrogant team gets 60 put on them, lack of effort and want from them
You're a fucking fluffybunny.
“That’s how I roll”!
Curious handle you have yet happy to death-ride an Aus team against a Kiwi team. Why so bitter?I hope this arrogant team gets 60 put on them, lack of effort and want from them
FINE THEN, off you go, have a great time, leave us all here on our lonesomes watching the Friday Night Footy, don't worry about us, we'll be fine, off you go, have a bloody fantastic time. GREAT. JUST BLOODY GREAT.I have to go out
Curious handle you have yet happy to death-ride an Aus team against a Kiwi team. Why so bitter?
This is wrong.You should never concede a penalty try for a repeat offense.
But this is right.Penalty tries are for when a penalty prevented a try being scored, no matter if it's happened for the 1st or 10th time
So every collapsed rolling maul should be a penaltry try, no? If not for collapsing, presumably, they would all end in tries (unless its stationary but why would you collapse a stationary maul?).This is wrong.
But this is right.
Only now? Why on earth would you care what non-tahs fans think of the tahs, and why wouldn't you already want to see their main local rivals lose?I use to cheer for other Aus teams v opponents of other countries but I’m done with that now.
No, the maul was irrelevant to my point. I simply meant that whether an infringement is repeated should have no bearing on the penalty try call (what I think Strewth actually meant), not that a repeated infringement should preclude one being called (what he ended up posting).So every collapsed rolling maul should be a penaltry try, no? If not for collapsing, presumably, they would all end in tries (unless its stationary but why would you collapse a stationary maul?).
But how could a rolling maul that is moving forward ever not result in a try without it being collapsed? Outside the attacking side tripping over themselves its essentially impossible. It seems to me that collapsing a maul that is moving forward on the defending tryline would always be a penalty that prevents a try.No, the maul was irrelevant to my point. I simply meant that whether an infringement is repeated should have no bearing on the penalty try call (what I think Strewth actually meant), not that a repeated infringement should preclude one being called (what he ended up posting).
For the specifics of a maul it does not necessarily follow that a try would be scored in all cases, the balance of probabilities tips depending on position and the speed it was moving. The reffing there is generally a bit of a mess though. I think at this stage I'd prefer if the maul was called dead (can play the ball out still) as soon as it was under penalty advantage. It wouldn't fix everything, but it would help limit the double rewarding that seems to happen with really dominant mauls.
It's fairly difficult to keep one going, even undefended. Generally binds break and players trip in a bunch of ways that make it illegal, and that's before you consider defensive players ability to rejoin the maul. Don't get me wrong, it's far from perfect, but I don't mind that part of the test being a bit different for mauls (and scrums).But how could a rolling maul that is moving forward ever not result in a try without it being collapsed? Outside the attacking side tripping over themselves its essentially impossible. This would be true on your own try-line - on the defending sides tryline its a dead certainty.
Yeah I only mentioned repeat infringements because it seems like that is actually when a penalty try is awarded (not because I think its correct). And I am interested generally in when a maul collapse should or shouldn't result in a penalty try (sounds like always).It's fairly difficult to keep one going, even undefended. Generally binds break and players trip in a bunch of ways that make it illegal, and that's before you consider defensive players ability to rejoin the maul. Don't get me wrong, it's far from perfect, but I don't mind that part of the test being a bit different for mauls (and scrums).
This is getting a fair way from the point I was making about repeated infringements and their relevance to penalty tries though.
The maul (and scrum) are the weird part of the game here, where you can very easily get penalized, carded, and concede a penalty try by virtue of being bad at rugby, instead of any intentional mistake. I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, but I definitely don't think they should always be treated the same as open field infringements. Whatever the answer is though, consistency is probably key.Yeah I only mentioned repeat infringements because it seems like that is actually when a penalty try is awarded (not because I think its correct). And I am interested generally in when a maul collapse should or shouldn't result in a penalty try (sounds like always).
When playing each other it’s alive but I dislike NZ more than QLD that’s why I’d cheer for the reds over the Blues. Don’t with it now though. Hope both the Brums and Reds make finals and then have their pants pulled down again. Force will Force the season up and miss it.Only now? Why on earth would you care what non-tahs fans think of the tahs, and why wouldn't you already want to see their main local rivals lose?
It's insane to me the degree to which people decry competitions like the NRC "lacking tribalism" when there are, hardcore, rusted on rugby fans (lets be serious, you're not here if your not one) who aren't engaging in the centauries old rivalries right in front of them.
Don't just stop cheering for the Reds, Brumbies or Force, embrace the hate - it's the only chance our game has.
From where they were/are the Tahs are a 3 year job to being a top 4 contender.When DM was appointed I posted a bit of negativity, basically saying he had the benefit of half the Wallabies while he was at the Brumbies and didn't really win anything except for lots of rolling mauls, and followed that record up in his brief NH stint. The disciples on here turned me around and made me a supporter. I haven't gone full 360 yet but the needle is starting to turn back around. I'm hanging in there because as someone said above (GOR I think?) no coach is going to turn around a wooden spoon outfit into premiers in one season despite the (supposed) net injection of talent, and coaches develop just like players do. I'll remain a Tahs supporter forever and I'm certainly not going to put the boot into the players or the coaching staff. But that was dire watching and I found myself betting on greyhounds as a distraction....