Recent content by SimonSmith

You're looking at individual culpability. I look at team. If the offence kills the competition for the ball, there's my decision. In my head - if the reason for the offence is going to ground is that defence couldn;t bear the ruck, then play on. If they went off feet on their own and kill it, PK

Minimum number of games as a qualifying threshold. Take the total number of games, and then divide by the average number of teams for that club across the season. So, you get the total score, and then divide by the number of opportunities that the club had to 'score'.

There's a ready-made gag about rugby dying a slow death in Alice. We believe that the new ground will be down near there. But the goalposts on this keep shifting, so I wouildn't hold your breath on that. I wouldn't hold my breath on there being a next season.

As mentioned previously, it's Grand Final time. Kick off at 6. No, 630. Hang on, we'll get back to you. It's the last ever game at Anzac Oval before it gets torn down. I'm sure we'll have the kind of match for the occasion....

One laugh from tonight. Decent game, well handled by the man in the middle (not me) including a general warning for high tackles. We've all gathered for a meat pie - free for the officials - and a can of something of cold(sih). General chit chat, inclduing the skipper who got the general...

Tonight, thankfully AR1 in the semi final. Next weekn in the middle for the Grand Final. Then off to Adelaide, on a date TBD, on exchange.

The former.

The fella who punched me got a no conviction recorded.

If Eben Etzebeth can tackle dwarf like No9s, I'm sure you can adjust.

If the tackler would otherwise have been legal but for the action of the ball carrier, play on.

Your charming, but possibly naive, belief that there's a blazer for the ref...

Bless.

A Game Day Manager? I still do not understand why this doesn't appear to be a thing outside of Australia.

The issue isn't the refs decsion, it's the citing committee. Under Reg 17, they are "balance of probability" too, but seem to have applied the criminal "beyond a reasonable". If they had applied the civil standard, the discrepancy here might not exist.

The short version is because of volenti non fit injuria which doesn't cover all eventualities, but a lot of them.