Search results

That table on page 4 is a complete waste of space.

Whoever said that professional level rugby was "right"? They massage law interpretation all the time to ensure that the game appears to be more free flowing at that level in the pursuit of TV viewership and the almighty dollar.

Tug of war should be included - its always a winner with the crowd.

Alternative set rather than the complexity of now

How about: A player who is in contact with anything in touch is considered to be part of the touch line until they resume the FoP. If a player was in touch they aren't back in the FoP until no part of them is in touch (ie a foot in the FoP and the other raised is in) A player can jump from the...

Nope - your in touch if you touch the ground outside the FoP and remain so until you aren't touching the ground outside the FoP.

JFC. They need to make this easy. If you are in touch and touch the ball its a LO against you. If you jump out, catch the ball in the air and managed to fling it back on field before you touch the ground its play on. Make it dependant on whether the player is in touch (as in being grounded...

Just watched the replay of the Aus V NZ comm games semi final, which ended with an Maddi Levi (Aus) in the bin after getting a YC for hair pulling against Portia Woodman. Woodman wears her hair in heaps of chest length small beaded plaits and wears them loose, only being tied up on top of her...

And they still manage to get rolled by the Antipodeans.

As a hypothetical - what would your train of actions be for a deliberate knock down that stopped that try? Is it deliberate offending to have too many on the field?

I'm not sure if I'm correct here but it seems that elite referees are allowing this behaviour when the attacking team are playing negatively and going off their feet. If a defending player is on their feet at the top of the ruck they seem to get more leeway in having a crack at the 9's hands...

Good result. Never RC worthy IMO

I don't get to watch much elite rugby - I won't give money to the (IMO morally bankrupt) Murdoch empire so I don't watch many games given RA is completely smitten with his $ to the exclusion of the grassroots community.

But that arguably contributed to head to head contact?

I really don't like that this tackle has been cited. It doesn't feel like RC foul play for mine. How does it compare to tackling a player in the air, tip tackles with a drop/drive, eye gouging, or even the two handed strike by Hill to Swains face in the first Aus Eng test (given that was not...

The head contact framework always included the ability for the referee to determine whether it was foul play or incidental contact.

Mitagating factor is Green not driving into the tackle. The High Contact framework states that the starting point is PK/YC when there is no leading head/shoulder/forearm and the tackler is passive as it is low/medium risk.

If a maul spins 90 degrees and white players are the closest players to Gold try line where is the rearmost player? No gate in mauls, just a requirement to bind to the rearmost player.

Was it the referee who decided uncontested rather than the team saying we can't field a front row? Does that have any impact on how the rule works?

Likely a critical error. Seemed to be pulled towards the ruck all night. Might have been the talk of niggle in the lead up and someone with a rubbish mullet getting it ripped off which meant Brace got too focused on TRM rather than turn the body and watch the next phase forming.