A kick is from knee to toe not including the knee. So was this a legal conversion?
no, because a conversion has to be a kick
When a try is scored, it gives that team the right to attempt a conversion, which may be a place-kick or drop-kick.
Very true and it did make for great entertainment. I thoroughly enjoyed the second half where the Baa Baas started playing like, well, Baa Baas.in reality --- the only type of game where a back-heeled conversion would even be attempted is going to be exactly the sort of game where you'd turn a blind eye !
I wonder if it wasn't specifically against the Law at that time?Mark Ring used to do it quite often.
Correct. Both the club and his father were quite angry with him.wrt Mark Ring - didn't he get dropped, or leave a club because of it?
EDIT: ah yes - had to apologise to London welsh!
Back-heeled conversion saw Mark Ring forced to write letter of apology
George Kruis brought back memories of the Ring incident with his audacious back-heel for the Barbarianswww.walesonline.co.uk
I believe it was but it needed a clarification to get folk to read the laws properly. Mark clains in the article that his parents had to leave. That is bull! His parents were fuming at the lack of respect he showed to London Welsh. It was the only time I saw him do it but the story is that he did it on other occasions.I wonder if it wasn't specifically against the Law at that time?
I have some sympathy the Dad -- on occasions I've had teams that are 50 or 60 points ahead, starting to arse about with conversions - getting props to take them left footed etc -- and it doesn't help the atmosphere of the game, just creates ill-feeling and niggle.Correct. Both the club and his father were quite angry with him.
I believe it was but it needed a clarification to get folk to read the laws properly. Mark clains in the article that his parents had to leave. That is bull! His parents were fuming at the lack of respect he showed to London Welsh. It was the only time I saw him do it but the story is that he did it on other occasions.
I was disappointed with George Kruis for allowing it to happen, especially his antics around his backheel conversion. I cannot imagine Phil Bennett laughing at that.
- England should have taken the law into their own hands after some of the antics
- Can you imagine South Africa letting the Barbarians take the mickey like that?
Can you imagine New Zealand or South Africa letting a Barbarians team come to Auckland or Pretoria and take the mickey?
But does anybody at the RFU really care — or more importantly, understand the relevance — or was this just another game, another day out, a chance to boost the finances
There are tour matches and tour matchesTo be transparent, I've not seen the game yet, but a couple of thoughts from reading this thread... this kind of behaviour (e.g. props taking conversions left footed, back heels) is common in tour matches at grass roots, where everyone is having some fun... is Barbarians the equivalent? Should it be equivalent or should it be a higher level of presentation considering it is international level with a global audience?
England should have taken the law into their own hands... I don't condone foul play here, but a word from the England captain to the ref would have been appropriate... was there a lack of seniors players in the team (due to Prem final) and therefore no one thought to raise the issue?
Gareth Davies refers to Ring's...quirks in his autobiographyCorrect. Both the club and his father were quite angry with him.
I believe it was but it needed a clarification to get folk to read the laws properly. Mark clains in the article that his parents had to leave. That is bull! His parents were fuming at the lack of respect he showed to London Welsh. It was the only time I saw him do it but the story is that he did it on other occasions.
a presidents v chairman's level game.Indeed.
Which category would you put the barbarians in ?