Wallabies v Springboks 1
-
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
So you think it was dangerous? Holy fuck.
That chart is used for multiple things, and this situation isn't one of them, so you're being a little facetious.
So the Head Contact Process isn't applicable in the situation where White got slapped in the head?
And, as a ref, you should know that chart isn't a concrete set of rules.
So by ignoring it, that aids consistency. Right.
-
@Derpus said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@NTA the play acting is definitely the worse crime.
Although no issue if he just awards advantage as soon as it happens eh. Kinda hard to miss.
If it had just been a penalty straight away against FdK, I think the need for the play acting is removed.
And I would have been satisfied with just a penalty for the record. It was reckless, like tackling someone without the ball or hitting them late because you thought they'd throw a dummy.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
So the Head Contact Process isn't applicable in the situation where White got slapped in the head?
So you'll just ignore everything I marked up in the document provided by WR?
Right.
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
So the Head Contact Process isn't applicable in the situation where White got slapped in the head?
So you'll just ignore everything I marked up in the document provided by WR?
Right.
Sure, if selective quoting is all you've got I'll leave you to thinking that should be a YC.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@NTA said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
So the Head Contact Process isn't applicable in the situation where White got slapped in the head?
So you'll just ignore everything I marked up in the document provided by WR?
Right.
Sure, if selective quoting is all you've got I'll leave you to thinking that should be a YC.
Selective quoting is the entire purpose of rugby having Laws and not Rules. But you already know that.
-
@NTA said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@NTA said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
So the Head Contact Process isn't applicable in the situation where White got slapped in the head?
So you'll just ignore everything I marked up in the document provided by WR?
Right.
Sure, if selective quoting is all you've got I'll leave you to thinking that should be a YC.
Selective quoting is the entire purpose of rugby having Laws and not Rules. But you already know that.
Laws aren't selectively quoted.
-
South Africa are dreadful. Perhaps the All Blacks weren't all that good a fortnight ago.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
South Africa are dreadful. Perhaps the All Blacks weren't all that good a fortnight ago.
They are utter shit how bad has pollard been.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
South Africa are dreadful. Perhaps the All Blacks weren't all that good a fortnight ago.
It’s a tough one , because generally they are so much better at home
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
South Africa are dreadful. Perhaps the All Blacks weren't all that good a fortnight ago.
It’s a tough one , because generally they are so much better at home
And when they play kickaball and don't try to score that much
-
-
@Stag said in Wallabies v Springboks 1:
The wallabies really need to sub their hooker. One of the worst all round performances I’ve seen for a while.
Yep
Liability in all facets
-
Nice try
-
Nice try by the Wallabies.
South Africa look done.
-
Very well worked try. Great stuff
