ABs v Scotland
-
-
-
Dod or Doddie is a shortened version of George in Scotland.
My favourite off-field Doddie moment was from the Lions - they were doing media training and being asked questions to see how they would respond, Doddie was asked why he'd been spotted out drinking late in a night club before a game and he said, "Mistaken identity"
"Could you tell us who the B&I Lions player it was then?
Doddie says, "My father is out on tour with us"
-
@rapido said in ABs v Scotland:
@crash said in ABs v Scotland:
@mn5 The Scots are funny buggers though. Anyone who calls themselves"Doddie Weir" or "Dusty Hare" can't take themselves too seriously..
Dusty Hare was English, though.
This
-
@infidel said in ABs v Scotland:
Pakman seems you went to the Hilton buffet so you could rub shoulders with Kane Hames and Crockett, love your work.
Took my son up in 2005 and we did same. He spoke to Rieko Gear, whom he said was very friendly. Carl Hayman he said less so.
He wanted to repeat, so we did.
Dirty job, but someone's got to do it!
-
@infidel said in ABs v Scotland:
@antipodean
It's his job to see what Hogg is doing. Hogg has the rights.
Naholo has to err on the side of caution for me, let's stick to the facts, Naholo tackled Hogg in mid-air.That's why he was penalised. This isn't difficult to grasp.
-
-
@akan004 said in ABs v Scotland:
Except Jones was half a metre in front of the kicker in the game against the ABs and the try should have been disallowed.
Just saw that. Was it Jones or the bloke further inside?
-
-
@kiwimurph protest time? This impacts our defensive aura!
-
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
-
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ball -
@majorrage said in ABs v Scotland:
@talisker to be fair, what is deemed racist / offensive in modern, overtly PC, lets take offense to anything we can, Britain does differ somewhat to what is deemed acceptable in New Zealand / Australia.
Poms, Paki's are 2 things I regularly used in NZ which I found were not deemed offensive at all in NZ, which had different meanings over here. I've not heard that Jock was in that category, and if so, then I'll be sure to not use it in conversation here.
But lets be clear, that this place is rather light heartened, and shouldn't really be taken seriously. I mean, have you read some of the points of view and thoughts .... ?
I got a shock in Ireland where Pom is a bit of a no-go word. It’s fine to use it in nz.
-
@billy-tell Not what I was meaning, I was referring to the terminology used, his hands were ON THE BALL, ref saying played without the ball is technically incorrect.
I understand the daft change to the rule, but if they change rules they need ot change the terminology too, should be ball was not out, which is applicable to more than just that scenario.
@Crucial the French 9 threw a dummy against us, the mungo comms guy was lauding the move.
-
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ballAh the nick farr Jones law. No dummy from the half. In the days when you used sand to kick goals, team going forward won the maul, you had to have a foot on the ground to take a mark, and rucks were rucks.
-
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
@billy-tell said in ABs v Scotland:
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Think you’re wrong there. I think they clarified that hands on the ball doesn’t count it’s lifting the ball off the ground. It was a clarification about a year ago or so.
Correct. What is missing is the change of interpretation on a halfback not being allowed to dummy from the base.
A dummy should include hands on the lifting them without the ballAh the nick farr Jones law. No dummy from the half. In the days when you used sand to kick goals, team going forward won the maul, you had to have a foot on the ground to take a mark, and rucks were rucks.
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
-
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
-
@chester-draws said in ABs v Scotland:
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Chester beat me to it.
-
@chester-draws said in ABs v Scotland:
@crucial said in ABs v Scotland:
The Law is still in the books and 99.9% of the time halfbacks no longer try the big dummy from the base. That should now extend to dummying picking up the ball.
A rule like "A player must not take any action to make the opposing team think that the ball is out of the ruck while it is still in the ruck"?
Rule 16.4 (f) in other words.
Like in 2011 RWC final when ball plopped out the back of the French ruck with no halfback, Kaine went around and picked it up, Joubert shouoted "NO!", so Kaino put it back down again?
Dirty dummying French bastards.
#ButFranceWozRobbed?
