Brumbies v Crusaders
-
Restart....
-
-
@Grooter said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@African-Monkey Strange old season for the red & blacks
I like what you did there
-
Ponies survive. Just. However Ponies of old would have made mincemeat of this Saders side.
-
@Jailbreak7 said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Ponies survive. Just. However Ponies of old would have made mincemeat of this Saders side.
They were both trying to hand the game over at times
-
@Jailbreak7 said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Ponies survive. Just. However Ponies of old would have made mincemeat of this Saders side.
Settle fella. Larks, Gregs, Morts and Roffy are LONG retired.
-
@Jailbreak7 Saders of old would have also made mincemeat of the Brumbies side.
-
@Jailbreak7 said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Ponies survive. Just. However Ponies of old would have made mincemeat of this Saders side.
Imagine what the crusaders of old would have done to them.
Or the 96 blues team
-
@Bones said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Jailbreak7 said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
Ponies survive. Just. However Ponies of old would have made mincemeat of this Saders side.
Imagine what the crusaders would have done to them.
Or the 96 blues team
Or the 03 Blues team. Or today’s Hurricanes team if you believe some on here.
-
@African-Monkey said in Brumbies v Crusaders:
@Bones It's the rule though.
SBW did it in a test against France in 2017 with no one near him but the rule is the rule, you can't do that.
The rule is it's a penalty try? No it's not.
-
I think it was a PK but a penalty try was a bit harsh. Can it really be said it prevented a "probable try"?
Likely depends on th definition of "probable".
To put my lawyer hat on I recall there was a Court of Appeal precedent about the meaning of probable in the context of murder. If I recall correctly the CA said it did not mean "more likely than not" but just a reasonable likelihood.
I digress.
Makes no difference because it would have been a PK in front of the posts and a loss anyway.