Yep, you're reminding me of the 'dangerous' cleanout in the tahs game
Posted via Mobile Device
Printable View
Yep, you're reminding me of the 'dangerous' cleanout in the tahs game
Posted via Mobile Device
Maybe but wasn't trying to, as to me that has "shades of grey" too, play on-keep it down boys-penalty-YC. The intercept apparently only had two possible outcomes, hero or villain.
I guess my point is that it shouldn't. The law is written in such a way as to make it a judgement call of intent. The problem was that intent wasn't clear. You could see on the replay that he was trying to cup it upwards and make a play at the ball, but that was a lot harder to see live. I remember calling a deliberate knockdown in the tahs-force game, I think it was AAC close to a ruck, mid second half, certainly looked like one to me, but maybe not to the ref. I guess wherever the ref needs to make a judgement of intent there's room for stuff-ups
My point earlier in the thread. Is it even possible to read the intent in most cases? Eliminate the grey area. If the ball is knocked on, scrum to the attacking team. End of story. The aim of the game is to contest possession and stop the oppo from scoring isn't it?
RG
RG wanted Brand O'Connor to play wing or 15
Brand O'Connor wanted to play 12 because he is smart enough to realise Brand Cooper is 10 for the wobs
RG who has no 12 worth their salt, wouldn't agree to Brand O'Connor playing 12
Another X against the epic dribbler
Nice bloke or not, he just isn't very clever