"Cheapshot"

[MattMo]

Joubert had a shocker, he chickened out on the yellow to the English golden boy (even though most English don't like him). Even went over to him and said "you have to try and bind, you have to hit him earlier".
He failed to see the truck and trailer, but no points came of it, so it was alright.
Penalised Ireland at the scrum for stepping backwards when Ross Stepped forwards, just Healy was basically running (how that didn't count as the English guy stepping back?)
Failed to penalise countless other moments, knock ons, off-sides.

Still think it was the inability to pull off sexton that lost it for us though.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Still think it was the inability to pull off sexton that lost it for us though.

Quite right too - he was in the middle of a rugby match. Should keep that sort of thing for after the match

It was the decision not to substitute him that arguably lost it!

[Scranner]

Scruffy, Grumps. Really scruffy.

[rumncoke]

The point being once England moved forward without an Irish player bound to the front it ceased to be a maul but a truck and trailer if they had stood and waited for Ireland to rejoin then it would have been a maul .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rumncoke]

Neil there is no use of the arm at all an the shoulder is deliberately aimed the fact that Farrell claims he tried to use the arm nobody who goes to tackle a player would claim "I TRIED to use the arm " he would say I Was using my arms .


Having spent a large part of my youth rushing out halfs you seldom try to tackle a kicker you push to unbalance or try to charge down every tackle on kicking out half is late and is designed to marginally so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cap'n Grumpy]

The point being once England moved forward without an Irish player bound to the front it ceased to be a maul but a truck and trailer if they had stood and waited for Ireland to rejoin then it would have been a maul .

Truck & Trailer is to do with how the ball-carrying team are bound to one another, not how they're bound to the opposition. It only becomes truck & trailer if the ball carrier and others become detached from those in front of them and the players in front obstruct the opposition. Truck & trailer is an offence "caused" by the ball-carrying team - it cannot of itself be "induced" by the opposition refusing to engage the maul.

The simple fact that the ref pointed out was that it started out as a maul and there was still one irish man in it, (whether he was at the front, the back or lying at the bottom is irrelevant), so it continued to be the same maul.

[Neil F]

Cap'n, in addition to whichever player was at the bottom of it all, there was a stage when both O'Connell and Ross were (loosely) bound to the English, which I'd suspect to be more important. It depends when Joubert felt the maul was formed, of course but to be a maul, a defending player must be on his feet and bound to an attacking player. I wasn't convinced that whoever was on the ground satisfied this? O'Connell and Ross hanging on by the finger tips probably did.

Rum, Cap'n is right, here, though. Absolutely nothing wrong with from my view. It was a maul; once a maul is formed, the defending team can move out of it all they want but the attacking team are still entitled to move forwards.

[rumncoke]

The point is if England had waited for Ireland to re-engage then no offence would have been created by moving forward before Ireland re-engaged they created the truck and trailer .those at the front were obstructing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cap'n Grumpy]

The point is if England had waited for Ireland to re-engage then no offence would have been created by moving forward before Ireland re-engaged they created the truck and trailer .those at the front were obstructing

I repeat, if the ball carrier is correctly bound throughout, it is not a truck & trailer. It requires him (or the sub-group of players bound to him) to detach and only becomes truck & trailer if obstruction occurs after that.

[BR]

The point is if England had waited for Ireland to re-engage then no offence would have been created by moving forward before Ireland re-engaged they created the truck and trailer .those at the front were obstructing

I repeat, if the ball carrier is correctly bound throughout, it is not a truck & trailer. It requires him (or the sub-group of players bound to him) to detach and only becomes truck & trailer if obstruction occurs after that.

Just looked at it again and there is an argument for truck & trailer (but then could 50% of mauls in any match). However as Grumpy says that would have been the case regardless of what the Irish team did. Ref says 'still the same maul', so standing off was stupid, even if they believed that POC's long arm binding did not define it a maul in the first place.

[BaggyTrousers]

For those still mulling over the Cheapshot merchant here is a little tale to brighten your day, it appears he is a lowlife scumsucking bag of weasels, who would have guessed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugb ... 60264.html

One can but laugh

[Russ]

For those still mulling over the Cheapshot merchant here is a little tale to brighten your day, it appears he is a lowlife scumsucking bag of weasels, who would have guessed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugb ... 60264.html

One can but laugh

Utter scumbag

[BR]

For those still mulling over the Cheapshot merchant here is a little tale to brighten your day, it appears he is a lowlife scumsucking bag of weasels, who would have guessed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugb ... 60264.html

One can but laugh

Is it more serious than addressing the ref as 'tu'?

Looks like the RFU will have to ban him from Twickenham, do you think they'll move the Wales game to Wembley?

[BaggyTrousers]

For those still mulling over the Cheapshot merchant here is a little tale to brighten your day, it appears he is a lowlife scumsucking bag of weasels, who would have guessed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugb ... 60264.html

One can but laugh

Is it more serious than addressing the ref as 'tu'?

Looks like the RFU will have to ban him from Twickenham, do you think they'll move the Wales game to Wembley?

Tres droll, nope I expect they will cancel his allocation as they did with another scumbeg, one James "porno" Haskell, a wee while back.

Sounds like you think he should dispose of the tickets william nilliam, or throw them in the gutter or as nippers say, woteva.

[BR]

For those still mulling over the Cheapshot merchant here is a little tale to brighten your day, it appears he is a lowlife scumsucking bag of weasels, who would have guessed?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugb ... 60264.html

One can but laugh

Is it more serious than addressing the ref as 'tu'?

Looks like the RFU will have to ban him from Twickenham, do you think they'll move the Wales game to Wembley?

Tres droll, nope I expect they will cancel his allocation as they did with another scumbeg, one James "porno" Haskell, a wee while back.

Sounds like you think he should dispose of the tickets william nilliam, or throw them in the gutter or as nippers say, woteva.

Not at all. He should have his ticket allocation removed. If he's too busy in the build up to a game to ensure his comps are properly distributed, then he is getting too many.