The UAFC

No 9 the mantra suck them in is true for the 15 a side -- the problem was playing to much rugby in the middle --- guys thinking there were gaps in the middle of the park -- getting caught --and panic passing /off loading .

Thd gaps are there but you won't succeed running only one person at it -- you need two at the gap -- beat one and pass -- then support -- Lowry's try is a fine example of the sort.

Play individually and it's the road to frustration.

Best I could do on the grounding of Lowry's try.

Nice work Dave.

The Indian cricket board are looking for a TV umpire.

You’ve just got to remember that you can never give Kohli out.

Joy would’ve chalked off two of those tries for sure.

Brian was also the kind soul who spared Treadwell a red against Scarlets.

He’s a fine TMO. Knows what the fans want to see. Keep up the good work.

You may award the try.

Fair play to Zebre. We were atrocious in the second half. No discipline in attack with everyone trying to score instead of going through the phases and clocking up a shed load of tries.

The game is going to be a complete lottery until players and coaches adapt to the current tackle laws. Red cards will be the deciding factor in many games and tournaments which leads to meaningless blah rugby.

Dharper wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 12:21 pm I’ll frankly admit I miss Mcwhirter

Very much so. Afternoon everybody.

Well, i was too drunk to type much last night, but ....we won!

Hans Indaruck wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:23 am

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:07 am

Hans Indaruck wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 12:00 am

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:40 pm

Hans Indaruck wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 11:29 pm Another game spoiled by officials. Hats off to Zebre for their never say die attitude and at least trying to make a game of it!

Can't disagree with Zebre's attitude, but the match wasn't spoiled by officials, it was spoiled by a young #16 taking a cheap shot at John Cooney, and paying the penalty, with severe repercussions for his team. It was noticable that when he went off the pitch and tried to plead innocence with his teammates and coaches, one of them gave him short shrift in true Italian style and stormed away from him. He knew the mountain his team now faced.

Can’t agree that it was a ‘cheap shot’ but will agree to disagree with you on that (we would have felt aggrieved a la Warwick). I would have agreed a ‘yellow’ however, that aside Brace and his team missed a lot of infringements (several forward passes for example and a whean of offsides). All in all not an enjoyable game!

I thought Brace had one of his better games - aside from not knowing that they needed to lose another player from going uncontested.

As for the red card, all he did was apply the laws as laid down by world rugby. we can agree or disagree with those as they stand, but the guy with the whistle is supposed to go by what those laws say, and if that means a deliberate elbow to the head is red, then he has no option but to show him red.

And that is what it was in my view - a deliberate blow to the head with his elbow as he followed through. Was it excessively forceful? Not really, although you could see Cooney's head whip back from the contact, but that is immaterial - it was a deliberate act of foul play to the head. Red card.

I agree it ruined the game, said so at the time to my son, but I blame the player, not the ref.

As you and I both know - in bygone days it would have gone without sanction. It’s a game of fine margins but I think World Rugby have gone too far in making it a black or white issue. I suppose I blame officialdom rather than the officials per se. Yes we have to protect players from dangerous foul play but it is nigh impossible to judge the measure of intent involved in many incidents. In general the game has become over analysed to it’s detriment!
That’s just my three ha’pence worth anyway!

I think you may have found some common ground we can agree on.

The problem is the game has become more dangerous due to fitness and weight of those playing .And the danger has been compounded by those who write and apply the Laws of the Game .

Firstly It should be compulsory for all ball carriers to attempt a hand off and those who run at tacklers with out doing so should be penalised ( the penalty being a free kick not a Penalty unless the contact is with the head of the tackler)

This may reduce the necessity to tackle high because an off load while trying to hand off an opponent would be more difficult. And the hand off would reduce Body to Body contact the fact is that body to body contact is being initiated by both players not just the tackler.

Secondly penalise any player jumping for the ball with knee up at an oncoming chaser restore the mark in all areas of the field Ie the person making the game dangerous is the jumper not just the chaser who tackles early.

Thirdly penalise pre-binding on a ball carrier -- and the three man tap penalty ( cavalry charge ) the only reason to pre -bind is to block a would be tackler.

Fourthly Players can only be lifted during a line out. lifters inhibit and block a tackle on a person catching the ball.

Fifly apply the laws of the Scrum __ no pulling down -- no boring and pushing straight please and a scrum should form in a 3 ,2 ,3 pattern rather than 3 , 4 , 1 this would help to reduce the ability of the wing forwards to assist a prop to bore and make it easier to identify the dark arts of the front row.

Sixth free kicks only for offences outside the 22 ( Offences defined as dangerous remain a penalty ) you may score from the free kick by means of a drop goal. This change would hopefully speed the game up -- no place kicks and the put in the line out is by the opposition rather than the team kick it in to touch --- no more slow walk ups the pitch and minor planning meetings delaying the line out .

Seventh do away with triple advantage ( card - penalty- line out ) calls

The purpose of the laws should be to make the game less dangerous recognising that the game is made dangerous by both ball carrier and tackler, and also remove the influence of refereeing decisions on the result of a match.

I would add to the list of changes an amendment to the advantage laws as some referrees play on and on and on while others call advantage over very quickly.
I would advocate the choice is always with the team with the advantage to take it or not but once they pass the advantage line through play or kick advantage is over.

yeah funny i was thinking at time if Wales scrum half had refused to take a `knock on` advantage near end of game eg fumble forward on purpose etc , rather than playing on .... the amount of time setting up a scrum & likely reset again etc would have eat up lot of time & eased the result for them ....just maybe ...

Personally If an offence is worthy of penalty then the penalty should be given immediately -- advantage is only an invitation to foul by the attacking team since they are aware that the game will be brought back for the first offence -- while on the other hand the defending team are playing with the threat of a card for a second offence.

If your not going to give the penalty immediately is or was the offence worthy of the Penalty?

Play on --knock on-- advantage is different and should cease if the ball is kicked from hand or passed more than 3 times.

Sometimes the advantage is played so long both spectators and players have forgotten where the offence took place what the offence was and by whom .

What is the rule with uncontested scrums that forced them down to thirteen men ?