The UAFC

very good game and high intensity. I would say thats prob the best MCB team they have had as they went undefeated. Michael Allen will go along way and taking the sensible option by going across the water to make it as a rugby player. Not a good Inst team who clearly played into MCBs hands. If they had gone wide more it could have been different but the 9 tried too much and the 10 kept passing it inside when the ball looked on outside him. I personally would have given Annett the MOM.
i saw bare Knuckle brawl. prob few suspensions today as caught on tv

cheese wrote:i saw bare Knuckle brawl. prob few suspensions today as caught on tv

this was pupils of both schools?
a "bare knuckle brawl" is pretty much a fist fight between a group of kids, id be more surprised if they were wearing boxing gloves....

WhiteKnightoftheWeld wrote:

cheese wrote:i saw bare Knuckle brawl. prob few suspensions today as caught on tv

this was pupils of both schools?

The scrap went something like this:
Methody 7 was tripped by Inst 5 en route to the next ruck (he had to be carried off)
Methody 6 said something to an Inst player
Inst 9 dives at M6
M6 goes down as I9 is pulled away
I9 breaks free and kicks M6 on the ground
M4 goes in to push I9 away
I5 lands a couple of punches on M4
Calm is restored
I5 and M4 sent to the bin
Handshakes at end of game!

It didn't affect the result at all. However I hate to see foot trips as they have no part in rugby, amateur or professional. That type of cynical play is sadly becoming all too prevalent at the highest level, so it is little wonder that it sould surface in this showpiece, but it is not a good advert for the game. The ethos of rugby (especially at school) was that it was always better to get beaten fair and square than win through underhand tactics.

Can someone explain to me how that incident ended with a penalty to Inst? At one stage the MCB & was surrounded by a number of Inst players having a kick at him.

Red Hand Hero wrote:I believe what noggin/cheese was referring to was the fight between 2/3 school kids on the pitch after the match seemingly egged on by quite a large crowd.

Good view of it from the 'closed' terrace

Two teenagers, no school colours, looked like they were out for a scrap.

Inst although instigating the incident got the penalty because of this ridiculous PC ruling that the retaliator gets pinged. Ergo tretaliation worse than original sin. As a bad Presbyterian I don't agree with it either but that's how it is!!

It is nonsense. What if someone retaliates against the retaliation? Does the original penalty stand?

I don't agree with it either but that's how it is!!

The ethos of rugby (especially at school) was that it was always better to get beaten fair and square than win through underhand tactics.

You obviously havn't played schools rugby for a very very long time flyhalf or else you didnt play at a school that takes it too seriously!

Setanta wrote:Inst although instigating the incident got the penalty because of this ridiculous PC ruling that the retaliator gets pinged. Ergo tretaliation worse than original sin. As a bad Presbyterian I don't agree with it either but that's how it is!!

It's nothing to do with being PC. The point of the ruling is to ensure that the ref is left to deal out the punishment. There is every incentive now not to retaliate and have the ref penalise the original offence rather than take it into your own hands to retaliate and have the ref penalise you. It is from the two wrongs don't make a right school of thinking and is perfectly reasonable.

Of course having such a rulinig means that there is a duty on the ref to pick-up on the original offence and punish accordingly.

what happens if you get your retaliation in first?

pwrmoore wrote:

Setanta wrote:Inst although instigating the incident got the penalty because of this ridiculous PC ruling that the retaliator gets pinged. Ergo tretaliation worse than original sin. As a bad Presbyterian I don't agree with it either but that's how it is!!

It's nothing to do with being PC. The point of the ruling is to ensure that the ref is left to deal out the punishment. There is every incentive now not to retaliate and have the ref penalise the original offence rather than take it into your own hands to retaliate and have the ref penalise you. It is from the two wrongs don't make a right school of thinking and is perfectly reasonable.

Of course having such a rulinig means that there is a duty on the ref to pick-up on the original offence and punish accordingly.

If your team mate is lying injured on the ground and there's a crowd of opposition around him kicking him then nobody is going to stand by and wait for the ref to stop it.

99!!!

AndyB wrote:

pwrmoore wrote:

Setanta wrote:Inst although instigating the incident got the penalty because of this ridiculous PC ruling that the retaliator gets pinged. Ergo tretaliation worse than original sin. As a bad Presbyterian I don't agree with it either but that's how it is!!

It's nothing to do with being PC. The point of the ruling is to ensure that the ref is left to deal out the punishment. There is every incentive now not to retaliate and have the ref penalise the original offence rather than take it into your own hands to retaliate and have the ref penalise you. It is from the two wrongs don't make a right school of thinking and is perfectly reasonable.

Of course having such a rulinig means that there is a duty on the ref to pick-up on the original offence and punish accordingly.

If your team mate is lying injured on the ground and there's a crowd of opposition around him kicking him then nobody is going to stand by and wait for the ref to stop it.

If that happens then there are a whole lot of the opposition who would be looking at long-term if not lifetime bans form the game. You're using an extreme situation to try and make nonsense of a rule that is there for a good reason. If I wanted to watch players punching eachother I'd go to an Ice-hockey game. Also, as the father of a young player coming through schools rugby I want to see the nonsense stamped out at source - that means the referees and their assistants taking responsibility to punish the instigators so that the other players don't feel the need to retaliate.

Of course you wouldn't stand idly by and let one of your colleagues be thrashed by the opposition. But this ruling is not the problem that needs addressed.

Also, as the father of a young player coming through schools rugby I want to see the nonsense stamped out at source - that means the referees and their assistants taking responsibility to punish the instigators so that the other players don't feel the need to retaliate.

No offence at all meant here paul but if thats your attitude you would be better taking your kid out of rugby for a few years. There is quite a lot of fighting goes on in schools and youth rugby. Matches erupt into fights all the time at age grade level. Its all to do with immature kids pumping their way through puberty and rammed full of excess testosterone. Almost everyone is going to get a slap at one stage or another and most schools I know at my old school and through friends at a couple of others that when kids are fighting on the rugby pitch, while normally not sent off they are banned by their school for a couple of matches at least.