The Rugby thread

[oldBastard]

En hulle is net so fukked-up.

Stem, maar ja hulle kan seker maar skreeu vir wie hulle wil. Ek lag maar net vir hulle.

 

[Jean Claude Vaaldamme]

There are more of them out there.

I know a few including family(in-law). They are actually sad. Used to be controversial, but at least they had big mouth because the AB's was winning mostly and SA lost to them mostly.
Now they are sort of quiet. They seem lost when the rest of SA are celebrating all our success and seems they not interested in rugby anymore.

 

[Arthur AnymoreDonuts]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1829994504989929913

 

[Agent67]

Meh, know a few white Afrikaans people, who live in Clitoria, that support the AB's.

En hulle is net so fukked-up.

They do it as some "le epic" protest vs the gov and BEE.

No, I'm not joking, yes I knew two such okes here years ago...

 

[Pegging]

Starts with the try.

 

[OutlawJoseyWales]

Starts with the try.

Looks like it went straight down and then grounded. So try time.

 

[Heisenborg]

 

[cavedog]

Looks like it went straight down and then grounded. So try time.

Yes by their own graph they compiled for the TMO protocol it does indeed look like a try. I was doubting but separation doesn't mean no try. Only lost forward means no try.

 

[OutlawJoseyWales]

Yes by their own graph they compiled for the TMO protocol it does indeed look like a try. I was doubting but separation doesn't mean no try. Only lost forward means no try.

View attachment 1754584

Seems the 3 New Zealand commentators have forgotten the rules since they stopped playing the game

 

[MirageF1]

Surely the most crucial aspect is whether the player has hand(s), torso( waist to neck) or arm(s) contact with the ball upon grounding it.

But no, according to the graph above, there can be loss of control as well as separation and still award a try.

Either I have never understood the rules for the last 40 years, or they've changed so much that the dynamics of the primary goal of the game, i.e scoring a try, is now a mystery to me and millions of others!

The ambiguity and ref interpretation is souring games like last nights win.

 

[Speedster]

Surely the most crucial aspect is whether the player has hand(s), torso( waist to neck) or arm(s) contact with the ball upon grounding it.

But no, according to the graph above, there can be loss of control as well as separation and still award a try.

Either I have never understood the rules for the last 40 years, or they've changed so much that the dynamics of the primary goal of the game, i.e scoring a try, is now a mystery to me and millions of others!

The ambiguity and ref interpretation is souring games like last nights win.

Dropping a ball backwards (or straight down) has never been an infringement. And a try has always only required downward pressure on or over the line.

 

[TheMightyQuin]

Dropping a ball backwards (or straight down) has never been an infringement. And a try has always only required downward pressure on or over the line.

Nope. Not even that.

 

[Speedster]

Nope. Not even that.

You're going to have to clarify this.

 

[TheMightyQuin]

You're going to have to clarify this.

A player can score a try by carrying the ball into the in goal and then touching it to the ground while holding on to it. No downward pressure is required, but the player must be holding the ball in at least one of their hands or at least one of their arms.

 

[Speedster]

A player can score a try by carrying the ball into the in goal and then touching it to the ground while holding on to it. No downward pressure is required, but the player must be holding the ball in at least one of their hands or at least one of their arms.

Yes, downward pressure is required in the case where the player is not in control of the ball, as was the case with Bongi on Sat.

 

[L-Dog]

Starts with the try.

Yeah they cry for the first 20 minutes then praise the Springboks, something you will never see Eng or Aussies do. Wish Johnny was there this week.

 

[TheMightyQuin]

Yes, downward pressure is required in the case where the player is not in control of the ball, as was the case with Bongi on Sat.

Those 2 situations are mutually exclusive. How can you have downward pressure, but NOT be in control of the ball in that moment.

Law 22 is very simple regarding that: NO downward pressure is EVER required.

 

[Speedster]

Those 2 situations are mutually exclusive. How can you have downward pressure, but NOT be in control of the ball in that moment.

Law 22 is very simple regarding that: NO downward pressure is EVER required.

No they're not. When diving on the ball which is already in the in-goal area the player doesn't have control of the ball.

 

[TheMightyQuin]

No they're not. When diving on the ball which is already in the in-goal area the player doesn't have control of the ball.

Oh ffs...another circular internet argument.

Go read Law 22 and report back.

 

[Speedster]

Oh ffs...another circular internet argument.

Go read Law 22 and report back.

You mean this one:

Law 22.1 GROUNDING THE BALL

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.