|
Sep 2015
1:53pm, 28 Sep 2015
10,354 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
Indeed. It is intention, which is very difficult to prove. They hedged their bet, as ever.
|
|
Sep 2015
2:04pm, 28 Sep 2015
5,590 posts
|
Little Nemo - this kitten can
In other news Uruguay are the only team not to score a try yet. Let's hope they break their duck when they play Fiji next week!
|
|
Sep 2015
2:06pm, 28 Sep 2015
10,355 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
They'll get one against england
|
|
Sep 2015
2:06pm, 28 Sep 2015
11,440 posts
|
TRO Saracen
PtB - a little better...possibly. There can be no doubt about both teams toughness after that game, the way they hurled themselves into each other was a thing of wonder.
To be fair it is about clear thinking under the most intense pressure. Even under Woodward that took several years of blown Grand Slams and losses to Southern Hemisphere sides before they finally got it.
Time to get busy...supporting Fiji...
|
|
Sep 2015
2:17pm, 28 Sep 2015
57,282 posts
|
Gobi
Perfect Rugby weekend for me.
Next weekend I shall pray for England to beat the Aussies
|
|
Sep 2015
3:11pm, 28 Sep 2015
10,010 posts
|
AngusClydesdale
Us too PoD, us too. 
|
|
Sep 2015
3:25pm, 28 Sep 2015
1,816 posts
|
Mykey
Nelly - I think we'll have to disagree in that one - a fly hack with a bloke on the ground near by is dangerous. If all were on their feet then it's not an issue.
I was trying to understand the process that got to it being a "warning" rather than a "citation". Having read a bit more I believe the thought process was that Watson "struck" Williams (10.4(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s)). It could easily have been 10.4(c) I suppose, but any way it was assessed to be "dangerous", no need to determine intent at this stage.
However, the Commissioner believes Watson should have been cautioned (rather than merely admonished) having infringed a Foul Play law. (10.5.(a) "Any player who infringes any part of the Foul Play Law must be admonished, or cautioned and temporarily suspended for a period of ten minutes’ playing time, or sent-off."). If they believed the kick was intentional then a suspension or sending off was required - a post match "citation".
If he should have been cautioned then he should have had a yellow card. (10.6A "When a player has been cautioned and temporarily suspended in an International match the referee will show that player a yellow card.").
|
|
Sep 2015
4:52pm, 28 Sep 2015
2,663 posts
|
Nelly
Given the length of the break in play due to both Williams' and Amos' injuries, the number of replays shown at the time, and prevalence of interruptions by the video referees in previous games, presumably both the referee and video referee agreed with me that it was not even worthy of a penalty, never mind a Yellow Card.
|
|
Sep 2015
11:44pm, 28 Sep 2015
20,960 posts
|
SPR
Surely the ref would have been asked about what he saw?
Re the penalty/ line out decision, Nelly's reasoning (they'd have got the ball back if they missed anyway) has convinced me they should have gone for the penalty.
|
|
Sep 2015
11:45pm, 28 Sep 2015
20,961 posts
|
SPR
B Vunipola is out, Easter is in as his replacement
|
