Comatose Crocker #2
viper
either low or from behind, it seems that even seven days per week is not
enough for the plonkers to learn how to tackle front on.
Great blue though.....isn't Billy a sneaky little cunt ?
Viper
c00ps
"viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
news:48845b22$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Not only do this generation of Rugby League players not know how to tackle
> either low or from behind, it seems that even seven days per week is not
> enough for the plonkers to learn how to tackle front on.
I think they do know, but the game today has changed from the old days, and
they are also instructed / coached differently.
> Great blue though.....isn't Billy a sneaky little cunt ?
Maybe, but he had some company tonight. How another Saints player or two
wasn't marched is beyond me. Nightingdale (?) - that fucking Kiwi should
have been marched too. Good stink though - should be more of it, and the
crowd sounded like they liked it.
>
> Viper
>
viper
"c00ps" <PDC0...@BIGP0ND.NET.AU> wrote in message
news:E5Zgk.21421$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
> news:48845b22$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>> Not only do this generation of Rugby League players not know how to
>> tackle either low or from behind, it seems that even seven days per week
>> is not enough for the plonkers to learn how to tackle front on.
>
>
> I think they do know, but the game today has changed from the old days,
> and they are also instructed / coached differently.
Coops, front on target zone should be bread and butter. Rule 1 'Avoid the
pelvic structure at all costs'. Biggest, strongest bone in the human body.
>
>
>> Great blue though.....isn't Billy a sneaky little cunt ?
>
> Maybe, but he had some company tonight. How another Saints player or two
> wasn't marched is beyond me. Nightingdale (?) - that fucking Kiwi should
> have been marched too. Good stink though - should be more of it, and the
> crowd sounded like they liked it.
I think Billy got him a couple of times when he was being held, you can't
blame him for having a go back.....for what it's worth I think he bested
Billy
>
>
>>
>> Viper
>>
>
>
c00ps
>
> "c00ps" <PDC0...@BIGP0ND.NET.AU> wrote in message
> news:E5Zgk.21421$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
>> news:48845b22$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>> Not only do this generation of Rugby League players not know how to
>>> tackle either low or from behind, it seems that even seven days per week
>>> is not enough for the plonkers to learn how to tackle front on.
>>
>>
>> I think they do know, but the game today has changed from the old days,
>> and they are also instructed / coached differently.
>
> Coops, front on target zone should be bread and butter. Rule 1 'Avoid the
> pelvic structure at all costs'. Biggest, strongest bone in the human body.
I hear you and agree but the nature of the game these days seems to lock up
the ball, and not to tackle the guy 1 on 1 - coaches want 2 or 3 in each
tackle. Ball and all tackles seem a thing of the past.
>
>>
>>
>>> Great blue though.....isn't Billy a sneaky little cunt ?
>>
>> Maybe, but he had some company tonight. How another Saints player or two
>> wasn't marched is beyond me. Nightingdale (?) - that fucking Kiwi should
>> have been marched too. Good stink though - should be more of it, and the
>> crowd sounded like they liked it.
>
> I think Billy got him a couple of times when he was being held, you can't
> blame him for having a go back.....for what it's worth I think he bested
> Billy
I would have the Saints player ahead on points.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Viper
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
alvey
>
> Coops, front on target zone should be bread and butter. Rule 1 'Avoid the
> pelvic structure at all costs'. Biggest, strongest bone in the human body.
Except for front-rowers. Skull's a winner there...
alvey
Bunny
>
> "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
> news:48845f19$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> "c00ps" <PDC0...@BIGP0ND.NET.AU> wrote in message
>> news:E5Zgk.21421$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>
>>> "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
>>> news:48845b22$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> Not only do this generation of Rugby League players not know how to
>>>> tackle either low or from behind, it seems that even seven days per
>>>> week is not enough for the plonkers to learn how to tackle front on.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think they do know, but the game today has changed from the old days,
>>> and they are also instructed / coached differently.
>>
>> Coops, front on target zone should be bread and butter. Rule 1 'Avoid the
>> pelvic structure at all costs'. Biggest, strongest bone in the human
>> body.
>
> I hear you and agree but the nature of the game these days seems to lock
> up the ball, and not to tackle the guy 1 on 1 - coaches want 2 or 3 in
> each tackle. Ball and all tackles seem a thing of the past.
>
I wouldn't mind seeing a change in the definition of when a tackle is
complete. The NFL rules on the ball carrier's knee touching the ground. A
plus to that in Rl would be that it would encourage players to tackle around
the legs, which are the bes type of tackles to watch IMO. Nothing like
seeing some lunkhead at full pelt fall flat on his face with his legs taken
out. It wouldn't be that easy to pass in that situation either - although
Jeremy Smith did well tonight.
Speaking of Jeremy Smioth - how come his try wasn't an eight pointer given
Poore's late hit. What a fuckwit Poore is.
John Heath
> "c00ps" <PDC00...@BIGP0ND.NET.AU> wrote in message
>
> news:lgZgk.21427$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
> >news:48845f19$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>news:E5Zgk.21421$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>> "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:48845b22$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >>>> Not only do this generation of Rugby League players not know how to
> >>>> tackle either low or from behind, it seems that even seven days per
> >>>> week is not enough for the plonkers to learn how to tackle front on.
>
> >>> I think they do know, but the game today has changed from the old days,
> >>> and they are also instructed / coached differently.
>
> >> Coops, front on target zone should be bread and butter. Rule 1 'Avoid the
> >> pelvic structure at all costs'. Biggest, strongest bone in the human
> >> body.
>
> > I hear you and agree but the nature of the game these days seems to lock
> > up the ball, and not to tackle the guy 1 on 1 - coaches want 2 or 3 in
> > each tackle. Ball and all tackles seem a thing of the past.
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing a change in the definition of when a tackle is
> complete. The NFL rules on the ball carrier's knee touching the ground. A
> plus to that in Rl would be that it would encourage players to tackle around
> the legs, which are the bes type of tackles to watch IMO. Nothing like
> seeing some lunkhead at full pelt fall flat on his face with his legs taken
> out. It wouldn't be that easy to pass in that situation either - although
> Jeremy Smith did well tonight.
>
> Speaking of Jeremy Smioth - how come his try wasn't an eight pointer given
> Poore's late hit. What a fuckwit Poore is.
I thought the same myself when I saw it this morning.
chris...@gmail.com
> Poore's late hit. What a fuckwit Poore is.
I believe (and I'm not a referee) that the rule says a foul must be
committed in the process of scoring a try. Technically what happened
to Smith happened AFTER he grounded the ball thus the try was already
scored.
So the only avenue available to the referee in that instance was a
caution, and possibly a sin bin/send off if considered a professional
foul or a serious enough case of foul play.
GV, Mango, am I on the right track?
Geraint Vincent }:c{»
>
> news:lgZgk.21427$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
> >news:48845f19$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> >>news:E5Zgk.21421$IK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>> "viper" <vi...@rugby.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:48845b22$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >>>> Not only do this generation of Rugby League players not know how to
> >>>> tackle either low or from behind, it seems that even seven days per
> >>>> week is not enough for the plonkers to learn how to tackle front on.
>
> >>> I think they do know, but the game today has changed from the old days,
> >>> and they are also instructed / coached differently.
>
> >> Coops, front on target zone should be bread and butter. Rule 1 'Avoid the
> >> pelvic structure at all costs'. Biggest, strongest bone in the human
> >> body.
>
> > I hear you and agree but the nature of the game these days seems to lock
> > up the ball, and not to tackle the guy 1 on 1 - coaches want 2 or 3 in
> > each tackle. Ball and all tackles seem a thing of the past.
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing a change in the definition of when a tackle is
> complete. The NFL rules on the ball carrier's knee touching the ground. A
> plus to that in Rl would be that it would encourage players to tackle around
> the legs, which are the bes type of tackles to watch IMO. Nothing like
> seeing some lunkhead at full pelt fall flat on his face with his legs taken
> out. It wouldn't be that easy to pass in that situation either - although
> Jeremy Smith did well tonight.
>
> Speaking of Jeremy Smioth - how come his try wasn't an eight pointer given
> Poore's late hit. What a fuckwit Poore is.
The "eight point try" rule doesn't extend to offences after the ball
is grounded.
"If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a
penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts
after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken
the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the
halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is
touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period."
John Heath
wrote:
That's a skinny window of opportunity then. The ball is grounded for a
fraction of a second. The 1999 GF penalty try was for a foul before
the player could ground the ball, and the incident yesterday was
immediately following the grounding.
This has come up before in here - could you please remind me whether
the ref could have sin-binned the fouling player, is the foul was
sufficiently bad? If a player from the team scoring the try
retalitates and starts a stink, should the referee disallow the try
and penalise the third man in? Is it possible to award the try but sin-
bin the third man in? If the blue that saw 3 players put in the bin
had been the result of an after-grounding foul, what should the ref
have done?
John Heath
Does OzTag hav rules covering this?
Geraint Vincent }:c{»
>
>
>
> > Speaking of Jeremy Smioth - how come his try wasn't an eight pointer given
> > Poore's late hit. What a fuckwit Poore is.
>
> I believe (and I'm not a referee)
And that's why. Referees don't believe, they know. Haha.
> that the rule says a foul must be committed in the process of scoring
> a try. Technically what happened to Smith happened AFTER he
> grounded the ball thus the try was already scored.
Either way it was a Poore effort.
> So the only avenue available to the referee in that instance was a
> caution, and possibly a sin bin/send off if considered a professional
> foul or a serious enough case of foul play.
Well it's not a professional foul since it isn't a potential try
scoring situation as the try already has been scored. But yes, sin
bin (repeated offence/cooling off) or send off (severe foul play/
previously sin binned for same offence) is certainly an option.
> GV, Mango, am I on the right track?
You tell me. Who and where are Comets playing this weekend? Haha.
Geraint Vincent }:c{»
Yeah, that was a penalty try not an "eight point try"*. Different
matters.
*There is no such thing as an eight point try. All tries are four
points.
> and the incident yesterday was
> immediately following the grounding.
>
> This has come up before in here - could you please remind me whether
> the ref could have sin-binned the fouling player, is the foul was
> sufficiently bad?
Sin binned/sent off, yes.
> If a player from the team scoring the try retalitates and starts a stink,
> should the referee disallow the try and penalise the third man in?
No, not if the ball has already been grounded.
> Is it possible to award the try but sin- bin the third man in?
Yes, or send off the third man in.
> If the blue that saw 3 players put in the bin had been the result of
> an after-grounding foul, what should the ref have done?
Video ref.
JC
"Geraint Vincent }:c{»" <asr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:395836e2-e86a-410a...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
--------
ok a little confused here GV
So in that 99 GF, would the '8 point try rule' have been applied if the Melb
player whilst been taken out, had managed to hang on to the ball and score?
Geraint Vincent }:c{»
> "Geraint Vincent }:c{»" <asrl...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:395836e2-e86a-410a...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Depends on what the interpretation was at the time. "Applies to the
period during which the ball is touched down for a try" indicates
probably not since he was actually on his feet at the time and not in
strict act of touching the ball down.
John Heath
"The period during which" is open to interpretation, though. It
doesn't mean exactly the same thing as "while the ball is being
grounded" or "during the grounding of the ball." I'd be willing to
believe that in future refs might be directed to interpret it as
meaning a foul on the scoring player very shortly before or after the
grounding of the ball. "The period" of say, five seconds "during which
the ball is grounded" and Poore takes some poor bugger's head off.
Fish Womper
>
>The "eight point try" rule doesn't extend to offences after the ball
>is grounded.
>
>"If a player fouls an opponent who is touching down for a try, a
>penalty kick at goal shall be taken from in front of the goal posts
>after the attempt to convert the try. After his kick has been taken
>the ball shall be deemed dead and play shall be restarted from the
>halfway line. This law applies to the period during which the ball is
>touched down for a try and not to any subsequent period."
You'd have to suspect that the intent of this rule (which as I recall
was introduced in the 1970's and was then known as a seven point try)
was to deter acts of foul play against a try scorer. Seeing such foul
play could happen before, during or after the try is scored, and
because it really only takes a fraction of a second to actually ground
the football, it seems like there is a case to reword this rule. Not
only that, but it should probably apply to other members of the try
scoring team as well as the try scorer.
fish