Quins vs Bath
Moderator: Puja
-
- Posts: 5983
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
Good lord, our defence is just woeful today
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9156
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Quins vs Bath
Surely it's only not allowed if Brew initiates contact with Earle. He's allowed to run. Wherever he likes.
Which I don't see happening btw - though I do see the opposite as a nothingness
Which I don't see happening btw - though I do see the opposite as a nothingness
Last edited by Which Tyler on Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 12141
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
Wow. The ref is considering making a call in our favour? Not that it matters remotely anymore. Brew is quite clearly blocking.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9156
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Quins vs Bath
Course he is, but he's allowed to - though Carley disagrees. I think he's outright wrongMikey Brown wrote:Wow. The ref is considering making a call in our favour? Not that it matters remotely anymore. Brew is quite clearly blocking.
-
- Posts: 12141
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
This is painful. What a disappointing second half.
-
- Posts: 724
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:12 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
Sorry, that's ridiculous…
-
- Posts: 12141
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
I can see why it’s a bit of a grey area. But if you’re obviously not making any kind of attempt to support your team I don’t see how you can argue it’s anything other than obstruction?
If you were the dummy runner on a screen pass behind and you were fannying around like that blocking defenders nobody would question penalising it.
If you were the dummy runner on a screen pass behind and you were fannying around like that blocking defenders nobody would question penalising it.
Last edited by Mikey Brown on Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 5983
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
That try doesn’t gloss over the fact that we’ve been absolutely awful in the second half.Mikey Brown wrote:This is painful. What a disappointing second half.
-
- Posts: 724
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:12 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
If you're behind the ball, you're behind the ball though…
You're viable for a pass and can run however you want…
You're viable for a pass and can run however you want…
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9156
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Quins vs Bath
No-one is arguing that it's anything other than obstruction. I argue that it's legal obstruction.
-
- Posts: 12141
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
No. I’m not sure why the crowd are so excited to be honest. It’s been dreadful. If somehow we get a bonus point then fair enough.
-
- Posts: 12141
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
Even if there isn’t any pretence you’re even trying to get in a position to get the ball? ie. looking the wrong way and swerving all over the place?Renniks wrote:If you're behind the ball, you're behind the ball though…
You're viable for a pass and can run however you want…
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9156
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Quins vs Bath
I fail to see why it matters.Mikey Brown wrote:Even if there isn’t any pretence you’re even trying to get in a position to get the ball? ie. looking the wrong way and swerving all over the place?Renniks wrote:If you're behind the ball, you're behind the ball though…
You're viable for a pass and can run however you want…
Which law do we need to look up?
ETA: OK, looks like I'm wrong
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=9&language=EN
9.3 A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.
-
- Posts: 724
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:12 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
Law 9: Foul play
9.2 An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.
9.3 A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.
9.2 isn't an issue, he was onside
9.3 is down to some interpretation, but for me, he wasn't preventing an opponent tackling / attempting to tackle - he was preventing him reaching the player from an onside position
9.2 An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.
9.3 A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.
9.2 isn't an issue, he was onside
9.3 is down to some interpretation, but for me, he wasn't preventing an opponent tackling / attempting to tackle - he was preventing him reaching the player from an onside position
-
- Posts: 12141
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
Yeah. Seems clear enough to me. Otherwise there would be literally no action Earle can take to attempt a tackle.Which Tyler wrote:I fail to see why it matters.Mikey Brown wrote:Even if there isn’t any pretence you’re even trying to get in a position to get the ball? ie. looking the wrong way and swerving all over the place?Renniks wrote:If you're behind the ball, you're behind the ball though…
You're viable for a pass and can run however you want…
Which law do we need to look up?
ETA: OK, looks like I'm wrong
https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=9&language=EN
9.3 A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.
What a ridiculous ending this is.
- Which Tyler
- Posts: 9156
- Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:43 pm
- Location: Tewkesbury
- Contact:
Re: Quins vs Bath
Still feels like it was just clever play, but by the laws, it looks like he should have positioned himself to take the pass and score the try
-
- Posts: 12141
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2016 5:10 pm
Re: Quins vs Bath
Deserved win. Cokanisiga stands up to Bothma at full tilt right at the end there.
For what it’s worth I think Brewery would have had a case if he’d actually kept running.
For what it’s worth I think Brewery would have had a case if he’d actually kept running.
-
- Posts: 5983
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2016 10:33 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
Really disappointed by that performance ... OK start, better ending inexcusably crap for the entire middle period of the game. 2 points is actually a decent return all things considered.
Codling has got lots of work to do on our lineout. It’s not his fault none of hookers can throw very well, but we don’t seem to be very clued up when it comes to defending.
Codling has got lots of work to do on our lineout. It’s not his fault none of hookers can throw very well, but we don’t seem to be very clued up when it comes to defending.
-
- Posts: 2259
- Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2016 9:05 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
Early stats have it at around 30 carries for 300 metres between the pair of them. Athletic cripples.I R Geech wrote:This has the makings of a cripple fight.fivepointer wrote:This week Bath are going to click and dish out a real hammering.....or maybe not.
The Earle -Cokansiga match up should be one to watch.
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
Didn’t have chance to watch. Who were you all salivating over? Mercer?
-
- Posts: 3280
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:04 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
Loads of good bath performances all over the pitch.
-
- Posts: 1307
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:31 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
Mercer went well, the game nosedived after he went off. Cockamasiga's a bit like Ben Cohen, a bit numb but strangely effective.
-
- Posts: 3280
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 9:04 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
If he can get that off loading game going and he can keep finishing like that he will great. He just needs more experience and coaching to improve his decision making. I wouldn't rush him for england.
- Mellsblue
- Posts: 14561
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 7:58 am
Re: Quins vs Bath
Much as it pains me to ask.....has he bulked up over the summer?