twitchy wrote:Remember when kyle was was a bit of a liability. Now he is one of the first names on the team sheet. Great management. Watch him physically destroy a much larger man with his strength in the scrum.
They tried to wind him up after he lost the first one:
I love that moment (in retrospect - fwcking hated it at the time) as they rubbed his head, patted his cheek, put hands in his face, and did everything but shove their fingers up his nose to try and get a rise. Not only did Sinckler not react, but Itoje was straight in there, removing him from the situation and giving the Aussie a little shove to reaffirm to Sinckler that they had his back as the team came round him.
Good work by Sinckler, but also great from the pack to support and help him. Turned a liability into a real strength.
Ah well, I am old, out of date and not the brightest but I think that provocation at that level should be able to be answered with a good smack in the mouth legitimately. Any referee that does not issue a yellow for that degree of provocation the way the laws are now applied is not fit to hold a whistle. It should be one or the other: allow a provoked player reasonable retaliation or discipline the provoker. Effectively, the referee was an accomplice.
Oakboy wrote:Ah well, I am old, out of date and not the brightest but I think that provocation at that level should be able to be answered with a good smack in the mouth legitimately. Any referee that does not issue a yellow for that degree of provocation the way the laws are now applied is not fit to hold a whistle. It should be one or the other: allow a provoked player reasonable retaliation or discipline the provoker. Effectively, the referee was an accomplice.
I don't think you can go with the licence for violence anymore. The world has moved on.
It's certainly not cardable.
However, it absolutely should be a reversed decision - they'll soon stop doing it if they're throwing away their earned rewards and gifting them to their opponent.
Oakboy wrote:Ah well, I am old, out of date and not the brightest but I think that provocation at that level should be able to be answered with a good smack in the mouth legitimately. Any referee that does not issue a yellow for that degree of provocation the way the laws are now applied is not fit to hold a whistle. It should be one or the other: allow a provoked player reasonable retaliation or discipline the provoker. Effectively, the referee was an accomplice.
I don't think you can go with the licence for violence anymore. The world has moved on.
It's certainly not cardable.
However, it absolutely should be a reversed decision - they'll soon stop doing it if they're throwing away their earned rewards and gifting them to their opponent.
As soon as he got away he was telling the aussies to scrum again. End result is they do, and we won the free kick. He had a few words with either the hooker or loosehead and walked away .
Which Tyler wrote:
I don't think you can go with the licence for violence anymore. The world has moved on.
It's certainly not cardable.
However, it absolutely should be a reversed decision - they'll soon stop doing it if they're throwing away their earned rewards and gifting them to their opponent.
There is more than enough in here to make it a penalty
Not enough in there for a card. The games a bit to professional now for slap round the ear, probably for the best but part of me misses a self regulated forwards game.
Yeah, think Graham Henry was saying something similar before the tournament. All this celebrating in an opponent's face, head slapping/rubbing and general gloating is a terrible look and should be penalised.
I am not normally as fan of "role model" arguments but in this case it is fair. If all international teams do it why can't lower down and kids' ones?
I am also not a massive fan of all the backs piling in to celebrate a good scrum. Fair enough if it is genuine excitement at a big moment but when it is every time and whooping it just looks pathetic
.