RugbyRebels

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Must be an old clip, back heels are now a knock-on.

Under which Law?

It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.

Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.

I like to think I'm up with the Laws but that one slipped me by. However, even if a back-heel is not a "kick," I don't think it is a knock-on.

Law 12:
"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."

By my reading, this makes a back-heel a legal method of propelling the ball forward (like a header). Unless I'm missing something.

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
Must be an old clip, back heels are now a knock-on.

Under which Law?

It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.

Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.

I like to think I'm up with the Laws but that one slipped me by. However, even if a back-heel is not a "kick," I don't think it is a knock-on.

Law 12:
"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."

By my reading, this makes a back-heel a legal method of propelling the ball forward (like a header). Unless I'm missing something.

You need to set the 'stereo' setting to "OFF" on your commodore 64

Lizard wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Lizard wrote: Under which Law?

It's an odd one. It doesn't come under a specific law, but in the definitions.

Kick: A kick is made by hitting the ball with any part of the leg or foot, except the heel,
from the toe to the knee but not including the knee; a kick must move the ball a visible
distance out of the hand, or along the ground.

I can't remember exactly when it was changed, but it was a fair few years ago now.

I like to think I'm up with the Laws but that one slipped me by. However, even if a back-heel is not a "kick," I don't think it is a knock-on.

Law 12:
"A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it."

By my reading, this makes a back-heel a legal method of propelling the ball forward (like a header). Unless I'm missing something.

Good point. Perhaps it's not a knock-on, then, and only illegal when the law mandates a kick e.g. a penalty or free-kick. Seems a bit odd.

I guess if a heel counted as a kick, then heeling the ball back in a ruck would cause difficulties.

It does, however raise the prospect of a heeled box "kick" into the oppo 22 which could not be marked...

There's some comment here on a ref's forum http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index. ... f1ab98fcee but they don't get much further than us, other than to raise the issue of whether a heel "kick" is a loss of possession forward and thus a knock-on.

But anyway, enough of that diversion:

The thread title says "Funny", Rowan, not "sexist."

You can call me 'sexist' for that , just not because I was opposed to warmonger Clinton but I thought it was funny ...

It is interesting, also, that I'm the only one who comes in for these kinds of accusations (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise) when the thread is full of it. But having seen some of the things my British (particuarly) and American female friends post on FB, I'm really not going to concern myself with sexist humor too much at all.

rowan wrote:You can call me 'sexist' for that , just not because I was opposed to warmonger Clinton but I thought it was funny ...

It is interesting, also, that I'm the only one who comes in for these kinds of accusations (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise) when the thread is full of it. But having seen some of the things my British (particuarly) and American female friends post on FB, I'm really not going to concern myself with sexist humor too much at all.

Wait.. You have American female friends? Are they considered middle class?

Coco wrote:

rowan wrote:You can call me 'sexist' for that , just not because I was opposed to warmonger Clinton but I thought it was funny ...

It is interesting, also, that I'm the only one who comes in for these kinds of accusations (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise) when the thread is full of it. But having seen some of the things my British (particuarly) and American female friends post on FB, I'm really not going to concern myself with sexist humor too much at all.

Wait.. You have American female friends? Are they considered middle class?

You remember the sex ready mannequins, right?

I've seen a lot of racism and sexism on this forum, but then you turn around at the slightest excuse and try to use it in an accusatory manner because somebody happens to think differently from you. Hypocrisy is such a glaring feature of British and American culture, and I guess it has to be, or else how could you live with yourselves?

RANDOM. FUNNY. IMAGES.

Not only does this film title deserve a round of applause, so do the main character names:



Featuring Michaelangeblow, Dongatello, Raphallus, and Leonhardo.

Someone is earning their money.

Donny osmond wrote:

Is this like "Rowan funny"?

jared_7 wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Is this like "Rowan funny"?

Genuine mistake that I couldnt be arsed deleting

Donny osmond wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

Is this like "Rowan funny"?

Genuine mistake that I couldnt be arsed deleting

Is that part of your p0rn stash?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

Buggaluggs wrote:

Coco wrote:

rowan wrote:You can call me 'sexist' for that , just not because I was opposed to warmonger Clinton but I thought it was funny ...

It is interesting, also, that I'm the only one who comes in for these kinds of accusations (tongue-in-cheek or otherwise) when the thread is full of it. But having seen some of the things my British (particuarly) and American female friends post on FB, I'm really not going to concern myself with sexist humor too much at all.

Wait.. You have American female friends? Are they considered middle class?

You remember the sex ready mannequins, right?

I do. That would make perfect sense.