• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Whistle watch - World Rugby production

New whistle watch

Rugby as a whole really shoots itself in the foot, doesn't it? Why can't World Rugby even get permission to use video clips of championship games ?


 
crossref said:
New whistle watch

Rugby as a whole really shoots itself in the foot, doesn't it? Why can't World Rugby even get permission to use video clips of championship games ?


Click to expand...
It's ridiculous. Squidge rugby brings a refreshing look at the game and seems to spend half his energy battling the broadcast rights holders. He is basically doing PR for WR for free.

Even these guys who all have jobs with our host broadcaster (and have show sponsors) seem to get around it by filming off a screen.
1759820245199.png
 
shebeen said:
It's ridiculous. Squidge rugby brings a refreshing look at the game and seems to spend half his energy battling the broadcast rights holders. He is basically doing PR for WR for free.

Even these guys who all have jobs with our host broadcaster (and have show sponsors) seem to get around it by filming off a screen.
View attachment 4909
Click to expand...
Totally agree on Squidge, excellent work and enjoyable to watch. However methinks his honesty in calling BS when WR do something asinine has probably hurt the feelings of one of the blazers at HQ and got him on the naughty list.
 

Latest episode.
Japanese try is called offside as player is bound at the ruck, so can't play ball with hands.
JR asks if just resting his hand on a player is considered being bound (which is the actual scenario here).
NO says being bound is from hand to shoulder. as per WR definition
1763118579415.png

Does this not look a little silly now as visually they are describing the wrong issue?

Aren't they both not tries due to Law 14.10?

1763119064628.png
WR drew a nice picture
1763119089781.png
 
shebeen said:
Latest episode.
Japanese try is called offside as player is bound at the ruck, so can't play ball with hands.
JR asks if just resting his hand on a player is considered being bound (which is the actual scenario here).
NO says being bound is from hand to shoulder. as per WR definition
View attachment 4919

Does this not look a little silly now as visually they are describing the wrong issue?
Click to expand...
very silly! NO is obviously describing the situation from memory and without sight of the photo that is spliced in later. NO explains how the Japanese play would be fine if it was just a hand resting, cut to photo showing just a hand resting

The photo is of course added later in the edit
 
crossref said:
very silly! NO is obviously describing the situation from memory and without sight of the photo that is spliced in later. NO explains how the Japanese play would be fine if it was just a hand resting, cut to photo showing just a hand resting

The photo is of course added later in the edit
Click to expand...
Thanks for sharing your indepth knowledge.
 
I'm confused. Are we saying he was part of the ruck so can't pick up the ball ?
Or.
Are we saying he's not part of the ruck so he's offside ?

It looks to me like the latter.
 
One was deemed a tackle and one was deemed a ruck. (Up to you to decide if that was actually correct.) With a tackle one foot must be behind. With a ruck both feet must be behind and the ball available.
 
Why is the offside line in a tackle only one foot behind the ball? Where does that come from?

Or is it to play the ball having come from inside, you must have one foot behind the ball (so not an offside issue?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top