Yr Alban wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 6:52 pm
What’s particularly ridiculous is that it is Hamish Watson who came under fire here. Watson’s folks took him to Murrayfield as a child. He’s been supporting Scotland his whole life. If you want to call him English, I wouldn’t do it where he can hear you.
To be fair, he does sound quite English, but judging from the fact that he's called Hamish, his parents must be 220% Scottish.
It’s a name that does suggest a degree of over-compensation. It’s funny though - the last Hamish I recall meeting was an Aussie, and pretty much everyone I’ve ever known called Angus is either an Aussie or English.
I remembered I was going to post something about Cam Redpath. His parents are both Scottish and his dad captained Scotland. In the days before pro rugby he would almost certainly have been born and brought up in the Borders. But pro rugby gave Bryan the opportunity to earn more in France and England, so that’s where Cam was born and brought up. It’s a beautiful example.
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
About what? Can you outline your full set of rules, because you seem to be jumping around a bit about what’s upsetting you.
Start with the residency poaches, then work back through the grandparent poaches.
Of the team taking to the pitch on Saturday 10 are born and bred, and another 2 have played almost all their pro rugby in Scotland. I’m not convinced you really know why you are stamping your little feet, beyond just being a bit of an arse.
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
About what? Can you outline your full set of rules, because you seem to be jumping around a bit about what’s upsetting you.
Start with the residency poaches, then work back through the grandparent poaches.
Of the team taking to the pitch on Saturday 10 are born and bred, and another 2 have played almost all their pro rugby in Scotland. I’m not convinced you really know why you are stamping your little feet, beyond just being a bit of an arse.
Yup. What does ‘where they learned their rugby’ mean? Ali Price is a product of the Scottish Rugby Academy. Scotland made him into a professional player. Scotland has at least as good a claim to be ‘where he learned his rugby” as England.
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Question - Just as a matter of interest - does the Grandparent/parent rule apply in cases of adoption - I assume ist does - but up to what age - could someone adopt an adult and that adult then qualify by reason of parentage ?
Ovals wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:06 pm
Question - Just as a matter of interest - does the Grandparent/parent rule apply in cases of adoption - I assume ist does - but up to what age - could someone adopt an adult (legally) and that adult then qualify by reason of parentage ?
Ovals wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:06 pm
Question - Just as a matter of interest - does the Grandparent/parent rule apply in cases of adoption - I assume ist does - but up to what age - could someone adopt an adult and that adult then qualify by reason of parentage ?
Ovals wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:06 pm
Question - Just as a matter of interest - does the Grandparent/parent rule apply in cases of adoption - I assume ist does - but up to what age - could someone adopt an adult and that adult then qualify by reason of parentage ?
Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:03 pm
Ali Price from Norfolk.
You can't even be consistent in your own stupidity. If he were born in Scotland and developed solely in England, you'd claim he was still a poach because of where he 'learned his rugby'. But he was developed almost entirely in Scotland, so you focus on where he was born. It really is pathetic.
It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
Kawazaki wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:03 pm
Ali Price from Norfolk.
You can't even be consistent in your own stupidity. If he were born in Scotland and developed solely in England, you'd claim he was still a poach because of where he 'learned his rugby'. But he was developed almost entirely in Scotland, so you focus on where he was born. It really is pathetic.
Jones turns the pre match trash talking up a notch.
They’ll go at Marcus, they’ll go at guys like Genge and Sinckler but we feel like all those players will be able to handle it and they’ll get support from their team-mates.
"They brag about [how] they can win that psychological battle, they brag [how] they can get under the skin of England but we’ll see on Saturday, it’ll be mind over emotions for us."
Jones also attempted to pile pressure on Scotland by billing Gregor Townsend's side as "red-hot favourites", suggesting Scotland will carry the "burden" of being expected to win at Murrayfield.
Whatever, I'm sure our upstanding flame-haired blood & soil Scottish lads will give the Rose's Foreign Legion lots of reasons to run back crying to their mums and dads in Nigeria, the Philippines, Australia and wherever else they're from - it's hard to keep track. But you have to forgive them really, given there's so few home-grown players to choose from if you're the England coach.
weegie01 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 04, 2022 8:00 am
Jones turns the pre match trash talking up a notch.
They’ll go at Marcus, they’ll go at guys like Genge and Sinckler but we feel like all those players will be able to handle it and they’ll get support from their team-mates.
"They brag about [how] they can win that psychological battle, they brag [how] they can get under the skin of England but we’ll see on Saturday, it’ll be mind over emotions for us."
Jones also attempted to pile pressure on Scotland by billing Gregor Townsend's side as "red-hot favourites", suggesting Scotland will carry the "burden" of being expected to win at Murrayfield.
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
I'm putting £5 on a Scotland player being penalised for diving onto a ball deemed to be too close to the ruck it just emerged from.
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
I'm putting £5 on a Scotland player being penalised for diving onto a ball deemed to be too close to the ruck it just emerged from.
By the way the game has been played for several years now there is no way that ball was out of the ruck in the video there.
If they want to get rid of the caterpillar (and who doesn't?) they will have to be clearer than that.
If they do get rid of the caterpillar you're either going to get more blockers in place at a ruck to stop charge downs, or we go back to a pass back to a kicker some 10m behind the ruck.
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
To be fair, I am confused by this and have seen players being penalised when I think the ball was plainly out. I also do not understand how a player on the ground having his hand on the ball can be deemed in the ruck.
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
Classic 'clarification' response by WR. Their reply introduces a new directive (the ball must be 1 metre away from the ruck to be out) that isn't in their own laws and imbed a video that shows two examples that doesn't comply with their new 'clarification' but both are deemed legal by the referee!
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
Christ, we won't give up trying this until after the fourth pen, inevitably
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
Had an interesting discussion with a Scot on the last train out of town last night where we segued nicely from the game to the battles of Stirling Bridge and Dunbar. Not sure what impact on the result either has but passed the time.
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
I'm putting £5 on a Scotland player being penalised for diving onto a ball deemed to be too close to the ruck it just emerged from.
Agreed, this sounds more like England trying to highlight something they think Scotland will be doing, rather than some cunning plan of their own, especially as Scotland's back row was so effective in this area of the game last year.
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
Christ, we won't give up trying this until after the fourth pen, inevitably
Yep our dumb penalties aren't going anywhere.
Christ, just ask the ref if it's out and listen to what he says.
Do it the old fashioned way and drive through the middle. That's still allowed, isn't it?
In other news, my wife is taking the kids to Saturday evening Mass which pretty much gives me the whole of the first half uninterrupted, plus dinner will be a favourite of the family, spaghetti with red onion, tomato and basil. Sounds simple, is simple, tastes bloody delicious and the kids wolf it down, so no complicated cooking after the match for me either.
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
Classic 'clarification' response by WR. Their reply introduces a new directive (the ball must be 1 metre away from the ruck to be out) that isn't in their own laws and imbed a video that shows two examples that doesn't comply with their new 'clarification' but both are deemed legal by the referee!
They're saying there is no change to when the ball is out and can be played (by a player coming from an onside position) but they have clarified that Itoje can't flop onto it until it's 1m away from the ruck.
Classic 'clarification' response by WR. Their reply introduces a new directive (the ball must be 1 metre away from the ruck to be out) that isn't in their own laws and imbed a video that shows two examples that doesn't comply with their new 'clarification' but both are deemed legal by the referee!
They're saying there is no change to when the ball is out and can be played (by a player coming from an onside position) but they have clarified that Itoje can't flop onto it until it's 1m away from the ruck.
Where did they mention Itoje, must have missed that?
Classic 'clarification' response by WR. Their reply introduces a new directive (the ball must be 1 metre away from the ruck to be out) that isn't in their own laws and imbed a video that shows two examples that doesn't comply with their new 'clarification' but both are deemed legal by the referee!
They're saying there is no change to when the ball is out and can be played (by a player coming from an onside position) but they have clarified that Itoje can't flop onto it until it's 1m away from the ruck.
Where did they mention Itoje, must have missed that?
To troll effectively you need to leverage something that's actually true
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
England Rugby have asked for clarity relating to when a ball is deemed to be leaving/emerging from a ruck and when such a ball can be dived on to claim control of the ball.
Law 15 describes how a ruck ends, and says a player cannot fall onto the ball, but we seek clarity on when a player is legally entitled to dive onto the ball?
To be fair, I am confused by this and have seen players being penalised when I think the ball was plainly out. I also do not understand how a player on the ground having his hand on the ball can be deemed in the ruck.
I always used to check this when I played as the ref's interpretation could vary so massively. My favourite assessment as to when the ball was out was "if a bird can shit on it".
