Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:43 am  

His kicking percentage was higher than Patterson's in 2009

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 10:19 am  

faxtastic wrote:

he uses every last 2nd of it doesnt he.

he doesnt even move any quicker when the kicks right in front of the posts and you could back heel it over

You can't back heel it over. It wouldn't count.

Doctor - check this out in the laws.

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:00 am  

Didnt a Keighley player backheel one over in a game against London Skolars a few seasons back?

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 11:58 am  

My understanding is that, to score a goal, the ball has to be kicked (inter alia) and "kick" is defined as imparting motion with any part of the leg from knee to toe inclusive, except the heel.

If any referee would like to disagree with that - well, it's not uncommon that I disagree with referees.

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:17 pm  

I remember it being on the Soccer AM All sports show, cant remember whether if it was allowed or not

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:39 pm  

brummie-eagle wrote:

Didnt a Keighley player backheel one over in a game against London Skolars a few seasons back?

Yes and it was allowed.

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:40 pm  

Not that Griff is wrong, I'd never suggest something so ludicrous.

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:17 pm  

The one thing you expect from referees is that they know the laws of the game.

As we saw against Fev earlier this season, they don't.

Here's yet another example. Back heeling goals. Just not allowed.

Where's the head shaking smiley when you need it?

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:01 pm  

As best I know it is allowed, but if you did it expect a rollocking frm your coach. It's considered very unsportsmanlike.

Re: DUMB RUGBY : Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:14 pm  

The wording of the law is very clear.

What is the explanation for the dichotomy of opinion ?