Bradbury has 'unfinished business' with Edinburgh after sealing return

Some Bok supporters have this conspiracy theory that if any other team did silly restarts to manufacture scrums and lineout leaping in the middle of the field that it wouldn't be criticized but congratulated.

The fact is no other team is doing this silly restart and jumping stuff because it's viewed as…..silly.

A dummy at no time obstructs the opposition or cynically attempts to extract a ruling. It was a perfectly executed blindside try which simply caught the defence asleep. It's not comparable with a deliberate offside at the restart or silly jumps to create yet another boring maul against a team that predictably lacked the firepower to stop it.

As I've said with a player being unnecessarily lifted in the middle of the park then that is creating obstruction as defense isn't allowed to tackle a player in the air.

Apart from Rassie the rest of us in the world of rugby don't want Rassie to create a new source of obstruction outside the maul.as we don't want to transform rugby into blocking like gridiron.

It would be great actually if world rugby said if the Boks want to lift their players outside of lineouts then the opposition can just smash them in the air as it would be a learning lesson for the Boks.

But of course that would be ridiculously unsafe so the whole stupid idea needs to be banned, it's not innovative it's just stuffing around with the game we all enjoy.

Rassie is a great rugby man, of that I've no doubt but he has received lengthy bans for a reason and this nonsense is that side of Rassie that's not great.

At the restart it was a penalty as the player wasnt just offside ahead of the kicker but he then interfered with play. Yes, perhaps a scrum if he hadn't of interfered with the ball offside.

Again, another law change needed due to Rassie. Deliberately not restarting correctly, professional foul, yellow card. I just want to watch a contest not a first five farting around with a cynical play where the opposition has no part to play, we want a contest.

I cannot reinforce how absurd these ‘innovations’ are, they're not tactics that other coaches want to do as they're silly.

You think the Bok scrum is incredible, if you truly believe that then contact Rassie and ask him to cynically organize all scrum restarts this season when his team kicksoff with tier one sides like the Allblacks and Argentina feeding the ball into the scrum, that will be fantastic to watch as Pumas and Allblacks steam into the backline with free ball.

We both know the Boks wouldn't dare to run it against a top tier team so why do it against Italy? Respect….

You're right it's a good era for the game, let's not muck it up with this abject nonsense. We don't want to see a midfield ‘lineout’ to make yet more mauls.

Again, mauls and scrums aren't a position of strength for just the Boks.

Rassie isn't creating a dynasty either, the Allblacks won two world cups in a row which abruptly ended.

The Boks are in the mix to win again in Australia but I can tell you now they're not doing themselves any favors with all the perceived arrogance.

We all saw what happened to the invincible Allblacks in 2007, humiliation in a quarter.

Yes I’m on the same tact, and it’s most pertinent with your main point over the last few months or so, France should change the policy for just this one year/opportunity every 4y WC cycle. I don’t see how every year needs the welfare treatment.

Of course my stance is that they can not exclude a group of players, that is basically aparthied for its stars. They can say someones not fit to tour, but they need to do this one by one, its the ‘premium’ group angle that just doesn’t sit with me at all, whether your Argentina or the ABs.

I would really hope that France can make this sort of allowance in the future, and be given the top team after after however the Lion are playing, and be able to use it as some sort of jumping board. Aussie were in a bad state last time right, but hopefully in future it would mean theyre gaureneted a powerhouse.

I don’t think that’s a major issue now. This is just an article where a player said he doesn’t like the law, as it re to players and the above dynamic I mention. And all the comments agree with you, I was just pointing out that if the ref determined he was tackling or diving into a ruck it wouldn’t be a yellow (and this ruling has been determined “all the time” as well), but yes, in this example it’s generally ruled an knockon.

In the past there was a period where you could dive full stretch and get a finger tip to it to stop the pass. You were obviously not trying to catch the ball, you were deliberatly trying to knock it down (this is where the name oringally came from, and why it’s still used in situations where you’re obviously not trying to know it down). This started to creep into all facets of the game, as players used it in more situations that stopping a desperate overlap, and they had to come down with a more hardline approach.

So yes, I’d probably be with you, that ones that look like this (especially where in this case Le Garrec lost the ball forward) are allowed, but only as long as there was still a line, just have it somewhere much further down the other end of the spectrum.

Maua and his family have always been a bright light in our community, and they deserve everything they’ve earned. Maua continues to be a nightmare at friendly gatherings for his peers, as “You should be more like Maua” from parents, will echo throughout the function. Not only for his immense rugby success, but his amazing manners and kind heart. This is undoubtedly thanks to the work of his parents and extended family.

Keep it up Maua! Always supporting you and your family, now bring it home for us🏆

Anywhere else on the field you would just stick out a hand to stop it but there it would have been a penalty try yellow card.

Are you talking about a scenario like last week where Dmac fired the ball into Theo hoping he wouldn’t be able to catch it? If Theo had knocked on you’d hope he wouldn’t be penalized. Or are you talking say like a South African play where a player might get isolated and thinks he’ll be turned over, so just deliberately knocks it on instead so his team can win the scrum? How I just defined his actions there are what the law is constituting as the reason for a yellow card, foul.

You are not carded for deliberately knocking the ball on, that is only a normal penalty infringement. You are actually committing a foul when it’s also rulled you deliberately denied the ball to the opposition (something the refs consider you to be doing when theres an overlap or you’re pressed on your line). So yes, the call in that instance would go against the attacking team, not the defending one I’d believe.

That’s why everyone was always amazed that the All black would when with 40% possession, its just that ABs finished off the tries quickly, you can look at it like they only needed to make half the amount of linebreaks this game before they could score.

So do you look at say ABs where better last week because they made twice as many linebreaks, and scored 7 tries and blew a few more, or do you say ABs were better this week because they were able to score twice as easily and because there tries stuck so well, they didn’t need to score again before it counted?

Certainly states wise, and therefore on the park to a very large degree as well, they didn’t dominate game two as much as they dominated game one.