Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - No. 6 to Middlegate

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27
1
Durham & Northumberland Two / Re: Result
« on: October 14, 2018, 06:14:19 PM »
Drunkon Rock

Had you read the post by Karl Briggs when you made yours?
If Karl Briggs is a genuine post by your Director of Rugby then it seems we are just discussing how much your player coach is paid. Not if he is.

2
Durham & Northumberland Three / Re: results 13/10
« on: October 14, 2018, 03:32:53 PM »
Anyone know why the Richmondshire v Tech game was postponed

3
Durham & Northumberland Two / Re: Result
« on: October 14, 2018, 01:01:17 AM »
Good result for shields today. Watched winlaton last week at bishop and winlaton looked very strong. Watched rockcliff today against bish and they looked quick and very organised. I noticed that Craig Hamiltonís impact is massive for the squad. If rock go up which itís looking likely can they continue to pay around £18,000 to keep him around even though he is more of a player than a head coach. Personally think itís a massive advantage to any team in this league if a club can Afford to pay a player that much. Even teams in north east leagues and national northís donít pay players that much? I could be wrong it may happen at other places but for a amateur level itís a big outlay. Fair play to rock though as it shows there keen to become a dn1 team.

IF true (and I am sure someone from Rockcliff will comment) that level of payment will not be allowed if RFU assistance is to be available from next season.  The limits for payment of player coaches is below.

"In respect of Menís Level 6 and below: Clubs at these levels will be permitted to engage one paid player coach only up to a maximum of £10,000 and no more that 50% of which shall be in respect of his/her playing duties"

4
Durham & Northumberland Two / Re: Games this weekend 13/10
« on: October 13, 2018, 12:50:15 PM »
The Young brothers (Richie and Neil) are back for Redcar.

5
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: THE SPIRIT OF RUGBY
« on: October 11, 2018, 12:10:42 AM »
Mowden seem to have settled on a policy of just playing their 2nd XV fixture lately if they have 2nds and 3rds on the same day.  This will be of little comfort to Horden 2nds who got smashed off Mowden '3rds' earlier this season after the 2nd XV game was called off.

There is a bit of a spat on Twitter about the fixture Zerbo is referring to.  #bitter

6
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: THE SPIRIT OF RUGBY
« on: October 10, 2018, 08:59:18 PM »
name and shame!

Zerbo's 'clues' and cancellations posted for that date seem to suggest a particular club.

7
Other Senior Rugby / Re: Lancashire leading the way?
« on: October 05, 2018, 10:39:50 PM »
I hadn't realised till now but it appears the RFU came to an accommodation with the Lancashire clubs that wanted to leave the RFU leagues by pushing the lower Cumbria clubs into two leagues just on their own.

Now a review is to take part.  I suspect that Durham / Northumberland / Cumbria league(s) are options being considered for next season .
Some Lancs sides have left though, there are two separate Leagues run by the Lancs RFU.

Sorry you are indeed correct.  I was told by a county rep that that the breakaway did not happen but it looks like there has been some mis-information.  There appear to be Lancashire based ADM Premier and First Division leagues of 10 sides apiece.  Some big gaps in club's fixture lists. 

8
Other Senior Rugby / Re: Lancashire leading the way?
« on: October 04, 2018, 03:05:38 PM »
I hadn't realised till now but it appears the RFU came to an accommodation with the Lancashire clubs that wanted to leave the RFU leagues by pushing the lower Cumbria clubs into two leagues just on their own.

Now a review is to take part.  I suspect that Durham / Northumberland / Cumbria league(s) are options being considered for next season .

9
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: results 08/09
« on: September 20, 2018, 09:02:30 PM »
Whenever I have referred to Clarification 1 - 2018 in this discussion I have always qualified it by saying it specifically refers to 23 man squads.  The reason I have referred to it though is because it has the clearest, most logical explanation of the man off rule I have seen.

More importantly Durham Referees have now issued their own clarification of the issue.  See http://durhamrefsoc.co.uk/uncontested-scrummages . In essence this seems to me to now say that uncontested scrummages should absolutely  follow the FR Logic tree rules even though the "2nd time of asking option" does not seem to totally fit with some other opinions given either on Refsoc or by referees when this topic has arisen on this forum. Eg


"In a nutshell, if a (front row) player leaves the field which leads to uncontested scrums, that team cannot replace him. If the team doesn't declare this until the next scrum (it happens!), then they have to remove a player (not necessarily the one that replaced the injured front rower)."
The Man off rule
Just to clear up something that was discussed at the recent training meeting and a mistake that was made by one of the Refsoc editiors (it wasnít Mark) in a recent game. If a team have to go to uncontested scrums during a game; they no longer have any fit front-row players available during a game, they have to take a man off and play the remainder of the game with 14 players. I think Iíve explained that correctly, any questions contact the staff.

Despite the FR logic tree not being referred to in any Laws that I can find (and that we were encouraged to read) I quite understand it is a means to govern the game.  If that is what everyone must follow then so be it.  As such West and Renegade were correct in their interpretation and I, for one, was wrong.  I offer them my sincere apologies. 

Durham Ref's 1 - 0 Pontificators


10
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: results 08/09
« on: September 19, 2018, 09:01:57 PM »
Renegade

Many thanks for volunteering to put over your take on the events.  However this is clearly not a straightforward subject and, in a purely objective way,  I would like to explain why I still believe that West should have removed another player.  Obviously other parties did/ do too.

1. Durham RFU issued an instruction in September 2015 saying that clubs are responsible for removing a player under the 'man off' rule.  By that I take it that the rule applies to D&N leagues.  It does not to others.

2.  The same instruction is repeated by the RFU North a year later.

3.  The flow chart states that IRB Law and RFU Regulations take precedence over the FR logic tree.  The FR logic tree also does not address  the 'man off' rule at all.

4.  Regulation 13 Appendix 2 says, amongst other things,  that for Level 3 and below " After the Player Interchanges have been made no other replacements, substitutions or Player Interchanges will be permitted for any reason (including temporary or permanent injuries, sending offs and suspensions) and in the event that a Player is injured, sent off or suspended from the field the team will play with one less Player and with uncontested scrums in the event that this involves a front row Player and the game cannot continue safely with contested scrums."

Edit

5.  This document more clearly explains the implications of the 'man off' rule https://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?domain=10&clarification_era=onward&year=2018&clarification=1024&language=EN. It is from the RFU to World Rugby and admittedly it is specifically about 23 man squads but it does detail what the consequences are if a front row Player goes off and scrums are uncontested.  If Durham RFU and the North RFU do not want the man off rule to apply to 18 man squads that should be stated. 

As I say have tried to keep this objective.  I hold Renegade in the utmost regard as a referee.  This is purely intended as a continuation of discussion on a point of law. 

11
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: results 08/09
« on: September 19, 2018, 03:19:26 PM »
I would suggest that anyone/everyone contributing to this forum, especially, but not exclusively, referees, should read the Laws before pontificating, and that is not just on this occasion.  The referee in this instance, Les Cash, was bang on the money, applied correctly the Law as it is written, and should be applauded for that.

To prevent any further pontification could you tell us what Law in particular you are referring to?

Les is my preferred Durham referee for the way he let's the game flow and his player sympathetic attitude.  I have no doubt he agreed to uncontested scrums on the grounds of player safety.  Wonder if he knew that West should also have taken an extra man off?  As stated elsewhere though the responsibility for policing this was down to West.  And their match reporter who was at the game is also West's Club Secretary  so he should have known.

12
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: results 15/09
« on: September 16, 2018, 04:37:27 PM »
So Westoe applied the correct ruling v Stockton and dropped a man while West Hartlepool did not the week before v Westoe?

Well done Westoe
Given that Dave was centrally involved in the debate on this very subject, it would have been crazy not to, surely.
West, on the other hand, had no such forewarning.

Other than receiving instructions on the very subject in September 2015 and September 2016 that is?

13
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: results 15/09
« on: September 16, 2018, 02:47:15 PM »
So Westoe applied the correct ruling v Stockton and dropped a man while West Hartlepool did not the week before v Westoe?

Well done Westoe

14
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: results 08/09
« on: September 13, 2018, 10:11:55 PM »
I read it that way as well,donít agree with it as a rule though, even though I know why itís there. It seems to me that any Clubs who sustain bona fide injuries are being penalised for something beyond their control.

If a yellow card is the reason then its the man off rule, if its a bona fide injury where the team has used all of the qualified front row players then its a different matter, I believe?

All the instructions  seem to indicate that the reason for a player leaving the field is irrelevant.  The worry seems to be that clubs could fake injuries to front row players.

15
Durham & Northumberland One / Re: Prediction for 15.9.18.
« on: September 11, 2018, 02:05:42 PM »
I predict that all Clubs will have read up on the rules regarding front row replacemnts.

Very good.  Some may even have understood them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 27