Viewing comments for stroudos
I think tphislslitphpsis correct on both counts, but the more important one is in his first paragraph: technically a "tackle" has not taken place, ie ball-carrier held and brought to ground. The defender ripped the ball rather than tackled the carrier. You can sort of see this around the 2:00 mark.
The "in-goal" argument I think is also valid, since for the tackle law to apply, "a tackle can only take place in the field of play" - law 15.1. Basically my understanding is once you're in the in-goal area all bets are off!
1 Day, 19 Hours ago
CAPE TOWN (AP) -- It has emerged that SANZAR Duty Judicial Officer Robert Stelzner SC was high on meth when he reviewed video footage of Reggie Goodes's clean-out on Michael Allardice.
SANZAR Chief Executive Officer Greg Peters has invited Mr Stelzner to sit in a darkened room for 24 hours and then have another go at making a credible decision based on the evidence available.
1 Day, 23 Hours ago
Brilliantly put MattyP.
2 Days, 20 Hours ago
Eddie-g:He joins from the side. It is marginal, but the rules aren't ambiguous. It is an illegal clear-out
Not even marginal in my view mate. He's about a metre or two away from a legal entry position.
And the elephant in the room here of course is that if you were still allowed to trample all over a bloke on the wrong side of the ruck, I have no doubt he would have come in "through the gate".
Not having a go at the Chiefs player, (the tackler). He's only there momentarily and the ruck itself hadn't yet formed, but the way to get a legal bind on Allardice would be to walk directly over this bloke.
Personally I'd rather see that - or tacklers getting out of the way very quickly after making tackles - than blokes having to go around the player on the deck and entering rucks from the side. Rather a few stud marks up the back than wrecked knee ligaments.
3 Days, 1 Hour ago
I'll tell you who's showing "a reckless disregard for the other player's safety" - the bloke throwing a horrible looping hospital pass around the 0:13 mark....
3 Days, 2 Hours ago
I'll take a polite ripple of applause over that rambunctious nonsense any day, thank you.
4 Days, 2 Hours ago
Devil's Advocate time
Does anyone actually know what caused the fracas?
Now, admittedly you can't excuse shoving the police officers (although as someone else mentioned, a small "leave me alone" shrug from a beast like Tuilagi could look a lot worse than it was), but I wonder what made him get angry with the taxi driver in the first place.
What I'm getting at is that I bet people like Tuilagi have to put up with all kinds of grief from random strangers and I wouldn't be surprised to discover there was provocation from the taxi driver. This is of course idle speculation and in any case you have to keep your cool, but provocation usually does count as a mitigating factor.
"Assault on a police constable in execution of his duty" has a maximum sentence of 26 weeks custody (sentencingcouncil.org.uk), so Tuilagi's was clearly considered to be at the bottom end of the scale, especially considering that he was convicted of three such charges.
Criminal damage and assault both attract a "band B" fine, ie a week's salary. Don't know how much Tuilagi is paid, but I would suggest that £6k in total, for (multiple) fines, compensation and costs, is quite a small amount, considering the range available.
Unfortunately I doubt anyone can shed any more light on this, unless they're mates with Manu Tuilagi or the taxi driver. The magistrate courts don't keep transcripts; you can only get hold of clerks' notes if you're planning your own related legal action apparently and even then you're unlikely to be able to read them because of the shit handwriting.
My contention is that there must have been some provocation involved. Tuilagi may not be the sharpest tool in the box, but he would have been aware of his responsibilities and Lancaster's expectations. I think it would have taken a lot of antagonism to make him act the way he did. I also think he was a bit unlucky that the two police officers happened to be standing by.
4 Days, 21 Hours ago
Well I haven't seen him play in ages because he seems to have been injured for most of that 2.5 year period. (As such, I feel the world cup may be too soon for him anyway).
I always felt his distribution was under-rated actually. Whether he's improved or deteriorated in that respect, who knows.
Anyway, moot point and I really think the other options England have in the backs are as exciting if not more so.
4 Days, 22 Hours ago
Completely agree with you. I'm still hoping to see Ford-Eastmond-Joseph as the starting combo. Now they can focus on gelling the appropriate style of play.
However, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror and say "yes stroudos, you really are a contrarian prick" if I didn't quickly suggest that I don't think England would have beaten New Zealand at all, let alone by such a margin, in 2012 without Tuilagi playing that day.
5 Days, 2 Hours ago
0:57 - haven't heard of this bloke before - hooker Jamie George. That is a lovely run and soft offload. Will be keeping an eye out for him in future.
Worried about Danny Care - immaterial as a try was scored, but have a look around 2:20. He has acres of space on his left and a support runner on his shoulder; chooses instead to seek contact with two players. Either this is just a very poor tactical decision or he was trying to make some kind of point against George Ford, which would both be unhealthy from an England half-backs combo point of view and expose a temperament that could backfire in important games.
5 Days, 2 Hours ago