FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  For Beeno's eyes only.

For Beeno's eyes only.

Started by Plum78 REPLIES1,116 VIEWS· 10 Aug 2016, 15:11
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
PL
Plum
Captain21,007 posts
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
16 Aug 2016, 17:17
#41
16 Aug 2016, 17:17#41

Here is my best effort at being as strict on the Lions in the first half as possible while not looking at any Canes infringements.


Lions guilty of popping heads out of scrum on a few occasions. During this half.

 

05:22 Mapoe joins ruck from the side

10:15 Jaco Kriel weirdly involved at the ruck. Possible off-side

10:17 Mapoe Off-side

10:35 Mostert Off-side

25:26 Not clear but some Lions players might be involved in play while   retreating(not on camera but very possible)

25:48 Combrink Off-side

27:56 Lions off-side penalty given. Seems Faf thought the ball was cleared earlier than it was. Was a great position for the Canes and one could say this is game spoiling.

45:44 Mostert Off-side

45:54 Liona off side

 

Half time.

 

I tried. I really tried but apart from one occasion which seemed to be more accidental than anything else I could find no cynical play from the Lions.

 

Also, after a few more looks at some incidents from the previous post I would have to correct the following.

 

1) The early line-out drive that I said caused the knock on is very touch and go. One would have to say it was the jumper that knocked on through unforced error.

 

2) The incident where Barrett was standing in front of Jantjies and thus Faf had to pass to a loosie. This was during a bit of flowing play and though he could have made more of an effort to move, one could probably let it slide.

 

It’s very possible that I am not able to do this. It has to be said though that the Lions had the majority of the ball in this half, in terms of rucks at least and had the opposition taken the ball into more rucks it is possible that the Lions would have infringed more.

 

So as concerns the first half. Granted I am not convinced that I was completely unbiased even though I did my bloody well best to be a Canes fan for 40 minutes, the Canes did seem to infringe a hell of a lot more in various facets.


If any Kiwis could point me to more Lions transgressions that'd be great.

WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
16 Aug 2016, 23:21
#42
16 Aug 2016, 23:21#42
 You need to get an actual life old chap instead of dribbling on about nonsense only you and beandipsh!t can see .Maybe you should send all your "evidence" to SARU so they can ask the Hurricanes if they can pwease give that trophy back because you know you reckon something ,something " gee its dark in here inside my wee plum-skull wheres the light switch ?"Ask guys like Moz and Blobbok how a proper SA rugby guy mans up takes it on the chin and moves on instead of trawling through other nutjobs you-tube videos looking for "proof" to reinforce their own confirmation bias.Get over it FFS be a man about it instead of some sorta whiny child .
PL
Plum
Captain21,007 posts
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
17 Aug 2016, 09:54
#43
17 Aug 2016, 09:54#43
Wardad, do you think you have the right to tell people here what they can and can't do and then insult them when they don't follow your orders? If it bugs you don't read it. You keep talking about "real men" yet you act like a child. And you always do this. The moment somebody disagrees with you, there's reason for you to go on a campaign of character assassination. Does it make you feel better about yourself? In fact, as I look through your contrulibutions here, the majority of your posts are insulting towards Beeno and now myself. Actually, let me ask you, when was the last time you actually contributed something worthwhile? When was the last time you started a thread about anything? Much easier to fling shyte huh? No? Well look up at this thread and have a look at the stuff you have posted. Nothing but insults. Not a single comment related even lovely to the post I made. Yet you find the time to be insulting. Bit d1ckish don't you think? This thread of is obviously self-indulgent of me, but i do contribute positively with many other threads. Most of us here do. Where is your contribution? Always the way. The untalented, unoriginal and unimaginative who've built there personality out of sitting on the sidelines. I might need a life but you need certainly need a bit of character mate.
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
17 Aug 2016, 10:15
#44
17 Aug 2016, 10:15#44
 So then when all is said and done ... you made a bit of a tottie of yourself, right?
Haaaaaaahahahahahaaa!!!
Amazing how things look and taste differently when your not in a smokey haze ...


BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
17 Aug 2016, 19:21
#45
17 Aug 2016, 19:21#45
Plum ou warped DUD does his best and contributes as an unwitting comedian. Never take him seriously has to be the rule
PL
Plum
Captain21,007 posts
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
18 Aug 2016, 12:32
#46
18 Aug 2016, 12:32#46
 Beeno. Yeah man. Best solution is to ignore him until he actually has something to say aside from outdated attempts at slang laden insults.

CC Have always prided myself on being willing to change my mind at the drop of a hat when confronted with reason/logic/proof etc. Sometimes i'll discover my own mistakes and normally you'll find that i'll be the first to point them out. Guess that does mean mean making a tottie out of myself sometimes but i'm cool with that. It's easier to live with being wrong about something than with lying to cover it up.

Oh, i don't smoke so much these days. Pretty much exclusively prior to big sci-fi movies and also the occasional jam session when things start going a bit islandy haha.

I'm still waiting for some brave soul to help me out with my understanding of the off-side rules at certain ruck situations that i talk about above IE A & B. Member's failure to do so thus far lead me to believe that i'm not the only one slightly confused about this.
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
18 Aug 2016, 13:12
#47
18 Aug 2016, 13:12#47
Plum, the offside line at a ruck or maul is the hindmost foot of the hindmost player who is taking part in the ruck, not the foot of someone who is off his feet and presumably trying to roll away.

As for B, if your team has no players in the ruck or maul then it's not a ruck or a maul. A ruck or maul by definition involves at least one player from both teams. Not exactly sure what you mean by a ruck or maul made up of players from just one team. Sounds more like obstruction or truck-and-trailer.
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 Aug 2016, 16:26
#48
18 Aug 2016, 16:26#48
 The AAS just looked up the rule Plum, and seems to have it right......so let's move on to your gallery.
PL
Plum
Captain21,007 posts
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
18 Aug 2016, 16:59
#49
18 Aug 2016, 16:59#49
Thanks for the answer. So guy is involved in ruck and is on his feet, but then for whatever reason to finds himself off his feet. As long as he is not lying on the ball and is not the tackler he does not have to roll away. Is he not counted as being involved in the ruck once he goes to ground? What I mean by a ruck made entirely of one team's players is for example an instance where a ruck was formed but one team's players retract from the ruck and join the defensive line. Does it cease to be a ruck and open play rules apply? I can point you to an example of this in the video. Yeah yeah exasperating I know :)
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
18 Aug 2016, 17:00
#50
18 Aug 2016, 17:00#50
"The AAS just looked up the rule . . ."
No need to look anything up . . . and at least I know enough about the game of rugby to know that it has laws rather than "rules".
LMAO!
Typical noob mistake !
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 Aug 2016, 18:23
#51
18 Aug 2016, 18:23#51
The offside line. There are two offside lines parallel to the goal lines, one for each team. Each offside line runs through the hindmost foot of the hindmost player in the ruck. If the hindmost foot of the hindmost player is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for the defending team is the goal line.
The hindmost foot of the hindmost player. Exactly  the term you used in the rule, but not a term in casual usage......ergo you looked up the rule. You know it and I know it.

Game, set and match....sooooooo easy.
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
18 Aug 2016, 18:43
#52
18 Aug 2016, 18:43#52
Plum, the way I understand, if you're not on your feet and legally part of the ruck then your feet don't count as far as offside is concerned.
In your hypothetical case where the players from one team somehow disengage from the ruck and join the defensive line then it would no longer be a ruck and normal law s would apply.
Just how childish is this tedious old fop Moffie? Getting all red-faced and spiteful because he was shown up for being the rugby noob that he is. LMAO!
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
18 Aug 2016, 20:43
#53
18 Aug 2016, 20:43#53
Moz spiteful ....coming from RooiAAS the Queen of spite?
Nope....that's not what happened. I told Plum you had looked up the offside rule and got it right. Then you tried to insist you hadn't looked it up. 

But sadly you used exactly the terms presented,  in the same sequence as in the official offside rule. It's obvious you looked it up.......and now you are lying again. 
Funny stuff from the spluttering Lush.  
WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
18 Aug 2016, 23:17
#54
18 Aug 2016, 23:17#54
 Plum-bob of late all you have contributed is reams and reams of conspiracy nonsense ,and when you start attacking Kiwis and myself in particular then expect a little back your way .You spent days grubbing round in you-tube yet couldnt seem to find the time to look up the Laws of Rugby for yourself .Hell even I know off the top of my head that the ruck starts from behind the feet of the last man involved and on his feet .The ruck doesnt start at an arbitrary point as determined by where some conspiracy theorist thinks all NZ teams should start .L ike CC said get yer head outta that smokey haze purple or otherwise dude.
BO
bobbok...
Captain10,129 posts
BO
bobbok...Captain10,129 posts
18 Aug 2016, 23:52
#55
18 Aug 2016, 23:52#55
Ja Plum, getting your head arou nd the rugby rules whilst gerook is a definite no-no .
PL
Plum
Captain21,007 posts
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
19 Aug 2016, 01:36
#56
19 Aug 2016, 01:36#56
Ok yeah, the hindmost player who is deemed to be on his feet is what it all centre's around. One is not allowed to contest for a ball if one or both knees is touching the ground. Similarly, if one hand is touching the ground and supporting your weight, even partially, then you are not allowed to contest for the ball because you are deemed to be grounded. Obviously if you are being supported by a player who is on the ground, then one is also deemed to be off your feet, right? I propose that rucks are a cluster fk of serious note and when examined closely very few players are technically ever on their feet at ruck time. Once the opportunity to contest for the ball has passed, would it not be tactically advisable for all defending players in a ruck to drop a knee to the ground and thus allow their defensive line to move up to the line of the ball, since all the players in the ruck are now deemed grounded :) Being that extra yard or two closer to the attacking line would harass the hell out of back lines and make crossing the gain line that extra bit harder. No? If what you guys are telling me is true, rugby coaches have been missing a trick here. Or am i missing something? Yeah Wardad, you're clearly a genius mate. Why are you still here? Would you like a little attention?
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
19 Aug 2016, 08:27
#57
19 Aug 2016, 08:27#57
 Haaaaaaaaaahahahahahaaaa!!!
You crack me up, Blob.


RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Aug 2016, 09:49
#58
19 Aug 2016, 09:49#58
". . . would it not be tactically advisable for all defending players in a ruck to drop a knee to the ground and thus allow their defensive line to move up to the line of the ball . . ."

No, that would be in contravention of the law that states all players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet and would result in a penalty.
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
19 Aug 2016, 10:35
#59
19 Aug 2016, 10:35#59
 This is embarrassing ... you start a thread with every intention of arguing your point and you don't even have the basics down??!!!
WTF???
I'd suggest you don't respond any further ... perhaps over time all those who've read your desperate attempt will forget how clueless and ignorant you are.





 
DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
19 Aug 2016, 11:12
#60
19 Aug 2016, 11:12#60
Rooinek

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3720 RE: For Beeno's eyes only.
August 18, 2016, 17:00:41

No need to look anything up . . .

 

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Too easy for Moz to show what a compulsive liar you are............ just too damn easy

RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Aug 2016, 11:23
#61
19 Aug 2016, 11:23#61
Another informative and constructive post from DumbAss!

I suppose it's no big surprise that DumbAss is another rugby noob who also needed to look up the law for offsides at the ruck.

Probably one of those tiresome arseholes who can't watch a game of rugby without droning on about everything the ref is doing wrong when he doesn't even know the elementary stuff.

LMAO!
AB
ABasquefan
Pro2,549 posts
AB
ABasquefanPro2,549 posts
19 Aug 2016, 11:40
#62
19 Aug 2016, 11:40#62
 @mozart and devil's advocate,

the use of the word "hindmost" doesn't prove anything,..... I would have used the word with no need of looking up the law (probably I would have used "hindemost"),...... precisely because the only place I've seen it (and had to look the dictionary more than once to know what it means) is the breakdown rugby law,.....

but, anyway, its use alone doesn't prove anything
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Aug 2016, 11:46
#63
19 Aug 2016, 11:46#63
ABasque, I wouldn't worry what those two rugby noobs think. Most people who actually watch the game would have heard the term hindmost foot many times from commentators quoting the law.

Seeing these two clowns getting so worked up about something as trivial as which word the other poster used is quite funny . . . but also just a little bit sad.
PL
Plum
Captain21,007 posts
PL
PlumCaptain21,007 posts
19 Aug 2016, 12:15
#64
19 Aug 2016, 12:15#64
"No, that would be in contravention of the law that states all players in a ruck must endeavour to stay on their feet and would result in a penalty." Ok. That makes sense. I had ways thought that this rule was to prevent players falling over the ball or onto other players. In practice I often see players at rucks "intentionally" going off their feet, though not slowing the ball down and hence not being penalised. But yeah, it makes sense. CC I don't mind. Still, in the original post there are a lot of very clear off-side infringements which have nothing to do with the specific instances we are talking about here. Where players are clearly I front of the "hindmost" player and defending from there. Me querying this, doesn't be default suddenly make all those players on side. If you like we can discuss them one at a time. How much time do you have, because as Wardad says, i am on unemployment benefit and have nothing better to do :) Also CC, I'm doing my best not to be offended by you but really I'm asking questions to understand something very specific. Don't you think it's a bit uncalled for to claim that somebody is embarrassing themselve's when they are actually trying to improve their understanding of something? Actually, fk this board, I have better things to do.
RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Aug 2016, 12:21
#65
19 Aug 2016, 12:21#65
"Actually, fk this board, I have better things to do."

So, Plum, basically you're allowing a complete and utter arsehole like Klown to drive you off the board? Is that right?

Thought you'd be made of sterner stuff than that.
DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
19 Aug 2016, 12:49
#66
19 Aug 2016, 12:49#66
Rooinek

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3726 RE: For Beeno's eyes only.
August 19, 2016, 11:46:54

Most people who actually watch the game would have heard the term hindmost foot many times from commentators quoting the law.

 

Really


I can't imagine how many games I have watched and I have never ever heard this rule explained, especially with this wording.


I would like to hear if any other posters here have.


How about some examples then Rooi Rooi , since you say most people would have heard this term "many times"


RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
19 Aug 2016, 13:01
#67
19 Aug 2016, 13:01#67
"How about some examples then Rooi Rooi . . ."

DumbAss, when I give even the tiniest toss what a sad and obsessive loser like you wants or thinks then I'll be more than happy to fulfill your request.

Ummmmm . . . just in case you get the wrong impression, I wouldn't be holding my breath at this point if I were you. I don't see this happening any time soon. Right now your pathetic little squeaks for my attention are not among my top priorities in life. I can't think of a really nice way to say this but I've stood in dogsh!t that was more important to me than you.

Does that clear things up a bit for you, DumbAss? Yes?
DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
19 Aug 2016, 13:06
#68
19 Aug 2016, 13:06#68
ABasquefan

Status: Bok regular
Posts: 1959 RE: For Beeno's eyes only.
August 19, 2016, 11:40:52

but, anyway, its use alone doesn't prove anything

 

So, I take it that you have heard this term during games then?



DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
19 Aug 2016, 13:09
#69
19 Aug 2016, 13:09#69
Rooinek

Status: Senior player
Posts: 3727 RE: For Beeno's eyes only.
August 19, 2016, 13:01:14

Right now your pathetic little squeaks for my attention are not among my top priorities in life.


It's easy Rooi


Put the bottle down, and re-look at your priorities


As for your attempt to squirm out of this....... ROTFLMFAO


The usual lie and pie in the sky for ole Rooi Rooi

 

MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
19 Aug 2016, 14:47
#70
19 Aug 2016, 14:47#70
 'The hindmost foot of the hindmost player' ........well of course that's exactly what anybody would say in exactly that sequence.
RooiAAS the Ryan Lochte  of posters.....did somebody have a gun to your head......bwaaaaaaaahahahaha.
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
19 Aug 2016, 19:21
#71
19 Aug 2016, 19:21#71
 "Hindmost foot" is the term used almost all commentators and although I'm afrikaans, it was the phrase that sprang to mind when the rule came up.
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
19 Aug 2016, 19:29
#72
19 Aug 2016, 19:29#72
Plum, you are cool, but don't let CC make a jammergat out of you. Chill and roll with the punches!
WA
Wardad
Pro6,663 posts
WA
WardadPro6,663 posts
20 Aug 2016, 03:45
#73
20 Aug 2016, 03:45#73
 Plum I must say that purple haze is a definite improvement on that other strange looking critter you used .You need either more or less ganja I'm not quite sure which in your case but a sufficiency is needed .Stop with the ref whining and try some banter ,as Mr Draad says roll with the punches dude .Else ya'll end up punchy like beandik.And stamping your little feets and flouncing off in a huff is not a good look .I hope snuffling through my posts helps elucidate you as to what-ever-the-fark it is you hope to accomplish .Myself I can barely read the first 2 lines of your massive missives before ennui ensues and I find myself in dire need of stimulants .The thought of looking through your posts or anyone elses for some nugget of info to use would run counter to my couldnt give a sh!t attitude .Cheers !
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
20 Aug 2016, 11:20
#74
20 Aug 2016, 11:20#74
 Oh come now Plum ... a few back hands isn't a valid reason to desert us.
You've had worse surely.
Besides ... I was being gentle ... not harsh at all.
Now dry your tears ... blow you nose ... and come entertain us with a little more of your conjured nonsense.
You know you wanna ......... 
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
20 Aug 2016, 14:14
#75
20 Aug 2016, 14:14#75
 It's "last foot" ... not "hindmost" foot ...

DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
22 Aug 2016, 09:11
#76
22 Aug 2016, 09:11#76

RooiAAS the Ryan Lochte  of posters.....


How very true this is...


And it has been described like this in "Many Games" by commentators


LMAO.... yeah ok


I must say, proving this Rooi Rooi plonker as dishonest is just incredibly easy, and he himself makes it so easy because he can't keep track of all  his lies

RO
Rooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RO
RooinekCaptain18,117 posts
22 Aug 2016, 10:25
#77
22 Aug 2016, 10:25#77
Is it just me or can anyone else hear a very high-pitched whining noise . . . almost like a very angry little doggie yapping for someone's attention?
DA
Devil's Advocate
Pro7,008 posts
DA
Devil's AdvocatePro7,008 posts
22 Aug 2016, 12:01
#78
22 Aug 2016, 12:01#78

Is it just me, or has this moron Rooi Rooi been made to squirm away again with egg all over his face after resorting to posting more lies again.


And with all these "Many Games" he claims, that support his ludicrous theory and lie that everyone should recollect as far as he is concerned.


LMFAO !!


It's Monday Rooi Rooi....... please take it easy on the alcohol this week, we can see the "benefits" of your binge drinking by all the lies you post on here and forget about in your drunken state.


Take it easy laddie, we are seriously  worried about you 




BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
22 Aug 2016, 14:40
#79
22 Aug 2016, 14:40#79
  "Still, in the original post there are a lot of very clear off-side infringements which have nothing to do with the specific instances we are talking about here. Where players are clearly I front of the "hindmost" player and defending from there".   All exactly as Beeno said!!!!
Great bit of investigative journalism Plum. Pay no attention to the foul mouthed wee CC who is struggling to conduct himself in good company.  You are well liked here so don't be put off by a lunatic or two. Its all grist to the mill.

— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news