Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ncurd" data-source="post: 1023975" data-attributes="member: 72205">Do you read or did you just skim though? First off yes I did say that and that&#039;s also (unless the water carrier protocol is there) why the try is probably legal. Nothing says the ref has to wait for the defence to set to call time on, Nigel doesn&#039;t even say there is.That said would you expect to be allowed to do that in this situation absolutely it&#039;s poor refereeing not an actual illegal try. Same with the HIA try a few years back you&#039;d expect your replacement to be allowed on the pitch before play started. The ref doesn&#039;t have to allow it but that doesn&#039;t make it extremely poor decision to do so.Nigel hasnt said the first try should of be discounted he just would never of allowed time on to be called in that situation.Last week he said it was penalty by may which he explained but then never said under what law. This time he&#039;s explained what a knock on is, I can go read the knock on laws and his interpretation of why this play breached those laws. Last week nobody could find what the hell he was talking about.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ncurd, post: 1023975, member: 72205"] Do you read or did you just skim though? First off yes I did say that and that's also (unless the water carrier protocol is there) why the try is probably legal. Nothing says the ref has to wait for the defence to set to call time on, Nigel doesn't even say there is. That said would you expect to be allowed to do that in this situation absolutely it's poor refereeing not an actual illegal try. Same with the HIA try a few years back you'd expect your replacement to be allowed on the pitch before play started. The ref doesn't have to allow it but that doesn't make it extremely poor decision to do so. Nigel hasnt said the first try should of be discounted he just would never of allowed time on to be called in that situation. Last week he said it was penalty by may which he explained but then never said under what law. This time he's explained what a knock on is, I can go read the knock on laws and his interpretation of why this play breached those laws. Last week nobody could find what the hell he was talking about. [/QUOTE]

Verification