Potential citings for Quarterfinals

[InsaneAsylum]

Except that is demonstrably untrue. It was foul play and under their own protocols was referrable.

I agree with you, it was foul play. A shoulder charge by Strauss on Phipps. Would you rather a Penalty against Scotland closer to goal AND a yellow card to Strauss?

 

[YoungScud]

I agree with you, it was foul play. A shoulder charge by Strauss on Phipps. Would you rather a Penalty against Scotland closer to goal AND a yellow card to Strauss?

That one had the tears streaming down my cheeks. Strauss had his back to Phipps. Anyhoo, nice try at avoiding the actual subject of debate.

- - - Updated - - -

No it wasn't YoungScud you've been told this 50 million times by other posters, an ex-ref and world rugby. Please accept it wasn't (like SRU have) and stopping beating a dead horse about it.

- - - Updated - - -

Seriously carry it on and Scots will get the same reputation as the Welsh posters harping on about Warbuton red card.

To be clear, I use the word 'demonstrably' in its proper sense, as in 'can be demonstrated', something I'm able to do and already have done. However, I will, for the benefit of those unable to conquer hubris, demonstrate my point once more. This time, though, I'd be grateful for an actual explanation, as opposed to simply stating that I'm wrong. Here goes; from World Rugby's Law book, Law 10:

Foul play is anything a player does within the playing enclosure that is against the letter and spirit of the Laws of the Game. It includes obstruction, unfair play, repeated infringements, dangerous play and misconduct which is prejudicial to the Game.

Now, instead of arguing on the basis that another law was used, kindly inform me as to which part of playing a ball deliberately in an offside position is something a player does which is neither against the letter nor the spirit of the Laws of the Game. Do that, and I'm satisfied. Don't do it, and you have no argument. My argument is simply that anything which contravenes the letter and spirit of the Laws is by WR's definition, not mine, foul play. Everything else is not application of the Laws, but interpretation, and at that, interpretation which would be laughed out of any court in the land.