Highlanders V Force
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569494" data-time="1459633674">
<div>
<p>It's not their call to make, so no, the highlanders shouldn't.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not arguing what the law is, or what Nisbett thought the law was, just that he was correct that it was stupid.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Although, reviewing the law (3.5 and 3.6) I couldn't actually find anything about front row players nominated for specific position so is it a SANZAR directive maybe?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569502" data-time="1459634460"><p>I'm not arguing what the law is, or what Nisbett thought the law was, just that he was correct that it was stupid.<br><br>
Although, reviewing the law (3.5 and 3.6) I couldn't actually find anything about front row players nominated for specific position so is it a SANZAR directive maybe?</p></blockquote>
It was covered pretty in depth last year when it happened, can't remember the exact stuff but seems you have to nominate what fr position they cover. In any case he should know it very well after that and not have to have a long whinge about it during live commentary. So he's wrong... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569503" data-time="1459634742">
<div>
<p>It was covered pretty in depth last year when it happened, can't remember the exact stuff but seems you have to nominate what fr position they cover. In any case he should know it very well after that and not have to have a long whinge about it during live commentary. So he's wrong...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>So, it must be a SANZAR directive then, because the Laws only state you have to nominate front rowers, and it's the teams job to ensure they're suitably trained.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>But, again, you seem to be missing my point (deliberately at this stage?) that his whinge about how stupid it was was is fine - it was stupid that the Highlanders had a player on the field, who had played loosehead prop but they were playing golden oldies scrums.</p> -
<p><strong>Well I'm with Nisbo on this one, I know it a rule somewhere, but doesn't mean to say you can't say it's stupid, a competent loosehead prop can't play his full role because they have already used their supposed reserve loosehead prop?? </strong></p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569505" data-time="1459635024"><p>So, it must be a SANZAR directive then, because the Laws only state you have to nominate front rowers, and it's the teams job to ensure they're suitably trained.<br><br>
But, again, you seem to be missing my point (deliberately at this stage?) that his whinge about how stupid it was was is fine - it was stupid that the Highlanders had a player on the field, who had played loosehead prop but they were playing golden oldies scrums.</p></blockquote>
I'm not missing the point, I think you are. It's during live commentary. If it's in an opinion article or a discussion panel type show it'd be great. But instead he has a big fucking whinge on live telly. Show some class. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569509" data-time="1459635233">
<div>
<p>I'm not missing the point, I think you are. It's during live commentary. If it's in an opinion article or a discussion panel type show it'd be great. But instead he has a big fucking whinge on live telly. Show some class.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I'm not missing your point, I've got it every time, I also think he went on with the whinge too long, but I don't have an issue with him bringing it up - it's commentary, not a PhD defence, they can chuck in their opinions on occasion (but as I said he took it on too long).</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569512" data-time="1459635646"><p>No, I'm not missing your point, I've got it every time, I also think he went on with the whinge too long, but I don't have an issue with him bringing it up - it's commentary, not a PhD defence, they can chuck in their opinions on occasion (but as I said he took it on too long).</p></blockquote>
Oh, so we're in agreement, you're just arguing for the sake of it. Right... -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569513" data-time="1459635782">
<div>
<p>Oh, so we're in agreement, you're just arguing for the sake of it. Right...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>No, I think it's fine for him to make that comment, I just think he went on to long. It appears you don't think he should make the comment. I don't think we're in agreement at all.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If the argument is over Nisbo being a dick, then yes we are in agreement.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="569530" data-time="1459640786">
<div>
<p>He didn't just make a comment did he?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Now, who's arguing just for the sake of it - I already said he carried it on too long. :knuppel:</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="569531" data-time="1459641148"><p>Now, who's arguing just for the sake of it - I already said he carried it on too long. :knuppel:</p></blockquote>
Oh and here I was thinking you said he's right...and arguing so. Obviously my bad as you meant in a completely different scenario which didn't happen. Duh me.
