Not when we already use the current video referee system, no.

If that was done away with I can see an argument for it, but what's the penalty for doing it incorrectly? In the NFL teams are charged a timeout if the challenge is turned down. The only thing we could do as far as I can see is charge coaches a substitution.

Plus the challenge was introduced because of the length of time games take to play. They don't want every decision reviewed by the video. We seem to get every try referred in RL but because the game takes half the time to play its' not an issue.

Also, there's an distinction in the NFL compared to RL. They do not refer something to the video for a decision. The video is to see if there is irrefutable reason to change the call made by the officials on the field.

Its' actually far more supportive on on field decision making than RL's system.

In that respect, it's closer to what Union do. You hear their ref's asking the TMO "Is there any reason why I can't award this try?", or stuff like that.

I think this is well overdue and agree about prop forward injuries and uncontested scrums becoming more common, but the problem is the RU/IRB are indeed avoiding the issue because of their fears that RU starts to look more and more like RL!

I have always said that we would end up with one code again, how long that will take I have no idea, but the re-merged game would be always be 90% RL and 10% RU. That is the main problem RU faces for the future and it is the thing, for some reason, they fear the most.

I have just listened to Dick Best on 5 live who raised the issue of blood bin replacements and its abuse 8 years ago and he also raised the issue of cheating regarding the scrums.

Maybe the way of stopping this is to change the rule that if a team cannot contest the scrum they lose the ball.

In those days of six(? less than 12 anyway) changes but unlimited blood bins, Wigan had an awful lot of blood bin substitutions in that game. I'm sure we were all suspicious at the time.

I can't remember what I did last week whether I was suspicious of Wigan cheating 11 years ago.

Mind you, it being Wigan like....................................

It was common place in Australian Rugby League, and was the main reason why a blood bin was made a full substitution.

If that happened in RL you could probably rule out a large proportion of tires, from incorrect PTB. They'd soon learn though I guess

Funnilly enough I came in your pants as I typed it too.

exactly, i am sure in the days before tactical substitutions, players went off with 'a muscle pull' or 'a back problem', - the forethought of the blood capsules is the damning bit

I just thought I'd spilled brine from the Tuna tin down them.

i thought that too.they had a massive number of blood bins that night.
i read an ex players book once where he admitted the physio nicked them with a razor but i can't remember who the hell it was!!!!!

It sounds a reasonable idea, but it would potentialy lead to an attacking side (with a full front row) able to make as many mistakes, forward passes etc. as they liked and still retain the ball. I'd prefer to see the lineout used as a restart on those occaisions, at least you can contest it.

Saw a clip of the incident on SSN last night, which they said was previously un-released footage. It showed the player in question down on his haunches in backplay, with no other player in sight. He then reaches into his sock, puts his hand up to his face and suddenly there's blood coming out!

Puts a totally different slant on it in my opinion - deliberate, pre-meditated cheating by both the player and the club. I think he can consider himself fortunate to have had his ban reduced.

I agree, i thought he was in a difficult situation before seeing that footage and i think his ban should match the one richards received.

It does demonstrate how little physical contact the average Union winger endures in 75 minutes, that he can keep a blood capsule down his sock without it bursting.

This four month ban for the cheating player, how many games will he miss?

[iTelevision pictures appeared to show Williams winking at the bench as he went off.[/i

Alex Murphy (Wembley 1971) Ba5tard.

Depends, is it effective from the date of the offence, the date the initial ban was imposed or the date his appeal was heard?

If it's the middle one (which I imagine it would be) then he'll be out til around mid-November and the season starts next weekend doesn't it?

Still, it's done a good job of taking all the media attention away from all those coked-up Bath players and the recreational drug problem in the sport.

I'm sure I heard November mentioned in one of the reports, so I think you're right.

You're right in saying it deflects attention from the 5 players who were at Bath last season currently suspended due to drug testing violations.

It's not the strangest thing I've seen on a rugby pitch that didn't burst. One guy in a vets team we once played had a colostomy bag. Nobody on our team knew until after the game. If they had told us before kick off the guy would have set an all time try scoring record as nobody would have laid a finger on him.

Barrie Mac, said Karl Harrison had it done so Baz could return to the field, but he couldn't make the cut bleed, so had to stay on

thats it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ta mate, couldn't remember and it was bugging me

In wrestling, it's known as 'blading', and is failry common practice.

I disagree, we have no idea what duress Williams was put under by Richards to carry his plan out. If Williams had said no he could have easily been sidelined by Richards and effectivley taken out of the game for many months.