The existance of a fake blood capsule does show a certain level of planning. Not part of a usual rugby kit bag

If it was a one off OK but this was a regular event it seems

Cheating perhaps - bending the rules perhaps - certainly show thorough preparation!!!

If the player is under instruction to carry out this what does he do refuse? Richards doesn't look like the kind of bloke you say no to without there being some serious consequences

Three year ban - some punishment!!!

Not following. Can you expand?

Rugby Yawnion, lies, arrogance. It's like the good old shamatuerism days.

And we haven't even started on the club that has had 5 players banned for contravention of the drug testing code.

So it's not just me then, I cant think of anything.

I always thought Rugby Union was a gentlemens game, what a joke. But can you imagine if it had been a league club doing that. Read article in the Daily Mail the other week which was compare the antic of the Union club as said they were as bad as football clubs. Least we can have a laugh

Think of Graham Holroyd's hair.

I'd expect the RFU/IRB to take a look at the substitutions policy in the light of this.

It's not the first time it has happened by some distance. The number of teams who are getting caned in the scrums that end up with specialist props limping off so the scrums go uncontested seems to be rising every season.

Perhaps a move to say 12 interchanges from the seven available substitutes rather than the current archaic system whereby a replaced player can only return to the field following an injury?

Now you have made me come in my pants.

But I still don't see the connection.

Was there something about a cut inside someone's mouth that nobody could see (when blood bins didn't count as a sub)?

They don't like to make it too obvious that they are following the lead of RL, so expect it to be changed for another season or two, and then be given some name so it's sound like it's different. 'Television Match Offical' anyone?

You mean like RL did when taking the "3rd umpire" from cricket and calling it the video referee?

I thought we nicked it from American Football?

IIRC the video review and coaches challenge system in the NFL is a fairly recent innovation.

Certainly isn't. It was definitely used back when Channel 4 used to show highlights on a sunday evening, although the 'challenge' system wasn't used back then, IIRC.

Video review was introduced in the late 80's. Then scrapped mid nineties - then re-introduced a few years later, but limited to a specific number of "coaches challenges".

As I remember it, they introduced the video ref during that period, but dropped it after a couple of seasons due to problems, including the on-field officials mis-hearing what they guy in the booth had said and incorrectly awarding a touchdown.

The challenge system, as used now, is a fairly recent introduction.

Intresting thought, do you think RL would ever introduce a 'coach's challenge' rule?

To be a little fair to the RU as a governing body for once, they have come down on this hard, so while I think Quins have clearly lied and possibly been very arrogant I think the RU have conducted themselves quite well. I also think reducing William's ban was the right thing to do once the scale of the deceit became clear.

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.