IF...theoretically,a team has broken through fromtheir own half and are seemingly about to score,when a lagging defender punches an opposition player spark out!should the play be brought back to the mark where the offence occurs if the try is prevented on the line????if so,then surely this is an incentive to do something illegal to bring back play and prevent a try

This is my point exactly. If the rule is infact what cod'ed says it is, then it needs changing as it basically means an offending team gains an advantage for blatantly breaking the rules, and an innocent team gets robbed.

It really is ridiculous and I can't believe cod'ed is trying to defend it as wanting too much from the ref.

No. I thought I made it fairly clear. I want the one that's most advantageous to the offended-against team. Obviously. If I was deserving of the bun and only got a penny, I'd be fuc[size=100k[/sizeing furious and would want to know why the c[size=100u[/sizent of a ref had seen fit to reward the team that committed the offence by imposing the least effective penalty.

Well put.

Whiting & Fitz have been our two stand out players so far this season and it is nice to see Rich get his plaudits. A lot of people on here have never given him the credit he deserves, he is just one of those players who seems to be in the right place at the right time.

As for the decision to bring play back to the incident on Tansey i felt it was ridiculous at the time and still do, if it is in the rules and i am pretty sure Codead is right then the rules need looking at. It only takes a cynical coach to start taking advantage of a rule like that for it to become a complete farce.

The dangers of posting when not entirely sober, there. I'm genuinely surprised how well written that was considering the mitigating circumstances.

Maybe you should only post when drunk. Was better than usual!!

Judging by much of your postings, I'm guessing you took your own advice a long time ago.

Also, if the ref wanted to put Newton on report he should have done so straight away. He was ready to blow up, saw that Whiting had made a break, and then started to run to catch up with play. If we had scored he would have given the try, so why bring play back for one outcome but not another? Why not just blow his whilstle straight away? Plus (and I may be mistaken) but I'm sure when Whiting turns around to see why everyone has stopped, you can hear the ref say, "no advantage," which is clearly a load of rubbish.