Search results for query: *

It's not a level playing field for those already on all time lists who didn't have to opportunity to use them. I guess there have been other similar innovations in the past, but it sticks in the craw a bit.

I think so. Franz Steyn wasn't a million miles away, but retired in 2022, so missed out on any chance of a third final.

I said the same about Grenfell Tower.....still waiting!

You're not. I'm just questioning his player-of-the-tournament credentials. Other than turnovers, he was one of the better back-rowers in the tournament, but not miles ahead of the competition.

In which case, he had one game in which he was outstanding in winning turnovers and only averaged one per game in the other four matches. Still an impressive return, but it doesn't speak of outstanding performances across the tournament to put him into POTT contention IMO, particularly given...

Surely it's easier to get turnovers in a poor team that's being forced to make lots of tackles and in turn have lots of defensive rucks. It's a boring selection, but I can't look past Earl. His 24 defenders beaten is as big a statistical outlier as Reffell's 8 turnovers and I believe his 400m+...

Just had a quick Google, these are the criteria for low degree of danger: • Indirect contact • Low force • Low speed • Passive • No leading head / shoulder / forearm I guess you could say it was passive, I wouldn't say that any of the others apply. Is one criterion only enough for the low...

I certainly can't quote the relevant regulations, but if the above assertion is correct, I can only assume that World Rugby require clubs / franchises / regions to be registered to the union that they're physically based in.

Based on 5 minutes duedil, I wouldn't touch it personally. The lack of an address should be a big red flag, so should the typos. A bit more digging reveals that it's run by a Dutch company which appears to have ceased trading!

Weird to see a non-academy player selected.

Are there any studies about the impact that messing about with a camera, narrating a video and playing pretend policeman while cycling has on safety?

Years ago, I only ever came across the term in American darts. It has become all-pervasive now though. I guess it's become a tool for lazy journalists, but other than that, why do you find it annoying?

On checking, it appears that mine is sufficiently old that it hasn't had an update in more than a year, but the battery life seems to have fallen off a cliff in the past couple of months. Maybe it's just that it's too old, but I do wonder if the phone app is doing something different that is...

Many bodies, companies and individuals have a vested interest in increasing the popularity of the sport. They would all care. On a personal level, I find the relentless march to world domination that most sports' governing bodies seem to see as their remit a bit weird, but on the other hand, I...

100%. But in no way does that mean that it won't be misrepresented for likes/clicks (it already has been) and misinterpreted by people who don't do nuance.

Not really. If it ends up promoting the game, it's an unintended consequence of making a programme to attract/retain subscribers. If the Finn Russell = Messi thing keeps gaining traction, it could end up having a negative effect on casual observers' perception of the game.

I don't think that Netflix give a toss about promoting rugby, they care about making programmes that will attract / retain subscribers.

My bad, I didn't get as far as page 2 to be honest!

I was consoling myself with a pint after Jannie Be Beer kicked England out in the 1/4 finals, flicking through the sports supplement from the Sunday paper. I remember thinking to myself that the only player who would definitely be pensioned off by the next World Cup was Jeremy Guscott. Not sure...

Why? The flowchart I've seen appears to make it clear that mitigation can be implied to what would otherwise be red card decisions, reducing them to yellow, as the panel appear to have retrospectively done.