Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
Premiership Rugby / Premiership Cup
Premiership Rugby 20/21 - Rd 21
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Yoshimitsu" data-source="post: 1041014" data-attributes="member: 71899"><p>No but threatening the ref might be. Lam said something along the lines of "If he goes back on and gets injured, it's on you" to the referee. That's pretty much a threat and needs addressing. If Lam felt that strongly about Afoa's safety than surely he'd have stood his ground, but no..... The fault in this situation is 100% with Bristol and no one else. Lam's post-hoc rationalisation (player safety) was quite clever but utter horseshit. It was only when it dawned on Bristol that they'd be playing with 13 rather than 14 that Lazarus Afoa decided he was in fact fine to return to the fray. Which was funny because resting an old fella because he's a bit tired is "tactical" and not "injury". Getting caught in your own lies makes you look foolish at best and cheats at worst. In this case I'm calling the latter............</p><p></p><p>Bristol fancied going uncontested as until the point that Afoa (rested for 40) beat Genge the Bristol scrum was getting annihilated. They had a change of heart when it became clear they'd probably lose that way too. Also lest it be forgotten Afoa is one of the greats. Having backed off the "injured" lie that outcome was always possible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Yoshimitsu, post: 1041014, member: 71899"] No but threatening the ref might be. Lam said something along the lines of "If he goes back on and gets injured, it's on you" to the referee. That's pretty much a threat and needs addressing. If Lam felt that strongly about Afoa's safety than surely he'd have stood his ground, but no..... The fault in this situation is 100% with Bristol and no one else. Lam's post-hoc rationalisation (player safety) was quite clever but utter horseshit. It was only when it dawned on Bristol that they'd be playing with 13 rather than 14 that Lazarus Afoa decided he was in fact fine to return to the fray. Which was funny because resting an old fella because he's a bit tired is "tactical" and not "injury". Getting caught in your own lies makes you look foolish at best and cheats at worst. In this case I'm calling the latter............ Bristol fancied going uncontested as until the point that Afoa (rested for 40) beat Genge the Bristol scrum was getting annihilated. They had a change of heart when it became clear they'd probably lose that way too. Also lest it be forgotten Afoa is one of the greats. Having backed off the "injured" lie that outcome was always possible. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
Premiership Rugby / Premiership Cup
Premiership Rugby 20/21 - Rd 21
Top