You can't say that! Glasto, and all things connected to it is a national institution and as such is beyond reproach.



It's a bit like saying Andy Murray isn't very good at tennis or the Queen is looking her age or even that one of those championship sides is ever going to lower the colours of the mighty Bulls..

The Ooo were good I thought. Better than Kanye though that wouldn't take much.

Thy might have fooled themselves but they won't get fooled again.

This is so weird. I was talking to my daughter about the JVT last night at the game. She said why don't the players just fall on the ground when they have the ball and then they wouldn't get hurt being tackled.

Thus began my long explanation about being robbed by JVT.



I'm not sure she was overly interested now I think about it.



But glad it's back.

You did delete it, and it was the moment the club's fortunes turned. You are to blame for everything and this shoddy facsimile is no substitute for fit half backs. I know what you're about and it won't work.



That's all I have to say on the matter.

I think wide to West caused more damage to the Bulls fortunes

now THAT one was cheating. Apart from it never being a penalty in the first place, Saints took the pen and were allowed to play on despite at least two players being several yards blatantly offside. A refs memo alleging the refs would be clamping down on offside at restarts having funnily enough just been publicized that very day. Oh yes. Cheated.

The wide to bstrd west moment occasionally is shown with little warning in some sort of montage of doom. Despite my best efforts it unleashes some sort of primal anger in me whereby I rush furiously for the remote control. If I can't find it I hide in the kitchen or kick the telly.

You have a very perceptive daughter. ....and, of course they do "just fall to the ground", and invariably quite without sanction.

This usually occurs when players are near the boundary lines and perceive they may be in danger of being pushed out of the paddock or into the in-goal area and therefore having to concede possession. Catch the ball and hit the ground is the accepted tactic in such circumstances. Joynt though, he did it blatantly, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PITCH. That broke the unwritten rule about where it is ok to break the rules. Sine die wouldn't have been long enough.

Good lad!

Meh. You are just another one that doesn't understand the rule. In fact, I sometimes wonder whether I'm the only one who does understand the damn thing. Which is odd, as it's not difficult.



Read the rule again, but this time morecarefully







Now analyse it. The question is, can I legally DELIBERATELY ALLOW MYSELF TO BE TACKLED BY VOLUNTARILY FALLING ON THE GROUND? Yes or no?



The answer is, of course "YES"! But that simple fact is what seems to escape 99% of observers! Why? because they aren't used to carefully reading, I suppose.



The only time my deliberate voluntary falling down IS illegal is if, AS WELL AS doing it "deliberately", I also do it "UNNECESSARILY".



That is, BOTH elements are needed to break the rule. If I fall unnecessarily, that's OK, if i didn't do it deliberately. And if i do it deliberately then that's OK oo, - as long as it was not done unnecessarily.



What you need to therefore know is, what constitutes "unnecessarily"? I would think it perfectly reasonable to argue "it was necessary for me to do that, because otherwise I could have ended up in goal and conceded a drop-out."



But, the rule doesn't define what MIGHT BE "NECESSARILY" AND WHAT MIGHT NOT, AND SO IT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REFS. If they deem that the deliberate drop was done "necessarily" then it is play on.



If trying to prevent a dropout isn't, for a pro player, necessary, then I don't know what else the word in the rule could have in mind.

very perceptive FA. clearly it was deliberate, so deliberate that Deacon saw it coming and moved out of the way. And in doing so ensured that Joynt unnecessarily fell to the ground. so on the face of it both conditions met. and so clearly, against all the values that made England great, nautural justice, sportsmanship, never cheating or taking drugs, not betting on your team, etc etc it was not a voluntary tackle.



However it was not a voluntary tackle for different excuses (I simply cannot use the word reason in this context). The letter I got back from the RFL as a response to my "we was robbed" letter to them querying the decision actually made no reference at all to deliberate and unnecessary. What it referred to was some arrangement that the RFL and referees and clubs had come to at the start of the season regarding tackles. They had come up with two options, one chosen by Saints and epitomised by them the whole of that season and the Joynt voluntary tackle. IIRC you could either throw yourself at your tackler and down in which case because it was a fast PtB the other side were not as tightly refereed for infringements eg not square etc or choice no 2 you stayed upright and the opposition had to put you down but they were mercilessly refereed for infringements in the tackle and at the rather slow PtB. Each club had to elect for one or the other. Saints elected to throw themselves to the ground. So Joynt was perfectly entitled to throw himself at Deacon. But Deacon was not entitled to deliberately move away from the tackle, ie a voluntary non-tackle.



I know that this sounds as if I have made it up. Well, actually the RFL have made it up. I wish I had kept the letter so I could have posted it up, but I kid you not, the RFL - in fact Stuart Cummins - explained it that way. I was so disgusted I burnt the letter. In essence, because it was a non-tackle, it was therefore not a voluntary tackle. And I can point to a bit of circumstantial evidence, that Saints that season threw themselves at the tackler on numerous occasions, and it used to annoy the hell out of me. To be told that the RFL had told them they could do that was like putting a match to Stanlow Refinery.



And for those of you about to post a response, yes I did write back pointing out that nowhere in the rules does it say that a player has to make a tackle, so they were talking complete dribble, but I did not get a reply. perhaps they were fed up with being told they were idiots.