Jump to content

18-19 Oct: World Cup 9s (TV)

philipw

By philipw
in The General Rugby League Forum

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 777
  • Created
  • Last Reply
DiH68

DiH68

Posted
Posted
Just now, Abicus said:

Just announced that Lebanon played two players under age of 18. IRL elected not to disqualify the win against England.

I just listened to that. I’m pleased for them but that’s ######. They broke the rules and should be disqualified. To let them carry on as long as they don’t play those two players from now on makes a nonsense of the rules (regardless of whether or not it’s a stupid rule in the first place!)

Farmduck

Farmduck

Posted
Posted

I wondered about the Lebanese players when the commentators said some of them were still at school. You have to be 18 to play NRL but I wasn't sure if there was an IRL rule.

How would you feel about complaining that "We wuz robbed because they beat us with 17-year-olds."

Copa

Copa

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, andyscoot said:

So Lebanon field ineligible players and it's "no worries"?

Not the England deserved to win but that seems bizarre.

Lebanon fielding minors should have helped England..

Pulga

Pulga

Posted
Posted

You can play a test match at 16 and 9 months. That's the rules. Why is 9s different?

It's because the IRL is the NRL's lapdog.

new rise.jpg

Man of Kent

Man of Kent

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Copa said:

England looked like they picked big strong women and Australia picked faster athletic women..

Don’t think we’ve twigged how to do 9s yet. We’re like a 1970s one-day cricket side compared to the modern day.

Pulga

Pulga

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Farmduck said:

HT:  Jillaroos  23  Lionesses  0

Is now too early for the "English 9s disaster" thread?

new rise.jpg

Farmduck

Farmduck

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Man of Kent said:

Don’t think we’ve twigged how to do 9s yet. We’re like a 1970s one-day cricket side compared to the modern day.

I think that, just like the mens' game, we start off with a much much bigger player pool so your chances of producing A-list players are better. (Among other reasons, of course)

Copa

Copa

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Don’t think we’ve twigged how to do 9s yet. We’re like a 1970s one-day cricket side compared to the modern day.

I hope governing bodies stick with it as it’d be exciting to see how it all evolves.

DiH68

DiH68

Posted
Posted

The Aussie women are different class. Brilliant stuff. But that chase and tackle by the English girl was as good as you’ll see all tournament! 

Farmduck

Farmduck

Posted
Posted

I have to go out the front to wait for my groceries. I hope Lebanon keep winning.

Heritage XIII

Heritage XIII

Posted
Posted

Why did England pick a womens team largely of concrete laden legged players? Honestly I've seen more pace at an aged care home. Whoever picked this team for 9's needs to go back to the drawing board. 

Man of Kent

Man of Kent

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Farmduck said:

I think that, just like the mens' game, we start off with a much much bigger player pool so your chances of producing A-list players are better. (Among other reasons, of course)

My post meant the boys and girls but that’s undoubtedly true.

However, I do think we stuffed up by playing the likes of Liam Watts, who’s a very good prop but looks a fish out of water in 9s.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.