Tuesday's Rugby News - Green and Gold Rugby
Melbourne Rebels

Tuesday’s Rugby News

Tuesday’s Rugby News

Tuesday’s Rugby News looks at Super Time, the Top of the table Reds, a little bit of a tiff around the Rebels, and the Wallaby Selection panel is sticking around.

Is It Really ‘Super’ Time?

Bryce Hegarty

In the wake of the Reds v Rebels Super Time snooze-athon Rugby Australia says nothing will change. The ten minutes of extra time included some of the dourest rugby ever seen on this and possibly other planets, where the highlight was a missed 50-metre penalty shot from Bryce Hegarty.

There was no call for this particular law change. There was talk of cleaning up the ruck, speeding up the scrum, closer inspection of the offside line but, and I read a lot of rugby based articles, not once did I hear ‘we need to force a result even if there are two evenly matched side who both deserve to win’.

RA is able to change rules if it wants but would need the changes to be signed off by World Rugby, which has encouraged the governing body to keep the same law variations in place for the 12-week competition.

However, it is understood there will be no tinkering and a review will be held after the season.

 Stopping the clock while the ball is not in play and allowing only tries to break the deadlock are two ideas that were floated in the aftermath of the dour match at Brookvale Oval.

Reds top Super Rugby AU table

It’s not my fault! Once I saw the headline on Rugbypass it was in! And yes I know the Brumbies have a game in hand but, you have to take pleasure where you can. So I’m taking it here. Let’s see what they have to say?

No longer the whipping boys, Queensland Reds have emerged as early frontrunners after continuing their unbeaten start to the Super Rugby AU season.

The Reds leapfrogged the resting Brumbies with their historic 18-18 draw with the Melbourne Rebels as NSW Waratahs broke a three-match, four-month duck with a 23-14 comeback win over the Western Force.

The bottom-placed Australian finishers in 2018 and 2019, the developing Reds have turned the corner since Super Rugby’s reincarnation after the coronavirus-forced shutdown in March.

It would have been easy to put the cue in the rack when we were down by 10 points but the guys just keep going,” Thorn said.

“You can always improve your game but (the Reds have) that stuff inside you that wants to compete, just play, and it’s something the Queensland jersey demands so it’s good.”


I mean, what could go wrong?

Eddie Jones to the Canterbury Bulldogs

Happy Eddie Jones at post-match press-conference.

Okay, so firstly WTF!

So the article in the Australian doesn’t actually quote anyone but there could be some meat to this. Eddie has expressed an interest in Rugby League before and the Bulldogs could be looking for a coach in the near future. Working against this is Jones’ contract with the Eglish Rugby union which runs until 2023.

Canterbury have been formally sounded out about their interest in England rugby union coach Eddie Jones as part of a coaching structure that could involve former Bulldogs halfback Brett Kimmorley.

The Australian understands the club was told that the former Wallabies coach would potentially be interested in returning to Australia if an opportunity arose for him in the NRL. Melbourne assistant Jason Ryles, who is due to join Jones’s England coaching staff at the end of the year, could also form part of the new set-up.

The Bulldogs are mulling over a decision on the future of coach Dean Pay, who is off contract at the end of the season and yet to convince club officials that he is worthy of an extension.

Jones has remained tight-lipped after being linked with a variety of rugby league roles in recent months. However, the silence has fuelled speculation over his future amid suggestions there is genuine interest in returning to Australia to becoming involved in the NRL.

The Wallaby Selectors Are Here To Stay.

Personally, I like the idea of a couple of people not directly involved in the running of the Wallabies sitting down with the coach to pick a team. But the Wallabies former coach wasn’t a fan.

The Wallabies Director of Rugby Scott Johnson, on the other hand, is a big fan and it looks like the set up is here to stay. At least while he’s around.

Johnson, who joined Rugby Australia at the end of 2018, was one of a three-man Wallabies selection panel in 2019, along with dual international Michael O’Connor and Michael Cheika.

Since leaving as Wallabies coach, Cheika has been public about his frustrations around the appointment of Johnson that contributed to a tumultuous end to his national coaching tenure.

O’Connor and Cheika had a public to and fro last month over the selection process with O’Connor accusing Cheika of dominating the process and allowing little insight into his team’s game plan.

Incoming Wallabies coach Dave Rennie has said he would have no problem with Johnson being included in selection decisions but the specifics of that are yet to be fully discussed.

“Going forward, Dave’s coming on board here, Michael’s (O’Connor’s) not with us anymore…Going forward Dave and I will sit down and work out a selection process with the board that we’re all happy with,” he said on the Rugby Ruckus Tight Five Podcast.

“I like the fact there’s an independent in a selection room, I know it’s important a as coach because you get very very fixated, it’s hard not to and it’s not always your vision is not always perfect.”

Johnson said ultimately the job of a selector outside of the coaching staff was to bring “checks and balances” to teams.

  • Nutta

    Morning Amigo’s.

    It’s positive Nutta today…

    Law variations – after only 2wks of footy we need to hold fire a bit and see how it develops. Angry Nutta would spew fire & brimstone about try-line drop-outs, 40/20’s, general scrum avoidance and golden-point extra time being nothing more than an appearance of a Mungo Wannabe Inferiority Complex. But I’m being positive. Good job.

    Eddie coaching Mungo – good luck to him. Give it a go Eddie and lock it in. Again, Angry Nutta would spew fire & brimstone about Allan Jones, cross-code sedition and again it being nothing more than an appearance of a Mungo Wannabe Inferiority Complex. But I’m being positive. Good job.

    Reds – you’re on top. Congratulations. Enjoy it. Good job.

    Wobbly selections being based on more than 1 mans ego (whoever that man is)? What a refreshing piece of common sense. How positive is that? Good job.

    Cheers Shane.


    • KwAussie Rugby Lover

      More positive than me mate. Well in regards to the law variations anyway. I think they suck. They add nothing to the game, they encourage players to kick and hope rather than kick tactically and develop a tactical kicking skill, the line drop out is a shit rule that doesn’t actually reward either team and is a load of Mungo bullshit, the 50/20/30/40 or whatever it is again encourages hopeful kicks with no planning. I’d rather the referees just actually applied the current laws and focussed on playes being on side, through the gate and on their feet in the maul. The rest is bullshit

      • Hey Karl. what do you reckon of the no-mark awarded in the 22? Also the variation of no award for kicking directly into touch from your own 22 (lineout at place of kick)

        • KwAussie Rugby Lover

          I think they’re both shit. I get the feeling that the no mark is because Toomua hasn’t got an accurate kick and so now he doesn’t have to worry about a shit one being returned better. I also think the kicking directly into touch from the 22 rewarded good kickers who thought about it. Now they don’t get that

        • Fair enuff.
          I found them to be good. The rest is shite, I’d agree.
          I thought the reg changes initially bought about were supposed to simplify the rules for Joe Average. All its done is added more confusion and extra bullshit.
          I also would have thought kicking directly into touch didn’t take much skill…landing the ball inside the field of play, then rolling out does.
          Mark inside the 22? Award them for catching a ball, incredible skill that…
          Having seem both in action i does more for the game than against it imo.

        • Andrew Luscombe

          I think kicking into touch on the full from your own 22 still results in a line out where the ball crossed the line. The two new kicking rules are for getting the line out after kicking out if it bounces in play – one is for kicking out into the opposition 22 from your own half, the other rule is for kicking into the opposition half from your own 22. At least that’s what I’ve seen written.

          Any time there’s different rules in different parts of the field it’s a bit arbitrary, and with two events happening in different parts of the field (kick and bounce) it’s too complicated I think. There’s now at least 5 different rules about kicking the ball out depending on kick location and ball landing location.

          I’d have it that if you kick out on the full, the other team gets a line out, otherwise you get the line out. All line outs should be level with where the ball last touched the field of play or last touched a player touching the field of play.

          So kicking out on the full would never be a useful tactic. Deep in your own 22, the normal defensive tactic would be to hoof it as far down field as possible instead of kicking it out. I think that’s better for the game.

          I’m not sure what’s wrong with being able to claim a mark for any catch from a kick anywhere. Let the opposition stand right on the mark, so that the kicker has to go back a few metres to be able to clear them, and that would make taking marks not as useful in general. You’d only do it when in traffic, and there would be no time to kick properly.

        • You are correct in the laws Andrew.

          Kicking directly into touch from 22 was trialed in GRR last year , “out on full” meant lineout at place of kick, same as anywhere else on field.
          Seemed to me to work well, and ensured play continued instead of the stop/start routines we have become familiar with.(Seemingly one of the biggest whinges with non rugby observers)

          As far as marking the ball inside 22…If you catch it, good on ya, why the extra award for basic play, though that’s just my opinion.
          Im sure any member of the back3 would disagree

        • Andrew Luscombe

          Marks (or fair catches as they were often called) go back to the time before the written rules of football. Most modern codes inherited them from their formative traditions – even soccer. The NFL still has a kick from a fair catch in the rules, even though it only happens once every five or ten years. Only soccer and rugby league have gotten rid of them. So I’d retain the mark partly for historical reasons, unless they really became a blight on the game, which I don’t believe they are.

          In some situations catching the ball doesn’t lead to anything good for the catcher eg if they are separated from their team and surrounded by opposition. You can say that’s just the punishment for the team getting into that situation, but I think catching under pressure like that is worthy of a reward.

          It’s just opinion in the end – why reward a try, or kicking the ball thtough the goal? It’s just part of what the game is. I think given the tradition, it’s up to people to justify removing it, and I can’t see a case for that.

        • Andrew Luscombe

          Additionally, cricket, baseball, American football (when completing the forward pass) and Aussiie rules all have major rewards to taking a catch. In all of them, the resulting occasional spectacular catch is seen as a highlight of the sport. There’s no reason rugby marks couldn’t be a similar attractive part of the game.

        • Who?

          Not awarding the mark for a catch inside the 22 results in 2005’s version of Rugby League. Where you saw tries not scored other than by bombing away with high balls at the tryline. It encourages ‘kick and hope’. League commentators hated it then.

          Retaining the mark for someone catching a ball inside their 22 punishes aimless kicking and encourages ball retention. Where’s the negative in that?! Don’t we want teams to try and keep the ball in hand and have a go in the red zone? Especially given we don’t have time limits on possession. Maul, pick and go, do what you’ve got to do to suck in the defenders, then spread it with the knowledge you’ve got time and tackles if required. Don’t put up a speculator. That’s waving the white flag and giving up.

        • Andrew Luscombe

          I don’t mind the odd speculator for variety. But I agree when it becomes the fominant tactic, it’s fairly boring.

        • Fair point Who, though that has more to do with coaching, or players punting on hope cos they are out of ideas.
          Instead of pointless kicks to the 22,we now have pointless kicks everywhere else.
          If your accurate, which I’m sure you are, a mark should then be awarded anywhere in the field of play?
          This goes for Andrews point as well..

        • Who?

          Pointless kicks are the result of RA’s meddling with the laws. People kicking from their 22 are looking to relieve pressure – hence why they’re permitted to kick directly to touch. The risk of retaining possession in your own 22 makes it desirable to give freedom for kicking.

          People kicking in midfield are looking for territory, and ideally for a contest. Given they’re looking for advantage and not so much trying to relieve pressure, they’re not permitted to kick directly to touch. But to reduce pointless kicking, they changed the laws in the 90’s to make kicks through the dead ball zone a scrum at the place of the kick, and kicks claimed in the in-goal are 22 drop outs. People complain about these kicking duels.

          People kicking into the 22, there’s no reason to encourage teams giving away possession in that area of the field. There’s still incentive to kick here – if you catch your opponent with no fullback and you can put in a raking kick to set up a line out on their 5m line, that’s incentive enough. But do we really want to incentivise marking contests in the attacking 22 with no risk to the attacking team? That’s boring.

          I don’t believe in the mark outside the 22. Because there’s no need for that. There should be option to kick to these areas of the field. There’s more valid reasons to kick there. The argument could equally be made, “Why not allow direct kick to touch outside the 22?” Because there’s valid reasons to do that inside the 22, and those reasons are reduced outside the 22.

          Ultimately, the laws of the game around kicking have been working pretty well since before the 1999 RWC. I think the only change made since that time (and, given I generally forget about it, I’m happy to concede it’s one of the few made this century that’s an improvement) has been to ban taking the ball back into the 22 to kick directly to touch. It’s definitely more challenging for the ref than the previous law, but it was an improvement. Going with the status quo, the place of kicking in the game is, generally, pretty good. I don’t see a need for change.

          And ultimately, isn’t that the point of law changes? They should only be implemented when there’s a clear need for change. The process for law change should be:
          – What’s the problem we’re trying to fix?
          – Are we currently implementing all the laws relevant to this area?
          – What might be done to fix the problem?
          – What might be the unintended consequences of such a change?
          Then go to trials.
          Reality is, most of the problems in the game – if not all of them (and kicking is not a problem) – could be rectified by retaining the current laws but improving implementation of them. Massaging the Game Management Guidelines – generally to go back closer to the original wording/interpretation of the laws. But the idiots running the game aren’t smart enough to realize that – to understand the laws, or even to fully value them.

        • In depth reply Who, and well worded.
          I’d agree with all you say, as an ex player/coach/ref.
          I’m sure most with any background in Rugby would agree also.

          There has been a fair amount of movement of late, attempting to make the game more palatable for the average punter.
          After resisting for a long time, I am gradually accepting the game must evolve or become irrelevant.
          Streamlining Laws is a good start, trialing differing concepts of Law is needed.
          Rugby has changed over many years and will continue to do so.

          Listening to “non-rugby” heathens at times is an interesting way to judge where the sports may lie in the future without changes.
          Having thrown in my 10c with a bit of coach mentoring for League of late has been interesting with the feedback.

          Ive done my head in on many occasions arguing semantics with myself, one of the great things about our game.
          Marks uniform across the field, or not at all is still my call, not to say that doesn’t have repercussions.
          Kicking directly into touch from anywhere should not be encouraged is another, though yes, I understand why it is.

        • Who?

          I believe attempts to make the game palatable are a mistake. Rugby’s growing everywhere bar Australia, and Australia has the poorest governance system of all Tier 1 nations.

          Rugby’s changed over the years, but the laws have moved too much recently compared to the past. Further, the concept of the game seemed to change less for the majority of the 20th century than what they’re doing here. We’re suddenly turning it into a game of aimless kicking and collisions, rather than tactical kicking and contact.

          I can get through the semantics of the game. Quite easily. To me, the game is still the most ‘organic’ game we have. It feels like a game that happened, then had laws framed according to how it was played. My son did an ‘introduction to sports’ thing when he was young. The weeks they tried to teach soccer, they played Rugby. Because some 3 year old would get the ball, place it, step back to kick it, and, before taking the kick, a ruck would form over the ball. After a few moments, you’d see the ball had somehow escaped the breakdown, another kid on their feet had it, and had placed it to have a kick. But again, a ruck would form over the ball before that kick would be taken. Rugby is very organic and natural!

          League feels like Rugby that’s been meddled with for no good reason. I can’t watch it. NFL feels like a game that had very deliberate changes, and I find it far preferable to League. Because it feels far more tactical than League. Rugby arguably isn’t as tactical, but only in as much that being more dynamic and organic, you can’t plan each move to the same extent. League feels like it’s more stop start than Rugby (because of the ‘play the ball’), yet is too anaerobic to have the same level of planning as even Rugby (because you can’t be guaranteed anyone will be where you want them). Both Rugby and NFL have far more options for how to play in a given situation, given the way the rules of League increased risk for alternative forms so much that they’ve narrow the focus to be ‘5 hit ups or attempts to make 10m, then kick’. That’s boring. I don’t want a collision sport, I want to see people creating and attacking space.

      • John Tynan

        I don’t mind the try line drop out, if not to see more things like the Pone Express – there’s only one reason we got to see the big fella wind up, and it was creating space with the goal line drop out.
        I would scrap the 22-50 and 50-22 for a 22-22, which needs skill and ability to execute.
        My last tweak is that I would remove the “reset” option inside the 22 if it’s taken back and a maul develops. Once carried back, it’s carried back and your relief valve should be gone.
        Happy with taking the mark out of it.

      • Who?

        Hear hear. When was the last positive law change…….?

        • Reds Revival

          No Victorians allowed in Queensland.

        • Who?


          Though, to be a stickler… Did that require a law change, or just a change of protocols and enforcement..?
          Much like the scrum engagement sequence – which is the biggest positive change this century.

        • Yowie


      • Brumby Runner

        The issues with the 50/22 etc are compounded when the refs and touch judges (they do not perform any assistant ref duties that I can see) don’t know the rules. Two kicks in the Tahs/Force game, one apparently out on the full and the other started with a ruck in the opposition half. Neither apparently should have been awarded.

        • KwAussie Rugby Lover

          Too friggen complicated

  • KwAussie Rugby Lover

    Thanks Sully, Yeah can’t really add to that Red/Rebels game comments. Not enough interesting rugby happened for that. The bit that annoyed me the most though was the lack of application of the rules by the referee. Players entering from the side and off their feet, players off side at ruck and maul, tackled players continuing to roll and move, hands in the ruck and none of it penalised. I’d like to see them be a lot stricter and for the players to be forced to adapt.

    Live it up with the Reds mate, if they don’t sort out their attack that won’t last for long. Personally I think JOC at 10 is wrong and he needs to move out one position. They also need to stop trying to be so tough and just play rugby – looking at you Tupou.

    I like the idea of a selection panel but I think the coach still needs the final say as he’s responsible for the result. Mind you that’s only good if he’s then held accountable for those results.

    • John Miller

      Mind you that’s only good if he’s then held accountable for those results“. Spot on KRL. And therein lies the issue. The strangling curse of Michael Cheika sadly doesn’t end with the conclusion of his disasterous, elongated Wallabies tenure.

      If it wasn’t obvious at the time, it is now surely clear that Cheika’s selection panel was merely a cosmetic publicity exercise representing the thinnest veneer of governance from RA. An embarrassing Clayton’s management gesture forced upon the administration by an exasperated Wallabies support base which equalled the path of least resistance when they were required to show they were reining in the jaw-dropping autonomy of a (somehow?) despotic employee who owned the worst coaching results of the professional era, and about 60 years prior. Sure, the panel knocked the very roughest of edges off Cheika’s madcap selection circus (cough Ned, relieve oneself on a bar Nick) – it at least had to be seen to have had some material impact. But if the selection panel weren’t even allowed to know or understand Chieka’s game day strategy, how were they then expected to select the team to execute it? The answer we now know is, they didn’t. And yet, in his inevitable failure, Cheika is now conveniently using the encumberance of the quasi-selection panel to explain defeat. Fiction complete.

      Now, of course, the vacuum created by such prolonged, systemic organisational ineptitude and passive inaction will be, I fear, an equal and opposite reaction that will felt by Wallabies coaches for years to come – no more so than MC’s immediate replacement. The critical autonomy required by a head coach will now be compromised, because “remember Cheika”. The reasonable lattitude generally ascribed to moderate short term results against strong opposition in a total rebuild phase will be curtailed because “remember Cheika”. The carte blanche, Sydney-based, mainstream sporting media free ride enjoyed by our last Eastern Suburbs derived, teflon-coated, Australian head coach for way, waaaay too many years will be abridged because “remember Cheika – and how balanced and how fair-minded and how critical and how journalistic and stuff I was of his approach / selections / results – right Paul? Right Tom? He’ll get the same balanced commetary as Michael and um, Link, did.

      Dave Rennie walks into a tough job made infinitely more difficult by the catestrophic incompetance of the megalomanic clipboard-holder who preceded him, and the weakminded appeasement of the feeble administration who enabled him – and are now compelled to redress their own impotence. I hope the guy is forged like a North Island Patu when the faceless, gout-ridden Moore Park elbow patches turn, and GeeRob comes a callin’.

      • KwAussie Rugby Lover

        Mate that is legend. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a great collection of well thought out insults written so eloquently. Almost snorted my coffee on a couple of them. “Eastern Suburbs derived, teflon-coated” Brilliant

      • Brumby Runner

        Great summary of what went wrong JM. The first test for Rennie will be if he wants to appoint any of the franchise coaches to assist him, the call will be “remember what happened with Steve Larkham – a coach cannot possibly handle both the franchise and the Wallabies at the same time.”

        Incredibly, it was the defense coach from the Tahs who had the greatest weaknesses and he had the full protection of the megalomaniac.

        • John Miller

          I think McKellar has already been earmarked BR. They’ve dived straight back into the Pony pool again.

          Though, I suspect one of the few benefits of Cheika’s 2018 Scapegoat Defence is that the ploy it is unlikely to work for any other Australian head coach within the next 20 years or so (he writes nervously, worrying that he has again underestimated RA’s Stupidity Quotient, whilst inexplicably assuming the third person).

    • Who?

      I really like the way Johnson’s phrased his purpose in a selection panel. I get the impression, from what MOC said, that it’s basically what they tried to do with Cheika, but they knew there wasn’t huge value in blowing the whole situation up with him. Given he wouldn’t give the selectors his game plan. But if a coach has to explain his coaching team’s game plan to a selection panel, and they can then evaluate KPI’s for each role against players for each role, it gives everyone confidence. Because the coach shouldn’t feel attacked – the coach should feel supported.

      But, of course, we know RA’s capacity to turn gold into lead. The reverse Midas touch. So it’ll likely eventually degrade back into the situation we saw with Cheika – a highly suspicious bloke who won’t listen to outsiders, but, next time, a group of outsiders who hope to see him fail (which I suspect wasn’t true of Johnson and MOC).

      • KwAussie Rugby Lover

        I’m not sure Rennie would go down that path. I think he has enough integrity to walk if it’s not working

        • Who?

          Agreed – I think we’ve got good people in there at the moment, who’ll work with dignity, integrity, respect and in a spirit of collaboration. But eventually, when they’re gone……

  • KwAussie Rugby Lover

    Hahahahaha the more we think about it the more of a disaster it becomes

  • Brumby Runner

    First, the controversial bit. Reds have a very strong scrum, maybe the best in Aus, but a backline filled with journeymen or good players playing out of position.

    JOC is not a No 10, and is disrupting the flow of the ball to the outside backs. He needs to move out a spot or two.

    Paisami is excellent carrying the ball but doesn’t seem to have the positional play yet for a 13 in defense. Maybe wing is a better spot.

    Hegarty, Stewart, Campbell are run of the mill Super players. They won’t win many games for the Reds.

    The checks and balances approach by Johnson is the right one imo. Coach has the main say, but needs to be able to justify selections and game plans to someone in a review situation, and to be able to take suggestions or constructive criticism when warranted. Early days for Rennie, but I am hopeful he is the sort of coach with a mature outlook who can handle that.

    • Mica

      This Reds fan agrees with you.

  • Dally M

    Well Dean Pay is gone, so the Bulldogs job is wide open. Can’t see them taking a risk and hiring Jones though.

    As much as i dislike O’Neill it is kinda satisfying seeing he put Hansen in his place today about the 2003 RWC.

  • GoMelbRebels

    “…a little bit of a tiff around the Rebels” – what tiff? Where? You’re just a big tease.

  • laurence king

    Chieka trying to remain relevant and he’s still offloading responsibility for his pityfull reign. It’s like like turning on the tele and hearing about the latest royal disaster

    • Yowie

      I’m looking forward to his book.
      Working title “It would have been fine if I got to do it 100% my way, but all the people I’ve listed in this book ruined it yaknowwhatImean”

      • Damo

        And immortalised in song as well…
        Yes, there were times, I’m sure you knew
        When I bit off more than I could chew
        But through it all, when there was doubt
        I ate it up and spit it out
        I faced it all and I stood tall
        But the f*****s wouldn’t let me do it my way!!

        • Yowie

          I planned each chartered course
          Every kicking option, I struck-off
          And if O’Connor wants insight
          Into my game plan, he can f…..

        • onlinesideline

          One thing I learnt from an early age
          playing way back in my Coogee Days
          The coach loves a winner, not a BS spinner
          He’d back them all the way

          So when my Ice Man Foley mounted the tee
          and took my Tah boys to a state of glee
          I picked him no matter what the side we’d play

          Come the Scots, my boy Bernard again did he slot
          I swore to never again do my block as
          again did he save the day for me

          Fast forward 4 years surrounded by stunned peers
          I said to my boy Bernie lace up
          He said no worries
          Let me smoke this quick durrey
          I’ll get you over the line once more
          But the Welsh had big plans
          Sung their anthem so grand
          And schooled the Wallabies to boot

          I returned home to Raleene
          Who wanted to start clean
          and wash her hands of my dream
          And that aint fair – yaknowwhatimean ?

        • Damo

          Excellent. I think we should call this “Rhyme of the Ancient Galloper” , with extreme apologies to S.T. Coleridge.

  • McWarren

    I’m somewhat surprised that Johnson and O’Connor believed Cheika had a game plan to share.

Melbourne Rebels

Just another Rugby tragic. Shane "Sully" Sullivan has been in man love with the game since high school in the 70's. He inflicts his passion on family and anyone who will listen. He can't guarantee unbiased opinion but he can tell you the Reds are Awesome! To read non-rugby content head to http://www.onesully.com.au

More in Melbourne Rebels