# Rugby World Cup



## Blue (17 Sep 2011)

Will Ireland win the Rugby WC?


----------



## aberal (17 Sep 2011)

It's as likely as Scotland winning the Rugby WC.


----------



## Blue (17 Sep 2011)

Have you seen this mornings result? If the team continue to play like that it will be very interesting.


----------



## Beebo (17 Sep 2011)

if they top the group they will probably play Wales in the QF, and that will be any ones game, so you would say they have a chance to make the SF, and after that anything could happen. But I doubt they make it past the SF.


----------



## User169 (17 Sep 2011)

Southern hemisphere side in not at all as good as it thought it was shocker.


----------



## david k (17 Sep 2011)

i presume you mean Rugby Union World cup

better to be clear so it is not confused with the rugby league world cup


----------



## Cubist (17 Sep 2011)

No.

But they were 'kin awesome this morning.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Sep 2011)

Not a hope in hell. But their performance today is already the stuff of legend.


----------



## Keith Oates (17 Sep 2011)

They put on good peformance today so it now remains to see how far they go but there are a couple of other teams doing quite well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## lukesdad (18 Sep 2011)

Wales ground out a result. England looking shaky. That penalty count is awful.


----------



## lukesdad (18 Sep 2011)

Looks to be going towards a southern V northern hemisphere final. Wouldnt of predicted that before the tournament. Cmon Wales !


----------



## Dayvo (18 Sep 2011)

Despite Martin Johnson's bullshit bluff, England haven't got a chance.  

Why? They don't play with passion, pride, discipline and imagination, and that's just for starters. 

If they could play like the Irish do, with the talent England potentially have, they could win (as they did in 2003), but they're just a bunch of overrated ego-trippers. 

Just my opinion, mind!


----------



## Noodley (18 Sep 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Despite Martin Johnson's bullshit bluff, England haven't got a chance.
> 
> Why? They don't play with passion, pride, discipline and imagination, and that's just for starters.
> 
> ...



mine too.


----------



## Dayvo (18 Sep 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Despite Martin Johnson's bullshit bluff, England haven't got a chance.






Noodley said:


> mine too.




Mind you, Scotland will come under the All White's hammer!


----------



## mcshroom (18 Sep 2011)

They were useless in the group stages at the last world cup and made the final, so we can't tell anything yet. 

I would like them to keep their hands to themselves in the ruck though as the penalty counts are getting ridiculous!


----------



## Blue (18 Sep 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Looks to be going towards a southern V northern hemisphere final. Wouldnt of predicted that before the tournament. Cmon Wales !




One of my brothers lives in a Welsh valley so if Ireland -v- Wales happens and you hear a lone voice screaming with delight whilst Wales get a lesson in how to play the game you will know where one of my family live, lol.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (18 Sep 2011)

mcshroom said:


> They were useless in the group stages at the last world cup and made the final, so we can't tell anything yet.
> 
> I would like them to keep their hands to themselves in the ruck though as the penalty counts are getting ridiculous!




cynical professional cheats wearing red roses really get my goat. they have the talent, they don't need to do it, and against a side with a place kicker we (will) pay the price, and the trouble is it is so ingrained in the 'usual suspects' that they can't help themselves.

i hope today's brace of tries don't erase the question marks over Mr Hape's presence in a test team but way to go Simon Shaw. England captain at 38!


----------



## yello (18 Sep 2011)

England will not be a contender unless they learn to infringe without the ref seeing it. They ought watch Richie McCaw to see how it's done! 

A good performance by Ireland, for sure, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As a one-off result, it's a morale lifting performance for the Irish and will stay in the record books as a win but in context of the tournament it only really sees them out of the pool stages - which would probably had happened anyway even if they'd lost to the Aussies. The games that matter are yet to come.

Personally speaking, I've been really impressed so far with the performance of the so-called minnows of the game. They've played with real passion and no shortage of talent only to be found out in the final 20 minutes of the game. Canada impressed me again this morning against France. 

That said, I don't think any of the favourites have really clicked yet. Perhaps keeping the powder dry, fielding weakened line-ups and/or resting key players... who knows?... as I say, important matches yet to come. 

Looking forward to France v All Blacks next Saturday though! France are the ABs bogey side, it's the 'choker' for the ABs, and your average AB fan is concerned about that game!


----------



## lukesdad (18 Sep 2011)

Ah the french I wonder which team will turn up for the AB game


----------



## Chromatic (19 Sep 2011)

GregCollins said:


> cynical professional cheats wearing red roses really get my goat. they have the talent, they don't need to do it, and against a side with a place kicker we (will) pay the price, and the trouble is it is so ingrained in the 'usual suspects' that they can't help themselves.
> 
> *i hope today's brace of tries don't erase the question marks over Mr Hape's presence in a test team* but way to go Simon Shaw. England captain at 38!



+1, but unfortunately I suspect it will only do the opposite, a lot of raving over his performance, which will then be followed by him putting in numerous useless performances the like of which he has put in in every other game he has played.

Also applies to Banahan, who is a one trick pony (carthorse, more accurately) and, remembering the Wales warm up game, if he cannot perform that trick against an opponent the size of Shane Williams then there is no point to him being there.


----------



## yello (25 Sep 2011)

France didn't turn up. Well, the expected team didn't anyway. A "weakened team"? Perhaps, but no player wants to loose. That said, finishing 2nd in the group does mean a slighter easier route to the final. Hmmmm....

I kind of suspected Argentina would scrap a win against Scotland. They would have picked that match as the one to win and been fired up for it. A great result (unless you're a Scot!). Scotland to beat England? It could happen, but you wouldn't bet on it would you? I think Scotland are packing their bags.

All Blacks on fire though eh? That was pretty much a full strength team, no chances being taken and ghosts to lay to rest. I think we may have seen the best team in the tournament... but then the ABs do choke on the big day, so who knows if they are to be the winners.

There's some cracking matches to come methinks.


----------



## Dayvo (25 Sep 2011)

yello said:


> I kind of suspected Argentina would scrap a win against Scotland. They would have picked that match as the one to win and been fired up for it. A great result (*unless you're a Scot*!). Scotland to beat England? It could happen, but you wouldn't bet on it would you? *I think Scotland are packing their bags*.




 Must have been something in the beef! 

Mind you, Scotland have beaten England on several occasions when being the 'underdog'. 

May the best team win.


----------



## Keith Oates (25 Sep 2011)

Agree with that Dayvo, it's not all over yet and next week England will have to be in top form to overcome Scotland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yello (25 Sep 2011)

Keith Oates said:


> England will have to be in top form to overcome Scotland



Have you watched Scotland of late Keith? Very patchy imho. They beat Ireland earlier in the year but they've been a shadow of their former selves, imho. It's why I had a feeling that Argentina would rumble them.

Scotland will be psych'ed up to beat the auld enemy and they'll have everything to play for. True, England are not being overly consistent of late (can be awful in truth) and lack discipline... plus - unlike Scotland - don't have to win (in fact, can loose and still finish top of the pool!) BUT, even after saying all of that, I reckon England could still win it at a canter! Scotland really are pretty poor at the moment..


----------



## lukesdad (25 Sep 2011)

Blue said:


> One of my brothers lives in a Welsh valley so if Ireland -v- Wales happens and you hear a lone voice screaming with delight whilst Wales get a lesson in how to play the game you will know where one of my family live, lol.




I think the welsh game has improved a lot this year. The set piece midfield and defence is more robust. The real change though has been the difference in discipline. Finally we are starting to play the game like the rest of the world.


----------



## yello (26 Sep 2011)

I've always been an admirer of the Welsh game. Certainly for me they play the best game of the home nation's teams.

People here will know that the Southern Hemisphere teams play a different game; it's faster, they keep the ball alive and there's more emphasis on attack. So you tend to see higher scoring matches. That wasn't the case maybe 20 years ago, games were more of a slog. I sort of track it back to the way the Aussies changed the way League was played in the 80s. Union in the southern hemisphere seemed to pick up on those changes. 

However, up here in 6 nations land, we've kind of stayed behind the times. England seem resolutley stuck to trying to slow the game down (at least in the forwards) and control it. It's old school, dull to watch (except for the purist) and does my head in! The Irish have made good attempts to adapt, and I think their game is a good example of maximising your strengths.

To come back to the Welsh game (and bring my witterings to a close!), I think they are perhaps the team closest to being able to play in the southern hemisphere style - that's why I rate them as I do. (Btw, the French have always been a law unto themselves!)

A final btw. I'm not talking about results here; we've seen old school beat the new boy, for sure. I'm talking about how I like to see the game played. Fast, attacking rugby rather than a slog fest!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Sep 2011)

running rugby played between two fairly well matched teams is what we want. not ridiculously one sided try fests a la the romania game. i call it that because it was literally no match.

my heart says england will improve with each game and go all the way, my blood says ireland will be the dark horse of the tournament and my head says an all SH final, with the (penalty) kickers deciding the outcome.


----------



## Radman (26 Sep 2011)

Dont start watching the rugby untill the quarters,who wants to see one sided games, only the odd game has been close so far .


----------



## david k (26 Sep 2011)

who cares, watch rugby league instead


----------



## yello (27 Sep 2011)

*bites tongue*

I like rugby league too. If there was a thread about it then perhaps I'd contribute to that.


----------



## Keith Oates (27 Sep 2011)

Nice one yello and not too subtle either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Sep 2011)

pool games of the rugby union world cup are what sky+ was invented for. One sided? Just hit delete when you get home, something more of a match, like japan v canada, fast forward through all the ping-pong and just watch the worthwhile bits...

...works for me anyway.


----------



## DJ (27 Sep 2011)

Blue said:


> Will Ireland win the Rugby WC?



I would love to see Ireland win the RWC, although my heart is with Scotland , they have got no chance. 

The next games to watch have to be England v Scotland and if Wales meet Ireland in the quarter's that could be a corker.


----------



## yello (1 Oct 2011)

My lord England frustrate me. They seemed obsessed with playing up the middle. The have super quick wingers and seem hell bent on not using them. What happens when Wilkinson goes off and Flood passes wide? Ashton's in, that's what!

Johnson is old school and petrified of changing the way England play. No doubt he thinks they're playing to their strengths but that, for me, just demonstrates his lack of imagination and his unsuitability for the role.

Top marks to Scotland. I really felt for them when Ashton went over. They played with passion and a desire to win. A win's a win, I know, and England were putting the pressure on in the 2nd half but I just feel they could make life so much easier for themselves if they had just a little more creativity. They have the players.

Given France's pathetic performance this morning, I'm wondering if the England v France quarter final is something of a battle of under achievers. Both managers will say 'at least we are there' but neither have been convincing. Certainly other teams will want to be in that half of the draw!


----------



## Noodley (1 Oct 2011)

Bugger and bollocks.


----------



## yello (1 Oct 2011)

...but a damned spirited performance with no shortage of talent and endeavour. Reasons to be proud.


----------



## yello (1 Oct 2011)

That's an interesting take Adrian, I hadn't consider it. That is, that Wilkinson was calling the shots rather than following team orders. I was laying the blame squarely on the management. In truth, I don't know what happens or whether it's a mixture of both.

I'd like to see some of the England old boys retired (Wilkinson included) but I don't know the strength in depth of English rugby. Maybe these old codgers are still the best going whereas I (in keeping with my earlier statements) believe it to be Johnson hanging on to the past.


----------



## Keith Oates (1 Oct 2011)

The Scots had England on the back foot from the kick off and most of the first half, which is good for them. In the second half England were better and so the points came but slowly. Both teams played hard but of course I'm glad England won!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MacB (1 Oct 2011)

Watched that with my middle boy this morning, first game I've watched in years, my viewing tailing off to zero after I stopped playing. Was exciting for a bit but Scotland only ever looked like a side that might scrape through just to be immediately knocked out. At least England can, on paper improve, agree(I think) with Adrian, never thought of Wilkinson as a 'flair' player.

But really struck by how different it all looked, yes it has been that many years since I really followed it, lineouts, scrums and rucks/mauls(if you can still call them that) in particular. It almost felt like I was watching a different game, I don't know if it is different good or different bad as I'm not sure that was the sort of performance to judge on.


----------



## Leilei (1 Oct 2011)

I thought that the game was exciting although the level of the rugby was not so good.


----------



## yello (2 Oct 2011)

Was kind of hoping that Italy might upset Ireland... long shot, I know, but there you go. Stranger things have happened.


----------



## rich p (2 Oct 2011)

I heard James Haskell saying in an interview that it's all about results. It's that attitude that permeates the English and Johnson's mentality and is the main reason that I can't be bothered to watch their dreary play anymore.


----------



## yello (2 Oct 2011)

rich p said:


> I heard James Haskell saying in an interview that it's all about results.



Sadly, there's a context in which this is both true and an understandable attitude to have - depressing as it is. I'm sure you see it and realise it too.

Moreover, perhaps we as armchair supporters are being a little ingenuous in decrying it. Perhaps. Most people read results on the web, in the paper, even on teletext. There's little indication of how the result was achieved but a sense of relief/victory if it goes the way we want nonetheless. 

Of course, one can get the results in style. There's no arguable context that prevents that!


----------



## lukesdad (2 Oct 2011)

In full flow this morning is there anything Gethin Jenkins can t do jeez its good to have him back !


----------



## rich p (3 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> Sadly, there's a context in which this is both true and an understandable attitude to have - depressing as it is. I'm sure you see it and realise it too.
> 
> Moreover, perhaps we as armchair supporters are being a little ingenuous in decrying it. Perhaps. Most people read results on the web, in the paper, even on teletext. There's little indication of how the result was achieved but a sense of relief/victory if it goes the way we want nonetheless.
> 
> Of course, one can get the results in style. There's no arguable context that prevents that!




I take your point Yello but it really only applies to followers of the game. Those, like me, who take only a passing interest get turned off (as does the TV) by the interminably boring style. No converts, and losing the likes of me, can't be good for the game's development or good for the advertising revenues either.

I could include football in the argument without much difficulty!


----------



## cisamcgu (3 Oct 2011)

I find Rugby incredibly frustrating to watch - the referee blows for a penalty and I have no idea why, but that is OK, I'm anything but an expert, but the commentators seem to have no idea why as well, they almost never explain what happened and even, on the rare occasion they ask the "expert" in the commentary box, that person seems to have no idea either, just waffles on about "need more structure, must stop infringing at the ruck" and other vague statements.

In the end it just becomes 80 minutes of mystery

Oh well, at least Tonga beat France


----------



## yello (3 Oct 2011)

If you watch the players you'll see they sometimes don't have much of a clue either!

There are some very technical rules (particularly in line outs, rucks and mauls etc) that can be matters of interpretation rather than just clear cut infringements. If you listen, you'll hear the ref telling/warning the players about what he sees - so he lets the player know if he's in danger of being penalised. Pretty cool really and designed to help the game to flow. You'll regularly hear the ref shout "roll away" blue/8 or whatever. Whether the player CAN roll away is another matter!

I like this aspect of rugby personally. I like that the players respect the ref and don't back chat (most of the time anyway!) - and given the interpretation aspect of the ref's role, there's a HUGE potential for dispute. You'll see players look baffled, or shaking their heads in disbelief, but you'll very rarely see or hear the reactions that are common place in football say.


----------



## MacB (3 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> I like this aspect of rugby personally. I like that the players respect the ref and don't back chat (most of the time anyway!) - and given the interpretation aspect of the ref's role, there's a HUGE potential for dispute. You'll see players look baffled, or shaking their heads in disbelief, but you'll very rarely see or hear the reactions that are common place in football say.




Driven by fear, you learn early to shut your gob when having a dig at the ref costs your team 10 yards, or more if you're really stupid. When you've got your team mates looking at you with murderous intent it's rather uncomfortable.


----------



## rich p (3 Oct 2011)

MacB said:


> Driven by fear, you learn early to shut your gob when having a dig at the ref costs your team 10 yards, or more if you're really stupid. When you've got your team mates* looking at you with murderous intent* it's rather uncomfortable.




To be fair, Al, that was in the changing room before the game .


----------



## BrumJim (3 Oct 2011)

There's back chat, and there's back chat. Some captains are constantly badgering the ref in the manner of a particulary obnoxious school creep. Sir, he was offside, sir, they're killing the ball, sir, he looked at me funny like. Sometimes it seems to be a more controlled form of football barracking.

Infringements are easy to spot. Just watch the ref's hands. OK, maybe not that easy.


----------



## yello (3 Oct 2011)

BrumJim said:


> Some captains are constantly badgering the ref



O'Driscoll seems to be of that ilk to me.


----------



## Chromatic (3 Oct 2011)

Dallaglio was another one who thought he was reffing the game and the bloke with the whistle was only there to enforce his (Dallaglio's) decisions.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Oct 2011)

BrumJim said:


> There's back chat, and there's back chat. Some captains are constantly badgering the ref in the manner of a particulary obnoxious school creep. Sir, he was offside, sir, they're killing the ball, sir, he looked at me funny like. Sometimes it seems to be a more controlled form of football barracking.
> 
> Infringements are easy to spot. Just watch the ref's hands. OK, maybe not that easy.



TV rugby is played to showbiz rules. It's entertainment not pure sport at that level. Refs and players addressing each other by their first names..... Watch how Nigel Owen handles mouth, he's brilliant at dealing with it e.g. "Paul (O'Connell) don't you be running 30 metres to tell me how to do my job or I'll move you all back 10. Now go away."

In the community game, at my level, if the skip (or more typically the nine) behaves like that on my park he'll get asked to shut up, be told to shut up, be penalised to make him shut up, and if need be will get yellow carded to stop him breaking my concentration.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Oct 2011)

England v Ireland for the semi I reckon. Without Carter I can't see the kiwis going past the 1/4 finals.


----------



## yello (3 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Without Carter I can't see the kiwis going past the 1/4 finals.



Now that's a brave call! 

Personally, I think they'll win it. I think the saffers are the only real obstacle.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> Now that's a brave call!
> 
> Personally, I think they'll win it. I think the saffers are the only real obstacle.



an argument with a lot of merit. 

however I tend towards the view that the knockout stages are something of a lottery and anything can happen in the space of 80 minutes to upset the form books.


----------



## Beebo (6 Oct 2011)

What do people think about the Flood / Wilkinson combo at centre and fly half for the France game.

Will it be a work of genius or Martin Johnson's last mistake for England!


----------



## Chromatic (6 Oct 2011)

Probably neither. Could be an indication that Johnson has finally seen the light re Hape and Banahan though.


----------



## yello (6 Oct 2011)

Unsure. A change forced by Tindal's injury/poor performance/womanising (joke ) methinks rather than tactical. Personally, I think it weakens the side defensively. Flood is not the tackler that Tindal is. That might count against France, maybe not. On the plus side, I do think it makes England perhaps more creative (so long as Flood actually gets the ball!). They've already got a crash runner in Tuilagi, so arguably swapping out Tindal for Flood does give more variety. So, yes, a bit of an enforced gamble methinks. We'll see.

Edit: following on from earlier remarks, does it indicate that Johnson prefers Wilkinson's decision making over Flood's??


----------



## BrumJim (6 Oct 2011)

Will work if they can rotate the first receiver position and leave the opposition guessing, but that will need quick balls from rucks - something England don't seem capable of providing on a regular basis.

Part will hinge on the confidence of the captain to relieve Wilkinson of his place kicking duties if he is off-target again.


----------



## yello (6 Oct 2011)

BrumJim said:


> Will work if they can rotate the first receiver position and leave the opposition guessing



That could make for very interesting watching. Can the normally ponderous England pull something like that off? I'd like to think so!


----------



## Beebo (6 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> That could make for very interesting watching. Can the normally ponderous England pull something like that off? I'd like to think so!



If England can get their lumbering pack moving like the welsh and irish packs we will be in for a treat. They must provide their backs with quick ball if they want to progress.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (6 Oct 2011)

Wilkinson lays too deep these days for my taste and doesn't back himself as a ball carrier anywhere near enough imo either. Hopefully Flood can jolly him along get him in line and get him playing on the front foot. But if the French backs target Flood they will roll straight over him.

I feel nether Hape nor Bananahands, whilst gifted players at club level, are of the quality required for test matches.... though of the two I think Hape has the potential to do better in the right side.

The prospect of Mr Walsh's lack of empathy for England's style of play, and everything English, is an issue that concerns me, almost as much as the tea-break our boys seem to call at every ruck, whilst they wait for the defence to jog back and get organised.

But I still say England v Ireland for the semi.


----------



## mcshroom (7 Oct 2011)

Something very similar has been tried before with a reasonable amount of success. For example Flood at 12 and Wilkinson at 10 is similar to the left-right kicking option that was used well in 2003 with Wilkinson and Catt. 

IF they move the ball around then having two kickers could be useful, although with Wilkinson's defensive skills and Flood's decision making then I would personally put them the other way round


----------



## yello (7 Oct 2011)

It's at 5:30am (UK time)?! I'm not sure I can be that bothered!!

Edit: Phew, that's Wales v Ireland.... I can cope with only watching the 2nd half of that!


----------



## yello (7 Oct 2011)

Nah, I'll just watch the repeat.... and stay off the forum! The game won't change for me not watching it live!


----------



## Noodley (7 Oct 2011)

1547833 said:


> Given that I pretty much never enjoy watching England play




You and the rest of the world.


----------



## yello (8 Oct 2011)

Switched on just in time for the Irish try. I've a feeling I'm hoping for a Welsh win.


----------



## yello (8 Oct 2011)

Whooosh! Cracking try, what happened to the defence! All eyes on the man wide perhaps!


----------



## yello (8 Oct 2011)

I think Ireland are going to rue their handling errors.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2011)

Wales thoroughly deserving of the win this morning


----------



## yello (8 Oct 2011)

They were, weren't they? A good game (well, 2nd half!) not getting to classic status but a good and honest one anyway. It's difficult for me to be truly objective, since I like the Welsh game more than the Irish, but I think Wales deserved that. 

I think the Irish are going through a transitional phase, they're not as strong as they were a couple of years back, so they've probably done as well as could realistically expected. 

You know, I fancy Wales for the final.


----------



## gavroche (8 Oct 2011)

Allez la France!


----------



## mr Mag00 (8 Oct 2011)

oh dear England


----------



## Hacienda71 (8 Oct 2011)

England are dire!


----------



## Keith Oates (8 Oct 2011)

Wales played a cracking match and fully deserved the win, they could well come back with the cup if they keep that standard of play going the semi and final. 

Hacienda71, to say England are dire in this match is wrong as they are not that good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mr Mag00 (8 Oct 2011)

ouch


----------



## accountantpete (8 Oct 2011)

Saves us getting stuffed by the Welsh next week.

Martin Johnson is Steve McClaren in disguise.


----------



## mr Mag00 (8 Oct 2011)

surely not that bad?


----------



## gavroche (8 Oct 2011)

Vive la France. Well done my compatriots!


----------



## yello (8 Oct 2011)

Exciting if sometimes scrappy stuff. Enjoyed that hugely!

England blitzed in the 1st half, looked better in the 2nd but still not good enough. Still too many errors (how many times has that been said?) I think it really shows up their limitations though; if they can't control the game, they're clueless.

The French can play when they want to. If only they knew the formula!

Divided household for the semis with the misses being Welsh!


----------



## Noodley (8 Oct 2011)

<snigger>


----------



## colly (8 Oct 2011)

England = ponderous. Are they not capable of getting some kind of dynamism into their game? The odd flashes of it were few and far between. Getting as far as they have is kind of surprising tbh.


----------



## ACS (8 Oct 2011)

England should be taken from the dressing room, put on a flight to Tonga and left in exile until the learn to play rugby with passion and pride.


----------



## brokenflipflop (8 Oct 2011)

ACS said:


> England should be taken from the dressing room, put on a flight to Tonga and left in exile until the learn to play rugby with passion and pride.



They'd probably win a drinking competition


----------



## brokenflipflop (8 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1547855"]
Well done Wales. Well played Ireland.

Well done France.

England - looked like a bunch of spoilt, overpaid indulgences. Not good enough.


[/quote]

I'm not that keen on the kick and clap code of rugby but maybe England could try an experiment: Ditch the public schoolboy, tally-ho brigade they have at the minute and come up to Warrington, Wigan, Leeds and St Helens to "borrow" a few players from the proper game


----------



## martint235 (8 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1547857"]
St Helens are doing a good job in bringing forth local talent, apparently. Most of their of their 1st team are local. That's good. 
[/quote]

Well let's see how they do tonight first. Been bridesmaids more often than not lately


----------



## brokenflipflop (8 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1547857"]
St Helens are doing a good job in bringing forth local talent, apparently. Most of their of their 1st team are local. That's good. 
[/quote]

Well I mentioned the cream of Northern Rugby league there but neglected to mention that my Team is Salford ! To add insult to injury my football team is Bolton and to rub salt into my already festering wounds I'm also English. When it comes to sport I guess the Gods will never smile on me


----------



## brokenflipflop (8 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1547861"]
I was nearly brought up North (Bradford) but my Dad decided on Tilbury instead.


[/quote]

I'd be surprised if the time your dad spent on that decision lasted more than a nanosecond





Apologies to Yorkshire folk but you know how it is


----------



## martint235 (8 Oct 2011)

martint235 said:


> Well let's see how they do tonight first. Been bridesmaids more often than not lately



And again it would seem. Five grand final defeats on the run..... Still at least they make it to the final.


----------



## colly (9 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> I'd be surprised if the time your dad spent on that decision lasted more than a nanosecond
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Well that is obvious. Act in haste and repent at leisure as they say. 

My commiserations Mr User1314.


----------



## yello (9 Oct 2011)

Sorry, has the rugby world cup thread moved? 

Surprised by this morning's result. I'd picked SA for that one. England should take notes from Australia; that's how you play a game with minority possession! Impressive stuff, still not quite sure how SA didn't win!


----------



## lukesdad (9 Oct 2011)




----------



## yello (9 Oct 2011)

A spirited and physical performance from Argentina.

I like watching the ABs. OK, I'm biased. Can't help it. If you grow up surrounded by it then it seeps into you.

There was no panic in their performance, just continual pressure. Their ball handling skills are exemplary, every man jack of them. Continually making the ball available and keeping play alive. Keeping up the pressure on the defending team.They can make it look easy. They always seem to have time ( I'm sure Weepu cleans his nails whilst assessing the options!) 

It also seems that any one of them can break the line too. We expect it from Nonu, from Conrad Smith and SB Williams (what a runner! and hidden on the wing for so much of it). But it's just as likely to come from any of the loose forwards. A team of all rounders. World beaters (if only they didn't choke!).

With Australia beating SA, I think that makes the ABs path to the final a little easier BUT it's by no means a given.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Oct 2011)

All Black scoreline flattered them, and will give heart to the Wallabies.

But, given my predictions for the NH side of the draw, I know naff all about the game.

Why hasn't Martin Johnson done the decent thing and handed in his notice along with that of the remaining members of the 2003 crew... What were they thinking; trying to play expansive running rugby against France when they have not strung 20 minutes of that together in the last five years.

France were still second rate and England made them look good. Wales for the final, unless the French actually decide to play to their capabilities....

SH winner though.


----------



## Dayvo (9 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> SH winner though.




Come on, Greg, don't sit on the fence: NZ or Australia? 

I'm cheering for France, as I've always liked the way they have played open and attacking rugby, most of the time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Oct 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Come on, Greg, don't sit on the fence: NZ or Australia?
> 
> I'm cheering for France, as I've always liked the way they have played open and attacking rugby, most of the time.



serge blanco is my favourite all-time player, I love champagne running rugby.

I say the crims will triumph. by less than four points. and it will go to extra time.


----------



## lukesdad (9 Oct 2011)

Dayvo said:


> Come on, Greg, don't sit on the fence: NZ or Australia?
> 
> I'm cheering for France, as I've always liked the way they have played open and attacking rugby, most of the time.




Thats cheered me up no end Dayvo ! With your past history of picking winners  We ve got our final place allready booked


----------



## Dayvo (9 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Thats cheered me up no end Dayvo ! With your past history of picking winners  We ve got our final place allready booked




 You might be right, LD! 

It's said that France have one outstanding game per tournament in them: whether it was yesterday's match remains to be seen. Good luck, but I fancy _Les Bleus!_


----------



## Beebo (10 Oct 2011)

Following the piss poor English effort, I would like to see Wales go all the way as they're a passionate rugby nation.

I dont share the jingoism that our Celtic brothers do towards England, and I would be genuinely happy to see the Welsh win.

On that note it will be interseting to see how many current English players make the 2013 Lions squad, not many I would think.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Oct 2011)

Beebo said:


> Following the piss poor English effort, I would like to see Wales go all the way as they're a passionate rugby nation.
> 
> I dont share the jingoism that our Celtic brothers do towards England, and I would be genuinely happy to see the Welsh win.
> 
> On that note it will be interseting to see how many current English players make the 2013 Lions squad, not many I would think.



How many current England players do you think will make the 2013 England squad?


----------



## Chromatic (10 Oct 2011)

There's a few in there who shouldn't have made the 2011 England squad


----------



## BrumJim (10 Oct 2011)

I thought that there was some very poor handling going on in the Australia/SA game, so fancy the rather unhurried NZ for one final berth. Although NZ have not had a hard game yet, and Australia are battle-hardened against Ireland and SA.
Wales should cover the France threat effectively, and join them at Eden Park. Against Ireland they scored when needed, and contained the Irish for long periods, without even looking like leaking a try.

Final? The logical side of me says NZ, as they are the only side left that topped their pool. Added to the fact that they are playing at home, makes me think that this year will be an All Black year again.

However, would love to see Wales win.


----------



## Beebo (10 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> How many current England players do you think will make the 2013 England squad?




Hopefully about 7.

Time for a total clear out of the old guard.


----------



## gavroche (10 Oct 2011)

BrumJim said:


> Wales should cover the France threat effectively, and join them at Eden Park. However, would love to see Wales win.



Don't write us off yet ( France). The English had a smile on their faces when they found out they were playing us in the QF. They are not smiling now! 
The exciting thing about the french team is that you never know what they are going to do or how well they will play. That is a headache for the welsh coach and will not be resolved until next saturday.
May the best team win!


----------



## subaqua (10 Oct 2011)

gavroche said:


> Don't write us off yet ( France). The English had a smile on their faces when they found out they were playing us in the QF. They are not smiling now!
> The exciting thing about the french team for the french head coach is that you  he never knows what they are going to do or how well they will play. That is a headache for the welsh coach too and will not be resolved until next saturday.
> May the best team win!



Corrected  

looking forward to the game , much more than the Ireland Wales Game.


----------



## Chromatic (10 Oct 2011)

Beebo said:


> Hopefully about 7.
> 
> Time for a total clear out of the old guard.



+1 to this, and including the coaching staff, most of whom should be shown the door this morning. Not only the old guard who are past their best too, there are some in this squad who just aren't good enough.

There also needs to be a realisation that size and strength are not more important than skill and technique.

Whilst we're at it there also needs to be a policy of picking specialist players in each position. For instance, the back row are not all interchangeable as the current England set up seems to think. This is the sort of thinking that results in putting a stand off in the centre in the most important game of the campaign, putting on a lock forward to replace a back row, all with predicatble results.


----------



## Beebo (10 Oct 2011)

Chromatic said:


> There also needs to be a realisation that size and strength are not more important than skill and technique.




You would think that MJ would be well aware of this as he played during the "should England play Neil Back era", which ended with the realisation that a good little one is better than an average big one.


----------



## Chromatic (10 Oct 2011)

Beebo said:


> You would think that MJ would be well aware of this as he played during the "should England play Neil Back era", which ended with the realisation that a good little one is better than an average big one.



One would have thought so, but despite the evidence for this being demonstrated to MJ in recent games he seems not to have taken the fact on board.


----------



## trustysteed (10 Oct 2011)

If Wales win, it won't be a victory for the Northern Hemisphere, it will be a lowering of standards by the Tri-Nations teams.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Oct 2011)

Beebo said:


> You would think that MJ would be well aware of this as he played during the "should England play Neil Back era", which ended with the realisation that a good little one is better than an average big one.



A good little 'un will always come second to a good big 'un. MJ's fatal flaw was in thinking that simply being a big 'un makes you a good big 'un.

That and picking captains who exhibit zero leadership on the pitch, and consistently preparing teams with no plan B when plan A comes up short. I assume the farce we executed against France was our Plan B in action.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Oct 2011)

Beebo said:


> Hopefully about 7.
> 
> Time for a total clear out of the old guard.



I admire your optimism. I reckon it will be 5 or fewer once injuries, loss of form and the next wave take their toll.


----------



## Chromatic (10 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> A good little 'un will always come second to a good big 'un. MJ's fatal flaw was in thinking that simply being a big 'un makes you a good big 'un.
> 
> That and picking captains who exhibit zero leadership on the pitch, and consistently preparing teams with no plan B when plan A comes up short. I assume the farce we executed against France was our Plan B in action.



Everything you say here is spot on Greg.


----------



## Dayvo (10 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> ... and consistently preparing teams with no plan B when *plan A* comes up short. I assume the farce we executed against France was our Plan B in action.




Plan A!? WTF was that?


----------



## trustysteed (10 Oct 2011)

England's abysmal showing is due to this sort of mentality by twunts.


----------



## brokenflipflop (10 Oct 2011)

England should stick to what they're good at.........

Finn and Laser class Yachting.....


----------



## brokenflipflop (10 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> England's abysmal showing is due to this sort of mentality by twunts.



Getting dicked on every once in a while is character building and sorts the mard arses out from the real men.

I should know, I get dicked on all the time but I still turn out every week


----------



## trustysteed (10 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> I should know, I get dicked on all the time but I still turn out every week





being a rent boy does have disadvantages.... ;-0


----------



## brokenflipflop (10 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> being a rent boy does have disadvantages.... ;-0



true true


----------



## lukesdad (11 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> If Wales win, it won't be a victory for the Northern Hemisphere, it will be a lowering of standards by the Tri-Nations teams.



Really ? sounds like sour grapes to me


----------



## threebikesmcginty (11 Oct 2011)

If Wales win my wife will be unbearable, if France win, the entire country of France will be unbearable.

Come on France!! 







_not really! _


----------



## subaqua (11 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> Really ? sounds like sour grapes to me




my thoughts too. Wales played extremely well againt SA in the 1st match. the victors could have easily been Wales.


----------



## yello (11 Oct 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> if France win, the entire country of France will be unbearable.



In my part of the country, I suspect it'll not cause too much of a stir. It's not much of a rugby area. Not quite sure what sort of area it is in truth - tea dances and choucroute evenings I think!


----------



## brokenflipflop (11 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> In my part of the country, I suspect it'll not cause too much of a stir. It's not much of a rugby area. Not quite sure what sort of area it is in truth - tea dances and choucroute evenings I think!



Petanque ?


----------



## subaqua (12 Oct 2011)

1547900 said:


> Suspended for one match for a high tackle in the Scotland game.
> complete lack of discipline and proper playing technique



FTFY. If i had played like that when i was playing 20 yrs ago i would have been battered by the coach. no excuse for it at all.


----------



## martint235 (12 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1547899"]


What is Rob Andrew for? 

[/quote]

If you find out please let us know. Appointed Director of Operations or some such to oversee the "debacle" that was a second place finish in a 6 nations and runners up in a World Cup. Removed from post rather than sacked during the re-shuffle either early this year or late last year (it's all a blur). He's now kind of Director of Operations again by default due to RFU being a complete shambles. If ever there was a group of people more concerned with protecting their own skins than doing their job, it has to be a toss up between MPs and the RFU.

For what it's worth I think Johnston should stay. I think they need to tempt Shaun Edwards away from Wales just to instil a bit of passion in wearing an England shirt if nothing else, bring Brian Ashton back in (if he'd be good enough to come) and possibly stick Ian McGeechan somewhere in the chain just to add some nous to running an international team. Watching the England rugby team at the moment is a bit like watching the football team, there's no passion, no "Playing for England means more to me than my mother". (Wayne Rooney seems to be the only one that cares in the football team) Johnston and Edwards should really be able to sort that out. 

The other rugby problem is that they've been told to play with flair. England don't really do flair or at least let's not try to do it until we have the best scrum and the best lineout in the world. Also it would be good if we could be quickest to the break down. THEN we can start looking at flair.


----------



## rich p (12 Oct 2011)

I know threequarters (geddit  ) of feck all about the nuances of the game but reading both here and in the media, it seems to me that most of the criticism is being heaped upon Martin Johnson, Rob Andrew and the RFU but little or none on the players.

Surely their lack of talent must have some bearing?


----------



## martint235 (12 Oct 2011)

rich p said:


> I know threequarters (geddit  ) of feck all about the nuances of the game but reading both here and in the media, it seems to me that most of the criticism is being heaped upon Martin Johnson, Rob Andrew and the RFU but little or none on the players.
> 
> Surely their lack of talent must have some bearing?



The players are talented though, if you look at how they play for their respective clubs they are among the best we've produced. Even Wilkinson, who has come in for a fair bit of stick, is still kicking them over regularly in France.

It's to do with what they are asked to produce on the field (although just to harp on about it, a little passion would go a long way). I think playing two fly halves who have both played centre before is a good idea, I don't think you introduce it at a World Cup though!!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2011)

Players in the Premiership are coached not to lose rather than coached to win. That affects players mentalities.

Players in the England squad are clearly coached by Club England to play route one rugby, stuff it up your jumper and trundle up the middle, then chuck it oh-so-slowly wide and start over gain and have not-a-clue what to do when that doesn't work. Which at test level it doesn't because it is an UTTERLY predictably approach and the packs these days are all pretty well matched in any sort of rumble.

The only way to win these days is a) force your opponents to concede penalties and hope your kicker slots 'em or b) make the pill do the work, fast ball cleared quickly from tackle zone, ruck and maul, fast hands and runners running 'lines and angles' with support on their sholder so the oppo's defence gets bent out shape, is run ragged and the gaps then appear for the runner to run through. England then excel at running at the opposing man rather than running at the gap. For some reason that completely escapes me.

As to talent..... Ask yourself.... how many of ours would get on their teamsheet? We have had people playing in England shirts who have chosen to do so because they know they are not good enough to get picked for the All Blacks. What sort of message does that send out to the All Blacks I wonder.


----------



## mcshroom (12 Oct 2011)

I'm not sure it's all about fast recycling and running. You still have to compete up front otherwise the half backs don't get the time to release the backs.

There were some players playing on Saturday that definitely had passion. I would name Cueto, Foden, Moody and even Wilkinson. Passion isn't everything, and unfortunately for Wilkinson he's just slowing down a bit (which is understandable after the injuries he's had), and Moody is passionate but with little plan other than throw himself at the ball at all times.

Most of the changes I would make would be in the pack. We needed a better loosehead than Stevens, he's simply not international class and was getting pummelled in the scrums. The best two locks in that squad in my opinion were Shaw and Palmer, who never really got a game, and Easter is a good solid number 8 but there's better in the Premiership at the moment.

In the backs, I feel it is time for Wilkinson to retire, great player though he was/is. Flood would be the obvious replacement at 10. We need a better distributor of the ball at 9, but really the main change in the backs for me would be in the centres. At the moment the standard choices are all very similar - battering rams. What is needed is someone who is a bit more elusive alongside one of the direct players (maybe someone like Ollie Barkley for example).

Where England are overstocked is in the wingers. On top of Cueto & Ashton (my favourite pairing), you also have Monye, Armitage and Strettle waiting in the wings.


----------



## brokenflipflop (12 Oct 2011)

Look on the positive side. We won the world cup in 2003, runners up last time and this time we've proved we're one of the top eight teams in the world - it's not that disastrous is it.


----------



## gavroche (12 Oct 2011)

England is now history. Next Saturday is the present and more important. Allez la France!


----------



## brokenflipflop (12 Oct 2011)

gavroche said:


> England is now history. Next Saturday is the present and more important. Allez la France!



Just on a point of fact, next Saturday is the future, not the present. 

We may be crap at kick and clap but we're still the best at being anal


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Oct 2011)

mcshroom said:


> I'm not sure it's all about fast recycling and running. You still have to compete up front otherwise the half backs don't get the time to release the backs.



Compete, certainly. Dominate, even better. Stand around for long enough to make a cappuccino. No thanks.

Awful lot of sense in the rest of your post too.


----------



## subaqua (13 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> Look on the positive side. We won the world cup in 2003, runners up last time and this time we've proved we're one of the top eight teams in the world - it's not that disastrous is it.




not if you think getting worse each time is acceptable. winners runners up and runners up again would be far better.


----------



## lukesdad (13 Oct 2011)

gavroche said:


> England is now history. Next Saturday is the present and more important. Allez la France!




The following sat you mean  and 4 th place


----------



## lukesdad (13 Oct 2011)

1547905 said:


> Flair is an excellent thing to strive for, but it is only part of the game. Without quick and competitive back row forwards scavenging at the breakdown securing all your ball and turning over some of theirs, securing scrums and linouts etc., all the flair in the World will be pretty hollow.



Wales suffered from this for a decade.


----------



## brokenflipflop (13 Oct 2011)

subaqua said:


> not if you think getting worse each time is acceptable. winners runners up and runners up again would be far better.



Yeah, but, other countries have got more people in the population to select from - We're limited in that if you factor out anyone north of Birmingham, everyone that's obese, couch potatoes, techno/gadget geeks, foreign nationals and women then you're just about left with enough posh blokes from the south that qualify to play for England RU.






Top eight in the world is pretty good under the circumstances.





Scotland are also handicapped in the fact that their national dish is cholesterol AND a very small population. So they are overperforming for sure.


----------



## trustysteed (13 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> Yeah, but, other countries have got more people in the population to select from -




New Zealand aren't exactly struggling with a population of about 5 million, are they?


----------



## subaqua (13 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> Yeah, but, other countries have got more people in the population to select from - We're limited in that if you factor out anyone north of Birmingham, everyone that's obese, couch potatoes, techno/gadget geeks, foreign nationals and women then you're just about left with enough posh blokes from the south that qualify to play for England RU.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




does the fact that Wales has a smaller population than England and Scotland escape you


----------



## brokenflipflop (13 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> New Zealand aren't exactly struggling with a population of about 5 million, are they?



I'm working on the basis that after I've factored out all the people in England that are ineligible due to never having heard of RU, being too fat, being women or too pre-occupied with gadgets to have played sport and the fact that RU is a religion in NZ then they probably have a bigger pool of quality players to pick from.

I might be wrong but Tarquin and Giles sat indoors playing X-box and re-formatting Daddy's hard drive in Godalming compared to Brett running after sheep and hurdling boulders on the South Island might indicate why NZ are so much better at rugby.


----------



## brokenflipflop (13 Oct 2011)

subaqua said:


> does the fact that Wales has a smaller population than England and Scotland escape you



I've spent 3 minutes thinking about this and all I can conclude is that the Welsh are just better than both England and Scotland.

I don't know if they are genetically superior. I don't know if they are more active as a nation. I don't know if they play more rugby because football in Wales is not really that good. I don't know if they are tactically superior. I don't know if they just have the David & Goliath, we've got our own language, us against the bigger boys mentality. It might be a bit of everything.

I hope they win it


----------



## trustysteed (13 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> I might be wrong but Tarquin and Giles sat indoors playing X-box and re-formatting Daddy's hard drive in Godalming compared to Brett running after sheep and hurdling boulders on the South Island might indicate why NZ are so much better at rugby.




that's true and with friends in NZ who tell me the weather's just as crap in Auckland rain-wise, there's no excuse for them not to be outside manning the F up.

but when you have schools refusing to have sports days to avoid there being any 'loser', it's no surprise england are shoot.


----------



## trustysteed (13 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1547921"]
Only 7 people play rugby in Scotland. FACT!
[/quote]


Hong Kong 7's should work out well for them, then.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> New Zealand aren't exactly struggling with a population of about 5 million, are they?



NZ's strength largely comes from the fact that they draw not only on NZ but on all the Polynesian islands, whose populations are generally big guys to begin with. Auckland is the de facto capital of Polynesia. My cousin is a big guy for Britain and used to play flanker (I think) for Blackheath, but when he moved to NZ, he realized that he would never have made it there, as he's relatively tiny compared to the Polynesian guys (or he'd have had to have been a fly-half or something). 

This is also the reason why Fiji, Tonga and Samoa can't get a look in - basically most of their best players become NZ citizens. And of course NZ (and Australia) keep it this way, by keeping the smaller island nations out of the Tri-nations etc., which makes playing for their home nations less attractive for any ambitious, talented Polynesian player.


----------



## User482 (13 Oct 2011)

> NZ's strength largely comes from the fact that they draw not only on NZ but on all the Polynesian islands



England are getting in on the act: Manu Tuilagi was born in Samoa. I'm sure that his burgeoning international career had nothing to do with the Home Office's decision to stop deportation proceedings...


----------



## brokenflipflop (13 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> England are getting in on the act: Manu Tuilagi was born in Samoa. I'm sure that his burgeoning international career had nothing to do with the Home Office's decision to stop deportation proceedings...



Although I heard he thought England were so shoot that he jumped off the ferry to swim back to Samoa.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Oct 2011)

More people, an order of magnitude more people*, play Rugby Union in England on the average Saturday during the season than in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, France, Ireland and Wales combined.*

We should be way better than we are..... but the game is in decline here at every level.

*a slight exaggeration but not a massive one.


----------



## User482 (13 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> More people, an order of magnitude more people*, play Rugby Union in England on the average Saturday during the season than in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, France, Ireland and Wales combined.*
> 
> We should be way better than we are..... but the game is in decline here at every level.
> 
> *a slight exaggeration but not a massive one.


In decline since when? Isn't it the case that England are usually rubbish, with occasional periods of success?


----------



## lukesdad (13 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> More people, an order of magnitude more people*, play Rugby Union in England on the average Saturday during the season than in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, France, Ireland and Wales combined.*
> 
> We should be way better than we are..... but the game is in decline here at every level.
> 
> *a slight exaggeration but not a massive one.




"play" being the key word .


----------



## Noodley (14 Oct 2011)

Has the tournament ended early? I have not heard much about it since last Saturday....wonder why?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> In decline since when? Isn't it the case that England are usually rubbish, with occasional periods of success?



Last 10 years the numbers of people playing the game in England has been declining, small clubs folding, medium sized ones that used to run 5 teams now run three, that sort of thing, according to the RFU, who are fiddling while their Rome burns.

Certainly your description of England has been broadly true since the split of the Northern League from the Rugby Union.


----------



## BrumJim (14 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> England are getting in on the act: Manu Tuilagi was born in Samoa. I'm sure that his burgeoning international career had nothing to do with the Home Office's decision to stop deportation proceedings...




A bit harsh on Manu there. The fact that all of his brothers (except one) are playing rugby in Europe and that he had been in Leicester and at a local school since he was 11, and the fact that it was his commitment to play rugby for England meant that he couldn't get a work visa were probably more important factors.


----------



## lukesdad (15 Oct 2011)

Good luck to the boys today.


----------



## MichaelM (15 Oct 2011)

I'm really excited about this, as well as being really nervous. May the best Welsh team win.


----------



## mcshroom (15 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Has the tournament ended early? I have not heard much about it since last Saturday....wonder why?



Funny the Welsh rugby team, Welsh celebreties and anything welsh just about seems to have been just about wall to wall down here for the last week.

Perhaps up north they're still sulking about Scotland being eliminated in the group stages for the first time ever


----------



## Noodley (15 Oct 2011)

mcshroom said:


> Perhaps up north they're still sulking about Scotland being eliminated in the group stages for the first time ever



Given that we have to endure the English media, it would have been hard to tell that Scotland were actually there! 

Yesterday seemed to be a bit better, I heard the semi-final mentioned as the last sports news items on BBC Radio. 

Anyway, a postive start by the Welsh...


----------



## Noodley (15 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Anyway, a postive start by the Welsh...



Or they were until the ref decided to send the captain off! Awful decision!


----------



## Silver Fox (15 Oct 2011)

Noodley said:


> Or they were until the ref decided to send the captain off! Awful decision!



+1

Never a red card.


----------



## machew (15 Oct 2011)

It was a fashion thing, the ref thought that a yellow card would clash with the ruby top.


----------



## mr Mag00 (15 Oct 2011)

well well well


----------



## dave r (15 Oct 2011)

Silver Fox said:


> +1
> 
> Never a red card.




+1 on that, never a red card, should have been a yellow, a yellow card and if anyone thought more was needed it could have gone to the citing commission.


----------



## machew (15 Oct 2011)

Just heard this, "Rugby is not a contact sport, dancing is a contact sport. Rugby is a collision"


----------



## Noodley (15 Oct 2011)

I was thinking a yellow woulda been harsh! So for a red to be shown is, imo, a disgrace.

Wales were still by far the better team. I do not think the final will be much of a game. In fact they could just give the trophy to the winners of the other semi-final.

It'll be interesting to see how the Welsh perform in the 3/4 play-off game...


----------



## MichaelM (15 Oct 2011)

Oh dear... that didn't quite go to plan.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (15 Oct 2011)

France will get mullered in the final by either Oz or NZ. Pinaar's views were dead on - they are tremendously lucky to be there.


----------



## Archie_tect (15 Oct 2011)

The French have engineered another sporting final? Quelle surprise!


----------



## yello (15 Oct 2011)

The better side lost imho, and they would have made for a better final too. The French were poor and ought consider themselves lucky. That said, the Welsh had the opportunities to win it and they made mistakes that cost them (their lineouts were pretty poor too), so I think there is some room to say 'they lost it'.

The sending of did change the game, I think the Welsh would have won 15 v 15. So I feel sorry for Warburton in that he could well think he cost them the game, but I can't agree that it wasn't a red card offence. I did wonder if the ref might show leniency under the circumstances but it wasn't an incorrect decision. I felt it was definitely a card offence. Spear tackles are dangerous (remember the outrage that O'Driscoll was upended on the Lions tour in 2005?) and the rules on dangerous play are pretty clear. The default interpretation is 'red card', with the ref able to apply some leniency if they feel so inclined. Personally, I would have preferred to see yellow for the games sake but there you go.

I was speaking to my mum in NZ this morning (before the game) and she was telling me that many Kiwis feel it'll be a Aussie victory tomorrow. The ABs apparently have significant injury problems and will be fielding a less than first choice team. But she did say that one of the newer faces is a lad by the name of Israel Dagg, she said that he's a very exciting player and to watch out for him. Can't help but feel that tomorrow's winners will be Cup winners too. I hope France will turn up and make a game of it but I can't see it somehow. They've done their dash for the tournament. That's why it's such a shame the Welsh went out today; they'd have made more of a game of it in the final.


----------



## Globalti (15 Oct 2011)

Saw it in the lounge here in Lagos, the Welsh can go home proud; they were the better team.


----------



## Keith Oates (15 Oct 2011)

The Welsh can indeed go home with their heads held high and the less said about the decision of the ref to use the red card the better. If the French win the cup it will be the biggest travesty of justice in any recent sporting competition.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mcshroom (15 Oct 2011)

The red card was a real shame, as Wales were the better team, even with 14 men really, and had a couple of chances to win in the last 10 minutes.

With respect to the tackle, if you look through it (stills here) then the french player is inverted in the tackle and lands on his upper back/neck. This is dangerous in that it could leave the player paralysed, and under the current rules then, unfortunately for Warburton who was IMHO not intending harm, it is a red card.

Whether we would expect a ref to show some leniency in a World Cup Semi I don't know, but this is the correct decision with respect to the laws of the game.

If the All Blacks can beat the Wallabies, then I think they are very strong favourites in the final. The French do have a surprisingly good record against NZ though so it could be closer than I think it will be.


----------



## gavroche (15 Oct 2011)

Keith Oates said:


> The Welsh can indeed go home with their heads held high and the less said about the decision of the ref to use the red card the better. If the French win the cup it will be the biggest travesty of justice in any recent sporting competition.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Why? Can't blame the French team for the ref'decision. Two teams were playing, the reds missed many kicks, the blues did not. At the of the day points matter and France had one more. As for the final, France has not played the one game where they can excel so don't write them off yet!


----------



## postman (15 Oct 2011)

I was bouncing up and down ,well done Wales.One point what a sickner.

Best thing though we don't have to put up with that famous comedian Max Boyce.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (15 Oct 2011)

mcshroom said:


> The red card was a real shame, as Wales were the better team, even with 14 men really, and had a couple of chances to win in the last 10 minutes.
> 
> With respect to the tackle, if you look through it (stills here) then the french player is inverted in the tackle and lands on his upper back/neck. This is dangerous in that it could leave the player paralysed, and under the current rules then, unfortunately for Warburton who was IMHO not intending harm, it is a red card.
> 
> Whether we would expect a ref to show some leniency in a World Cup Semi I don't know, but this is the correct decision with respect to the laws of the game.


On a strict interpretation, yes.

I think the problem was that Sam's instinct was to let him go, for fear of being accused of spearing him, but if he had actually held on, the outcome might perhaps have been different.


----------



## trustysteed (15 Oct 2011)

The most annoying thing was having to listen to the ITV commentator bleating on all game about how everyone was 'Welsh' for the day and wanted them to win.

Err, no. Glad the Welsh lost.

Shoudn't have been a red card but definitely a yellow. Everyone knows spear tackles are not allowed and Warburton had intent for the first half of the tackle. Should never have picked him up like that in the first place. Wales should have stopped piss-assing around in the last 2 mins and actually gone for the drop goal. At least 22 phases without having a go and they ran their own clock out so can only blame themselves.

Glad France won but c'mon the All Blacks!


----------



## lukesdad (16 Oct 2011)

Oh dear ! We lost that one for sure, it was definitely a red card in my book. Silly boy.


----------



## Doseone (16 Oct 2011)

mcshroom said:


> With respect to the tackle, if you look through it (stills here) then the french player is inverted in the tackle and lands on his upper back/neck. This is dangerous in that it could leave the player paralysed, and under the current rules then, unfortunately for Warburton who was IMHO not intending harm, it is a red card.



This +1

Wales played very well and can hold their heads high, but they did have their chances, especially near the end. I'm still flummoxed as to why they didn't go for a drop goal, they were perfectly positioned


----------



## lukesdad (16 Oct 2011)

As regards to the drop goal, i think the descision was made that the try was a better bet. the conditions were not great and being one player short setting the platform was allways going to be difficult hence jones being at first or second reciever through the phases.


----------



## yello (16 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> As regards to the drop goal, i think the descision was made that the try was a better bet.



That was my take on it too. Plus, miss with the attempt and that was game over. The Welsh obviously felt retaining possession was the wiser cause of action and more likely to lead to points. 

But it seemed an odd decision to me too! Surely _someone_ backed themselves to land the 3 from there!


----------



## mcshroom (16 Oct 2011)

Unfortunately the Welshman I would have taking both the drop goal, and the half way penalty was Hook, but he had been subbed off by that point.


----------



## yello (16 Oct 2011)

Southern hemisphere rugby at its best! Played with skill, speed, passion, aggression... and just a lit bit of niggle! 

Aussies rattled but by no means finished. I see no fat lady, and the 2nd half is going to be heated!

Oh, and what about that lad Dagg eh? What did I say?! His running is sublime, but it was the pass from the tackle that made the try. The level of ball skills these guys have (and I include the Aussies here) is something the northern hemisphere teams really need to be working on. Keep the ball alive!


----------



## trustysteed (16 Oct 2011)

and none of this trying to constantly crash the first centre through the middle.

an awesome lesson of the southern hemisphere showing how real rugby is played. northern hemisphere hasn't got a clue apart from france who occasionally show how to run the ball

mccaw was sublime, should have been man of the match.


----------



## yello (16 Oct 2011)

What a game! Tough stuff, many battered bodies there having put heart, soul and frame into it. AB forwards were incredible, just denied Aussie the chance to play. 

Can't see the final being even a patch on that... but we live in hope!


----------



## trustysteed (16 Oct 2011)

4 mins to go and the aussies need two converted tries to tie. what do they do? much like thh welsh, waste over two mins in the corner with the ball in a ruck and not shipping it. they bottled it like the welsh.


----------



## yello (16 Oct 2011)

Keith Oates said:


> If the French win the cup it will be the biggest travesty of justice in any recent sporting competition.



Surprise is the word I'd use!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (16 Oct 2011)

Wales. I was surprised by the red card but it was deserved. Red card is the default for any sort of dangerous tackle not just spearing someone. The IRB ruled in 2009 that there is no mitigation in the case of spearing but ruled there could be for other types of dangerous tackles. Warburton botched his execution and it was pure luck the frenchman was able to play on. Yes it is a collision sport but yiou still owe a duty of care to your opponents, if you can't execute the tackle safely, by not dropping the player, don't make the tackle. When reffing I have often had to tell tacklers 'put him down SAFELY' and I get the time because the pace the game is played at my level is much slower. If Wales had kicked their pens, or got a drop goal when they chose to faff we would not be talking about the sending off.

Citing; nope, iirc, as citing doesn't happen at my level so I may be worng the citing commission can't deal with anything the ref has dealt with during the match, but only look at stuff the ref misses which is germane. So if he had given only a YC, end of story. as it is Warburton got a three week ban, during the NH rugby season so the disciplinary committee have said a punishment is deserved when they could have ruled 'sending off sufficient'

Yes it spoilt the spectacle but that isn't the referees concern, and trust me you don't want refs making decisions on that basis. What it does highlight is the inconsistency of interpretation that referees have applied during the tournament but you will aways get that, referees are human.

Rant; The Sunday Mail online has a disgraceful healine today questioning the referee's integrity because his dad was French. Why not point out the ref is an ex-Irish international and accuse him of sour grapes too?

As for the all blacks. wow. the scoreline flattered the crims. but if I was a betting man, there is one NH team, who, if they pull it together on the day and make it their day, and play like their forebears played, for a full 80 minutes, and give no quarter, and of whom it is said 'they always play one great game in the tournament' and we haven't seen that game yet, then if the odds are long I's day put you money on les bleus.

VIVE LA FRANCE!


----------



## gavroche (16 Oct 2011)

[QUOTE 1547966"]
3 Facebook status updates from one of my best mates, Guillaume. He remains ini London only because his English girlfriend won't move to Paris. All posted on Saturday. Repeated exactly as posted. Hehehe.

"I think France won fare and square and not interested in everyone's comments okay losers" (Posted straight after the game.)

"Now I am going to celebrate viva la France" (Posted a few hours later when he was reprieved by girlfriend of baby-sitting duties and could go to the pub.)

"If your pissed off tuff luck ha ha ha and if France lose next week it's called rugby yes ! As I have muppets sending me texts all day long" (Posted late evening from the pub.)
[/quote]
I agree with him as my fellow country man. He is right. if France lose next week, it is rugby!!


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2011)

I watched my first complete game on Sunday and whilst it was tough, gritty, manly and physical it aint going to convert any waiverers to the oval ball game.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Oct 2011)

rich p said:


> I watched my first complete game on Sunday and whilst it was tough, gritty, manly and physical it aint going to convert any waiverers to the oval ball game.



You could almost be describing yourself there, rich, apart from the tough, gritty, manly and physical bit.


----------



## subaqua (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Wales. I was surprised by the red card but it was deserved. Red card is the default for any sort of dangerous tackle not just spearing someone. The IRB ruled in 2009 that there is no mitigation in the case of spearing but ruled there could be for other types of dangerous tackles. Warburton botched his execution and it was pure luck the frenchman was able to play on. Yes it is a collision sport but yiou still owe a duty of care to your opponents, if you can't execute the tackle safely, by not dropping the player, don't make the tackle. When reffing I have often had to tell tacklers 'put him down SAFELY' and I get the time because the pace the game is played at my level is much slower. If Wales had kicked their pens, or got a drop goal when they chose to faff we would not be talking about the sending off.
> 
> Citing; nope, iirc, as citing doesn't happen at my level so I may be worng the citing commission can't deal with anything the ref has dealt with during the match, but only look at stuff the ref misses which is germane. So if he had given only a YC, end of story. as it is Warburton got a three week ban, during the NH rugby season so the disciplinary committee have said a punishment is deserved when they could have ruled 'sending off sufficient'
> 
> ...




agree 99%. the ref should not have officiated as the french link leaves him open to question on impartiality. thats not good for the game. a SH officiating team would have been the best option. 

Sam should have held onto him and twisted or landed him safely but as you said instinct to drop him for fear of being carded for a spear-tackle overtook logic.

looking forward to the 2 remaining games


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Wales. I was surprised by the red card but it was deserved.



My father-in-law is a rugby referee too and says it was a yellow. So it seems that opinion is divided even amongst those in the know!

What I do think is that the ref was far too quick to reach for his pocket. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a small amount of time out to gather your thoughts, consult with the touch judge, etc. Shaun Edwards advocates the report system in rugby league, which given that the video ref is there anyway, would seem to be worthwhile.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> My father-in-law is a rugby referee too and says it was a yellow.



My wife's Welsh and she said it was a yellow too, so that must be right.


----------



## yello (17 Oct 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> My wife's Welsh and she said it was a yellow too, so that must be right.



FTFY 

My readings of the IRB change in emphasis in the rules since the 2005 incident suggest to me that red was pretty much the required option. It's therefore no surprise to me that the IRB subsequently backed the ref and banned Warburton for he period it did.

I can understand divided opinion but I personally think the actual ruling is pretty clear.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> FTFY
> 
> My readings of the IRB change in emphasis in the rules since the 2005 incident suggest to me that red was pretty much the required option. It's therefore no surprise to me that the IRB subsequently backed the ref and banned Warburton for he period it did.
> 
> I can understand divided opinion but I personally think the actual ruling is pretty clear.



That's true as far as it goes, but Rugby referees don't apply the letter of the law, otherwise they'd stop the game every ten seconds.


----------



## yello (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> That's true as far as it goes, but Rugby referees don't apply the letter of the law, otherwise they'd stop the game every ten seconds.



Oh, I agree. I realise that referees are equally amongst the group that interpret the rules! I've touched on this before and I like that, in rugby, the ref gives this running advice to players on his interpretation and is wiling to discuss it on field (to a degree).


----------



## Archie_tect (17 Oct 2011)

Referee's decision is final, move on... respect from the players for the referee is laudable in rugby, were it so in football .


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> My father-in-law is a rugby referee too and says it was a yellow. So it seems that opinion is divided even amongst those in the know!



As a (sort of ex-)ref I said straight red, as do most of my fellow local society members. As an ex-player, and a fan I said yellow. THe IRB ruling from 2009 reiterated by POB before RWC is pretty explicit.



> What I do think is that the ref was far too quick to reach for his pocket. I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a small amount of time out to gather your thoughts, consult with the touch judge, etc. Shaun Edwards advocates the report system in rugby league, which given that the video ref is there anyway, would seem to be worthwhile.



F-I-L will know the expression "You just know (when it is a red card.)" Rolland knew, didn't need to consult, didn't need to wait. It is an instinctive/experience thing. You see something happen and think "Oh no, that's a red, s/he's got to go for doing that." Far too many refs at all levels of the game and including others that have reffed RWC 2011 bottle RC's for dangerous tackles btw. I have too. 

Trouble is what the players in the community game see people getting away with on TV is what they try on a Saturday afternoon/Sunday morning


----------



## trustysteed (17 Oct 2011)

Archie_tect said:


> respect from the players for the referee is laudable in rugby, were it so in football .



rugby has so much more going for it than football. respect for the refs, players don't roll around in 'agony', play continues if someone does need medical treatment, TMO decisions add to the drama\suspense of the game much as in cricket without any undue delay, etc. When a player is given a penalty or yellow\red card, there's no surrounding the ref or abusing him, it's usually just the capatain and offending player at most and they always accept the decision and walk away.

I used to enjoy football but now I hate it. I'd love to watch real rugby such as Super 15 or Tri\Quad Nations but I refuse to pay Sky Sports outrageous subscription fees to do so. All they care about is football but are happy to snap up other sports viewing rights to screw everyone over. self-gratification artists.

Need to track down some live internet feeds of the games next year...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> That's true as far as it goes, but Rugby referees don't apply the letter of the law, otherwise they'd stop the game every ten seconds.



Rolland applied an interpretation of the Laws issued by the IRB. He didn't have to decide for himself. What the IRB said (my italics);

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the ground:
The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
_The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle._
For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

_Referees_ and Citing Commissioners _should not make their decisions based on what they consider was the intention of the offending player_. Their decision should be based on an objective assessment (as per Law 10.4 (e)) of the circumstances of the tackle.


----------



## trustysteed (17 Oct 2011)

"_The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle."

_
and that perfectly sums up the incident so the ref got it right.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

I'm not saying the ref was right or wrong. I am saying that he reached for his pocket far too quickly, and that the decision is the subject of debate, even amongst referees. As you've proven!

What do you think about putting players on report? 

Edited to add: I understand that this type of tackle is perfectly legitimate in rugby league. If that's the case, are more injuries caused as a result?


----------



## trustysteed (17 Oct 2011)

perhaps he reached for his pocket in the exact amount of time it took him to reach the right decision?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

Archie_tect said:


> Referee's decision is final, move on... respect from the players for the referee is laudable laughable in rugby, were it so in football .



Soccer values, as we rugby snobs call them are know endemic in union at community level.

Commonest reason fit and healthly refs give up reffing is abuse from players, spectators, CTP's (crazy touchline parents) and non-playing club staff (coaches) during and after games. Attrition rates are hideously high, reffing has a massively steep learning curve even if you've played for years, the only way to learn to referee is to go out and referee and you'll hack hundreds of players off whilst you learn, and, iirc, the RFU say most newly qualified refs don't make it past the end of their second season; most often citing the reasons above for stepping down.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> perhaps he reached for his pocket in the exact amount of time it took him to reach the right decision?



Given the importance of the decision, don't you think he should at least count to 5? If he still feels the same way, issue the card.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> What do you think about putting players on report?



Not sure I know what you mean....


----------



## Archie_tect (17 Oct 2011)

That's a real blow to my blinkered view of the world Greg... another reality bubble burst


----------



## trustysteed (17 Oct 2011)

i'm not sure why people are still bleating like welsh sheep about warburton's sending off. the fact is that despite playing with 14-men, wales had two clear chances to win the game.


first, the conversion attempt by stephen jones following mike phillip's try. he bottled it.

secondly, the possession near frances's try-line and over 22-odd phases of play from which they didn't even attempt a drop goal. they ran out their own time and the chance at winning. they bottled it.

so they got what they deserved.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Given the importance of the decision, don't you think he should at least count to 5? If he still feels the same way, issue the card.



When you know, you _know_.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Not sure I know what you mean....




It's a league thing. The ref refers the incident to a disciplinary panel.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> When you know, you _know_.



All you're losing is a few seconds. Are you telling me that you've never made a decision you were absolutely sure was right at the time, only to find out later that it wasn't? I've certainly done so as a cricket umpire.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> All you're losing is a few seconds. Are you telling me that you've never made a decision you were absolutely sure was right at the time, only to find out later that it wasn't? I've certainly done so as a cricket umpire.



I have got the laws, or the correct application of them, wrong on many (thousands) occasions for sure. But it doesn't matter The Laws provides me with a helpful shelter...

6.A.4 THE DUTIES OF THE REFEREE IN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
(a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. 

post-hoc we can compare and contrast until the cows come home as to my grasp of the actualité but whilst we are on the park if I say the grass is blue, and red seven is offside _again_ it is and s/he is.

But I've never issued an RC or, for that matter binned someone, that I had a seconds doubt about.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> It's a league thing. The ref refers the incident to a disciplinary panel.



I like the idea of citing, for stuff referees miss. RC's always go to disciplinary committees. The ref knows he may have got it wrong when they rule 'sending off sufficient', and even at my level the ref's performance will be looked at after every RC issued. We actively manage the game to avoid giving them because they are such a big deal for all concerned.

But every so often a player does something so poorly executed or so plain dumb your hand is going to your pocket before the whistle is in your mouth.

But once a ref has dealt with it, in any way short of an RC during the game, it is over and done.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> I have got the laws, or the correct application of them, wrong on many (thousands) occasions for sure. But it doesn't matter The Laws provides me with a helpful shelter...
> 
> 6.A.4 THE DUTIES OF THE REFEREE IN THE PLAYING ENCLOSURE
> (a) The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match.
> ...



That the referee's (or umpire's) decision is final isn't in question. What we're talking about is getting that decision right. I've given people out LBW, thinking they were absolutely plumb, only to find later they'd got an inside edge, and I'd missed it. The point is that I had no doubt at the time.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

Archie_tect said:


> That's a real blow to my blinkered view of the world Greg... another reality bubble burst



Sorry. I rapidly discovered that a very thick skin, and selective deafness, was needed if I wanted to ref at the level I once played at.


----------



## meenaghman (17 Oct 2011)

Don't understand what the fuss is about.. as far as I can see the argument goes something like this .. Warburton is inspirational captain and not a malicious player, the tackle happened in a world cup semi-final so should be refereed differently, He dropped, not speared the French player, it ruined the game, others got away with yellow/no punishment for the same offence in previous games,.. therefore should only have been a yellow card V rule which clearly indicates dangerous play warranting a red card. 
Dangerous play can be both intentional (where there is clear malice) and reckless (where there's no malice but no thought on behalf of the tackler). This falls into the latter category. He had to go.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> That the referee's (or umpire's) decision is final isn't in question. *What we're talking about is getting that decision right.* I've given people out LBW, thinking they were absolutely plumb, only to find later they'd got an inside edge, and I'd missed it. The point is that I had no doubt at the time.



Nope. I don't think that is the question at all. 

Rugby has evolved its code of ethics/behaviour on the basis that every decision a rugby referee makes that relates to judgement of fact and the Laws of the Game during a match is right, as well as final. The Laws even say so. One Law about being right all the time and another one Law about the finality of any decision - with the ability to 'go upstairs' for confirmation at elite levels. Given that reffing requires you to impose a whole heap of artificial constructs on a very dynamic game I can't see any other way to do it. The key is to let the players play, safely, equitably and according to the LotG. That pile of bodies is a ruck because I said it was a ruck. It wasn't a ruck, and I wasn't refereeing to the ruck laws until I decided it was a ruck. Was it really a ruck in Law? Dunno, game is going too fast to care, ball is away we are on to the next phase.

Now it may be that somehow, and I'm not sure how at non-elite levels you would do this, you could show that post-hoc, objectively, the referee was wrong. But it wouldn't matter after the match because the game is over and the result stands. During the match the referee is always right.

As an umpire would taking some time to think about those close lbw calls or discuss it with someone, in the absence of a TMO, have changed your decision? How do you know they got an inside edge?


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Nope. I don't think that is the question at all.
> 
> Rugby has evolved its code of ethics/behaviour on the basis that every decision a rugby referee makes that relates to judgement of fact and the Laws of the Game during a match is right, as well as final. The Laws even say so. One Law about being right all the time and another one Law about the finality of any decision - with the ability to 'go upstairs' for confirmation at elite levels. Given that reffing requires you to impose a whole heap of artificial constructs on a very dynamic game I can't see any other way to do it. The key is to let the players play, safely, equitably and according to the LotG. That pile of bodies is a ruck because I said it was a ruck. It wasn't a ruck, and I wasn't refereeing to the ruck laws until I decided it was a ruck. Was it really a ruck in Law? Dunno, game is going too fast to care, ball is away we are on to the next phase.
> 
> ...




Except that referees who are shown to get it consistently wrong don't get to be referees for much longer. So, regardless of the finality of the on-field decision, being right matters.

Regarding umpiring: the situation I described was a difficult one - we don't have the third umpire, the square leg umpire can't tell, the fielding side has appealed (so is biased), and the batsman hasn't walked (ditto). So you're stuffed. In retrospect, I didn't go through in my mind all the reasons for giving a batsman not out. E.g. did it pitch outside the line? Did he get an inside edge? That's the trouble with a gut reaction. The best test umpires do take a few seconds before raising the finger...

I know it was an inside edge because the batsman told me and the fielding side admitted it after the game. However, because my decision was final, the batsman walked. That doesn't make it right.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

1547999 said:


> No it isn't right. Your missing the inside edge is bad, the fielding side knowing that they had appealed for LBW after one is shameful.



Yet it's very common practice at professional level, as is not walking when you know you're out. However, claiming a grounded catch is still seen as cheating. Cricket has a curious code of ethics!


----------



## MissTillyFlop (17 Oct 2011)

I think the ref forgot the first basic rule of rugby:

Is it Wales? Then they are right.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Except that referees who are shown to get it consistently wrong don't get to be referees for much longer. So, regardless of the finality of the on-field decision, being right matters.



Not my actual experience tbh. All, except the better and very best, refs get things wrong consistently. (tongue in cheek ; like a f-i-l who gives YC's for RC offences). The refs ability is graded and they get appointed to the level of game that matches it. 

Refs care about three things only. Safety, Equity, and the Laws. So, in a way, the last thing a ref is worried about on the field is the Laws. Equity trumps Laws and Safety trumps everything. The only people I've known who have been refused any (society) appointments have been refused them on the basis that they consistently failed, and this despite training and coaching, to manage games safely. You can be a crap ref but stay a ref. You cannot be, and stay, a dangerous ref.


----------



## gavroche (17 Oct 2011)

if any of you listened to Francois ( the other compere) about the ref's decision, he also demonstrated that he gave Wales a penalty kick when in fact the fault was Welsh , not French. If the ball had gone over, then the result would have been in Wales's favour. No-one seems to mention that. 
Referees are human and have to make instant decision.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Not my actual experience tbh. All, except the better and very best, refs get things wrong consistently. (tongue in cheek ; like a f-i-l who gives YC's for RC offences). The refs ability is graded and they get appointed to the level of game that matches it.
> 
> Refs care about three things only. Safety, Equity, and the Laws. So, in a way, the last thing a ref is worried about on the field is the Laws. Equity trumps Laws and Safety trumps everything. The only people I've known who have been refused any (society) appointments have been refused them on the basis that they consistently failed, and this despite training and coaching, to manage games safely. You can be a crap ref but stay a ref. You cannot be, and stay, a dangerous ref.



So ultimately, it comes down to whether or not, in the opinion of the referee, the tackle was dangerous? That the IRB instruction you quoted is a secondary consideration?

_



The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.

Click to expand...

_


How high is "a height"? How do you know the tackler had no regard for his opponent's safety?

As I say, it's all about interpretation.


----------



## Bonefish Blues (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> How high is "a height"? How do you know the tackler had no regard for his opponent's safety?


Hips above shoulders, isn't it (at least as a working definition)?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

Bonefish Blues said:


> Hips above shoulders, isn't it?



In this context yes. But the simple rule is "if you take him off his feet and into the air it is your job to put him down nicely"


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> In this context yes. But the simple rule is "if you take him off his feet and into the air it is your job to put him down nicely"



But that isn't what the instruction says - so we're back to interpretation. I'm not saying that the ref was necessarily wrong, just that it was a matter of judgement.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> But that isn't what the instruction says - so we're back to interpretation. I'm not saying that the ref was necessarily wrong, just that it was a matter of judgement.



The instruction needs to be understood in context, it was an attempt to clarify what the punishment should be, not what the definition of a dangerous tackle was, so that a particular type of dangerous tackle would be reffed consistently at all levels of the game because people were asking 'in game A player X got a YC but in game B player Z did near identical things and got sent off.'

A ref who consistently misjudges what constitutes a dangerous tackles, something I've been guilty of myself to some degree in youth rugby, or misjudges other sorts of dangerous play, is a ref who will have a short career.


----------



## User482 (17 Oct 2011)

Yes, but this type of "dangerous" tackle has been reffed inconsistently even within this world cup!


----------



## Paulus (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Yes, but this type of "dangerous" tackle has been reffed inconsistently even within this world cup!




In my opinion the ref was correct to send the Welsh player off. It was dangerous, and just because dangerous tackles have been reffed inconsistently does not mean that this decision was wrong. I have read all the hyperbole about the ref ruining the game for Wales, but I think he was right and all the desenting voices are as wrong as the fans who thinks his/her team can do no wrong.


----------



## rualexander (17 Oct 2011)

Go the AB's!


----------



## lukesdad (17 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> i'm not sure why people are still bleating like welsh sheep about warburton's sending off. the fact is that despite playing with 14-men, wales had two clear chances to win the game.
> 
> 
> first, the conversion attempt by stephen jones following mike phillip's try. he bottled it.
> ...




No bleating from this side of the Severn mate. England got what they deserved and will do for many years to come.


----------



## trustysteed (17 Oct 2011)

lukesdad said:


> No bleating from this side of the Severn mate. England got what they deserved and will do for many years to come.




I concur. I've wanted the All Blacks to win from the start but do feel some affinity towards England. However, 18 mins into the France vs England 1/4 final, I started supporting France wholeheartedly because England clearly didn't deservce to even grace the pitch.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (17 Oct 2011)

User482 said:


> Yes, but this type of "dangerous" tackle has been reffed inconsistently even within this world cup!



spot on. and a lot of us have been incensed by that not least because monkey see monkey do applies to rugby players as well as monkeys.


----------



## yello (21 Oct 2011)

Whoops, I didn't realise Wales v Aus was this morning. I assumed it was tomorrow. The score suggests it might have been a good match too.


----------



## trustysteed (21 Oct 2011)

it wasn't , australia were much better. wales score flattered them. one try came from a pass that was so forward i thought we were watching american football and their other try came 2 mins into overtime after they took over 30 phases to finally break the aussie defence.


----------



## Beebo (21 Oct 2011)

Wales are not a good as England because they lost three matches at the RWC where as England only lost one. Discuss :-)


----------



## subaqua (21 Oct 2011)

Beebo said:


> Wales are not a good as England because they lost three matches at the RWC where as England only lost one. Discuss :-)




4th place or somewhere in the last 8. think that says it all


----------



## rualexander (21 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> Whoops, I didn't realise Wales v Aus was this morning. I assumed it was tomorrow. The score suggests it might have been a good match too.



I thought it was on tomorrow morning too, but luckily noticed in time to record it while I was at work and watch when I got home. I think a lot of people must have missed it, I don't know why they scheduled it for today given that the quarter and semi finals were on saturdays and sundays.


----------



## swee'pea99 (22 Oct 2011)

trustysteed said:


> it wasn't , australia were much better. wales score flattered them. one try came from a pass that was so forward i thought we were watching american football and their other try came 2 mins into overtime after they took over 30 phases to finally break the aussie defence.



I disagree. I don't think the score flattered Wales at all. They played well, and could easily have nicked it if they'd kicked better (let alone not lost their captain to a crap refereeing decision). On balance, the right team won. But it was far from a walkover, and Wales can certainly come home with their heads held high. They took the tri nations winners to the wire - that's no mean achievement.


----------



## Keith Oates (22 Oct 2011)

I'm disappointed that Wales didn't win the match but they have shown they are a strong team that will be a force in this year's Six Nations and with a young team can only get better for the next WC.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Archie_tect (22 Oct 2011)

Is it not over yet?


----------



## yello (22 Oct 2011)

It does go on a bit, that's for real. But rugby's a tough game and the players take some pretty hard knocks and need a bit of time to recover. In the pool stage, some of the teams (notably the so-called minnows) where complaining because they had to play 2 matches a week.


----------



## swee'pea99 (23 Oct 2011)

Phew!


----------



## Archie_tect (23 Oct 2011)

Close!!


----------



## yello (23 Oct 2011)

Close indeed. France never out of it. I think they showed well (better than most predicted) and can be proud.

ABs edging out a tense and nervy encounter.


----------



## brokenflipflop (23 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> It does go on a bit, that's for real. But rugby's a tough game and the players take some pretty hard knocks and need a bit of time to recover. In the pool stage, some of the teams (notably the so-called minnows) where complaining because they had to play 2 matches a week.



I just finished watching NZ and England. The people wearing black beat the English, who strangely had this funny badge with a cock on it.

The pre-match group huddle appeared to last for about 80 minutes and both teams were all part of the same huddle.

Occasionally the huddle dispersed and someone kicked the ball out of the stadium.

What's all that about ?


----------



## Archie_tect (23 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> Occasionally the huddle dispersed and someone kicked the ball out of the stadium.


An emperor's clothes moment.... brilliant!


----------



## yello (23 Oct 2011)

Come one guys, give us just a *bit* longer to talk rugby before the inevitable!


----------



## Archie_tect (23 Oct 2011)

Well you see, there'll be people who have carefully avoided the news and google so that they can watch the game this afternoon....


----------



## Keith Oates (23 Oct 2011)

Well, if they are trying not to see the result until this afternoon opening a thread with the title Rugby World Cup may not be the most sensible thing to do.

For me I was very happy with the result but it was not a good match, too many missed kicks and the game itself was 'scrappy' I've seen the All Blacks play much better than that, their performance against the Aussies for example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Oct 2011)

Mr Joubert had a bit of a 'mare. Not sure it influenced the outcome in the end but he missed loads of offences and at least 3 high tackles....


----------



## Archie_tect (23 Oct 2011)

Keith Oates said:


> Well, if they are trying not to see the result until this afternoon opening a thread with the title Rugby World Cup may not be the most sensible thing to do.
> 
> For me I was very happy with the result but it was not a good match, too many missed kicks and the game itself was 'scrappy' I've seen the All Blacks play much better than that, their performance against the Aussies for example!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



True... hadn't thought that through at all!


----------



## gavroche (23 Oct 2011)

of course I am disappointed that France lost but they played with pride, passion and honour. They never let the AB get into the game and the result could have gone either way. I think France has done enough to shut up the critics who thought the AB would be all over us and smash us up to pieces. Au contraire, les Bleus played with vigour and nearly caused a big upset. 
I also like the way the French team formed an arrow head when the AB were doing their aka and then walked in a line towards them. Great stuff!!
Like a friend of mine texted me from Auckland, NZ is celebrating their relief more than their victory tonight.
Vive les Bleus and roll on the 6 nations.


----------



## yello (23 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Mr Joubert had a bit of a 'mare. Not sure it influenced the outcome in the end but he missed loads of offences and at least 3 high tackles....



One French commentator was screaming for a yellow card for a tackle on Tran Duhc (I think) He seemed convinced the ref was going over to the linesman to talk about it! The other commentators weren't really overly concerned. Joubert was well positioned and would have seen it though methinks. I guess he figured it looked worse than it was, certainly it seemed to me that Tran Duhc ducked into it trying to avoid the tackler.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> One French commentator was screaming for a yellow card for a tackle on Tran Duhc (I think) He seemed convinced the ref was going over to the linesman to talk about it! The other commentators weren't really overly concerned. Joubert was well positioned and would have seen it though methinks. I guess he figured it looked worse than it was, *certainly it seemed to me that Tran Duhc ducked into it trying to avoid the tackler.*



up to the tackler to re-adjust and go lower then. "Work on it in training son, now go and have a sit down." Nothing in the laws excuses a high tackle because the target was ducking. You've fallen under the influence of too many TV pundits I fear.

I've no doubt he saw all of them. Only his assessor will know why he didn't give any, or the reasons for some of his other guessed decisions.


----------



## yello (23 Oct 2011)

GregCollins said:


> You've fallen under the influence of too many TV pundits I fear.



I don't think so, but maybe. Just seeing the unintentional aspect of it I guess and making allowances where none should be made. I accept entirely what you say as I don't know the rules.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Oct 2011)

yello said:


> I don't think so, but maybe. Just seeing the unintentional aspect of it I guess and making allowances where none should be made. I accept entirely what you say as I don't know the rules.



the tacklers intent is irrelevant. execution is all.


----------



## neil earley (31 Oct 2011)

welll wales was robbed methinks would have def been a better final if they had been playing, thread should have been COULD IRISH REF SCUPPER WALES LOL


----------



## brokenflipflop (31 Oct 2011)

neil earley said:


> welll wales was robbed methinks would have def been a better final if they had been playing, thread should have been COULD IRISH REF SCUPPER WALES LOL



Delayed reaction ??


----------



## rich p (31 Oct 2011)

brokenflipflop said:


> Delayed reaction ??




neil late?


----------



## neil earley (1 Nov 2011)

better late than being the england managerlol think he ran out of excuses for his squad on and off the field


rich p said:


> neil late?


----------



## brokenflipflop (1 Nov 2011)

neil earley said:


> better late than being the england managerlol think he ran out of excuses for his squad on and off the field



Neil, come on. First you missed the boat by a week or two, then you accuse the ref when the Welsh guy was quite rightly sent off then your last reply you've written above the original quote.

I'm beginning to worry about you.. Are you OK ?

(besides being Welsh of course)


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Nov 2011)

Is Martin Johnson still in charge of wrecking running the England team?


----------



## subaqua (2 Nov 2011)

GregCollins said:


> Is Martin Johnson still in charge of wrecking running the England team?




probably won't be after his meeting today with the "backroom boys" . pity really but another victim of good player poor manager syndrome that affects all sports.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Nov 2011)

subaqua said:


> probably won't be after his meeting today with the "backroom boys" . pity really but another victim of good great player _piss _poor manager syndrome that affects all sports.



ftfy


----------



## subaqua (2 Nov 2011)

GregCollins said:


> ftfy




agreed


----------



## Accy cyclist (26 Oct 2019)

I seem to have projected myself forward 8 years. I can't find the RWC thread from the future,so this'll do.


We're doing ok so far aren't we.


----------



## Chromatic (26 Oct 2019)

Accy cyclist said:


> I seem to have projected myself forward 8 years. I can't find the RWC thread from the future,so this'll do.
> 
> 
> We're doing ok so far aren't we.



https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/rugby-world-cup-2019.253446/


----------



## Chromatic (26 Oct 2019)

And yes, alright so far.


----------



## swee'pea99 (26 Oct 2019)

I think that may have been the best England performance I've ever seen. The best team in the world were never in it, from start to finish. Flair and initiative played their part (you have to score a few) but as in the Aussie match, it was the relentless fast & ferocious tackling that won it. They just never got off the back foot. Tremendous performance. Roll on next weekend!


----------



## Drago (26 Oct 2019)

I'm not one for watching the rugby, even though back jn the day I played at inter club level. If I can't play myself then I'm not interested in watching others do so.

Anyway, Mrs D likes to watch muscular men in tight shorts prance about (that's probably why she married me) and was watching today's game. I walked in and saw "En v NZ" in the corner of the screen and piped up "oh, we're playing the Nazi's again?" She was not impressed and ushered me from the room, but I'm given to understand the result was much the same as our last game in 1945.


----------



## Lullabelle (26 Oct 2019)

Drago said:


> I'm not one for watching the rugby, even though back jn the day I played at inter club level. If I can't play myself then I'm not interested in watching others do so.
> 
> Anyway, Mrs D likes to watch muscular men in tight shorts prance about (that's probably why she married me) and was watching today's game. I walked in and saw "En v NZ" in the corner of the screen and piped up "oh, we're playing the Nazi's again?" She was not impressed and ushered me from the room, but I'm given to understand the result was much the same as our last game in 1945.



We slaughtered the All Blacks.


----------



## Drago (26 Oct 2019)

The Royal "we", I take it?


----------



## Levo-Lon (26 Oct 2019)

swee'pea99 said:


> I think that may have been the best England performance I've ever seen. The best team in the world were never in it, from start to finish. Flair and initiative played their part (you have to score a few) but as in the Aussie match, it was the relentless fast & ferocious tackling that won it. They just never got off the back foot. Tremendous performance. Roll on next weekend!




It was a brilliant effort, they really controlled the game and were virtually faultless bar a few handling errors.. 
Pitty the trys didn't count or we would have been talking a huge win score wise. 
NZ just couldn't deal with us. 

My worry is we peaked too early......


----------



## Beebo (26 Oct 2019)

Ha ha. This NZ fan got a bit excited and tattooed a 2019 WC winner.


----------

