Rugby - Advantage!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
If the French players does not wake up very quickly they will be crushed like flies...

And if you don't post the second half of that recipe, I'm staying perched right on top of the bandwagon with my lightning rod held aloft.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I've forgotten who suggested the idea here - someone reputable, I recall - but it was laughed at. Providing the two refs always knew who was meant to be doing what, it would have to help the game.

Although the word reputable should obviously eliminate me I think I am the one who dared to write about this last year...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
And if you don't post the second half of that recipe, I'm staying perched right on top of the bandwagon with my lightning rod held aloft.

THREATS?!?...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


Although the word reputable should obviously eliminate me I think I am the one who dared to write about this last year...

Yes, you did, and you are, indeed, reputable. Except as a supplier of recipes! But what I actually meant was that someone involved with rugby here in Australia suggested the idea earlier this year. And he was laughed at.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


THREATS?!?...

I've tried charm, I've tried flattery, I've even guaranteed you WRC success with my offer to disembark from the bandwagon. You've left me with no other option!

[Havak]

It certainly wasn't accidental, which I assume is what they've said

Yes they claimed exactly that. It’s a sad situation that will do nothing to prevent Wiliams rucking a players head next time.

Yes, it was good, old-fashioned, legitimate rucking. Waugh got what he deserved.

And he is a tough little bugger – had a grin a mile wide on his face as the game ended.

The players, the referees, the crowd were very pleased and this experience was so successful the IRB decided... not to renew it.

Well it is a very controversial idea. It would need thorough debate. Can you see it ever happening – all the top sides are now coached to use the refs blind spots I’m afraid – much as I think the SH sides set the standards on it.

If the French players does not wake up very quickly they will be crushed like flies...

There is a one off game in them I am sure – what better game to make it?

Presumably he wouldn't adopt the same attitude in a more important match.

Actually I’m not confident of that. It’s not unusual for him to tell refs they are wrong although he does normally marshall the side to comply with the man. The jury is out as they say.

Gray's got very good hands, good reflexes, can think, and certainly doesn't lack courage. Under the circumstances, it's the best we can do.

It’s going to be fun – Woodward has targeted your scrum bringing in both young bulls to the front row – Vickery and Woodman.

I would also hope that we don’t give One-D Wendell the space around the fringe that Wales gave him.

I wonder if he calls any ref "Sir" as our wee George does.

He always starts with “Sir” but it always slips to “mate” by the end.

How do you prepare for Test rugby? It can't happen in S12 because of the vastly different standards within the competition.

I think it was more that the refereeing is not consistent between S12 and Test level. It seems a more marked difference than between Club and test level here from what little I have seen.

Seemed to me it was their first Test for seven months and they played like it.

It is a valid argument – but perhaps not conclusive. After all they were the red hot form players of the S12 season and were playing a team right at the end of their long UK season. The exact reverse of last Novembers fixture in fact.

[Havak]

I see Justin Marshall is a little bitter:

"We played all the rugby - and didn't get the result, it's a simple as that.

Um no mate - you didn't play all the rugby I'm afraid. Rugby is balancing offence and defence.

Did anyone see any highlights of England A taking on Canada last Saturday? It was apparently a very solid performance.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
And he is a tough little bugger – had a grin a mile wide on his face as the game ended.

Yes, I'm not sure that Phil's IQ beats his boot size by much.

Well it is a very controversial idea. It would need thorough debate. Can you see it ever happening – all the top sides are now coached to use the refs blind spots I’m afraid – much as I think the SH sides set the standards on it.

I think we were talking about the betterment of rugby rather than coaches' preferences. As we well know, they're not necesssarily the same thing.

There is a one off game in them I am sure – what better game to make it?

Please don't get the lad's hopes up? It's taken me this long to convince him French rugby is on a par with Namibia's.

I would also hope that we don’t give One-D Wendell the space around the fringe that Wales gave him.

I wonder if the betting agencies have a market on how long it will take Wilkinson to bomb him? He can only pass or run. He can't kick. Which is why we need the Roff/Larkham combo to save him in those situations. To my knowledge, he's kicked twice in two seasons of S12.

He always starts with “Sir” but it always slips to “mate” by the end.

Not on Saturday night he didn't. It was glowering from the outset and obviously telling his teammates the guy was a f*ckwit.

It is a valid argument – but perhaps not conclusive. After all they were the red hot form players of the S12 season and were playing a team right at the end of their long UK season. The exact reverse of last Novembers fixture in fact.

Yes, but it's their first match together. And, unlike last season's ABs, which were effectively the Crusaders, this lot's the usual mixture. We traditionally start in rusty fashion. The Ireland match was a bit of a surprise in that regard. Long overdue.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
I see Justin Marshall is a little bitter:



Um no mate - you didn't play all the rugby I'm afraid. Rugby is balancing offence and defence.

If he means they should have had the match in the bag in the first half, he's right. They should have. But they didn't.

Did anyone see any highlights of England A taking on Canada last Saturday? It was apparently a very solid performance.

No access to them. Did you happen to catch any highlights of the U 21 Wallabies -v- U 21 England? By any chance at all?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
Well it is a very controversial idea. It would need thorough debate. Can you see it ever happening – all the top sides are now coached to use the refs blind spots I’m afraid – much as I think the SH sides set the standards on it.

The problems are becoming so deep they will deter many long time fans if nothing is done in the near future. I know that two-referees on a field is a controversial idea, but I don't understand why it is not tested regularly and seriously in the lower divisions or competitions.

Still, one of the main problems would remain unsolved, interpretation of the laws. Without a clear set of laws and consistent interpretations in both hemispheres, two referees on the field won't add that much to the clarity of a game.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I've tried charm, I've tried flattery, I've even guaranteed you WRC success with my offer to disembark from the bandwagon. You've left me with no other option!

I want a written angagement for both the Stade Toulousain and the Frogs.

[Havak]

Yes, I'm not sure that Phil's IQ beats his boot size by much.

Not an entirely bad thing of course.

As we well know, they're not necessarily the same thing.

Very true. Would it make the game ‘better’ do you think? I think myself it would certainly hamper the continuity of the game considerably unless the second official on the pitch had a very clear and totally separate remit defined for them. And therein lies the point of most argument – what would they police?

Please don't get the lad's hopes up? It's taken me this long to convince him French rugby is on a par with Namibia's.

They are, I regret to say, off the boil. But there’s room on the graph for them to reach the heights again.

That’s was a reference to Graham Henry’s reaction to Saturday by the way. Try to find the quotes yourself as they are hilarious. England apparently are (paraphrased as ever) at the ‘peak of their graph right now and won’t improve’ which of course implies they can’t play better than they did Saturday (which is laughably wrong – we did not play well last weekend!) and the ABs are a young side on a ‘huge learning curve’ who is ‘four months time will have reached their potential at the top of the graph’.

Generic meaningless (but Kiwi crowd pleasing) pap?

To my knowledge, he's kicked twice in two seasons of S12.

I doubt any bookmaker would entertain the bet. He’ll get a high one nice and early. And if Aus-Eng clashes run true to form he will probably run the length and score from it.

It was glowering from the outset and obviously telling his teammates the guy was a f*ckwit.

Which is shamefully disrespectful but not entirely inaccurate (certainly to the Kiwis – have they called for extradition yet?)

I think he over-psyched for the game. You see it at Tigers occasionally – the whites of his eyes glaze and you know you are in for either a huge performance or a card (pick a colour). Remember it was his first test there for England and I think it meant a lot to him (he played there for the Lions in 93 and of course famously for the Kiwi U-19 side four years before that).

Yes, but it's their first match together.

And here I think they could learn one thing from us – England have periodic training camps for the 50 senior players throughout the year. Something Woodward fought hard for an was finally established early last year. It means the players and coaches are familiar with each other and the sense of ‘team’ is maintained. It helped stop us being quite so rusty in our first fixtures in the sequences of games.

But then England players are not contracted for a season of service in the same way the ABs work so maybe it is not possible.

We traditionally start in rusty fashion. The Ireland match was a bit of a surprise in that regard. Long overdue.

It was a very good ‘cold’ performance. Of course we must have broken their spirit for you in April.

What would worry me is the next game seemed a huge backwards step in terms of cohesive play. Some very un-Wallaby like scenes of backs not being sure what to do next with ball in hand?

If he means they should have had the match in the bag in the first half, he's right. They should have. But they didn't.

But the words he used were that they played all the rugby which is not fair. With their domination in the first half and the overall share of possession and territory they should have won of course. Crucially even a cold side should make a 2 man advantage for ten minutes tell though. That is perhaps why Mitchell has been ruthless for next Saturday – though even I was surprised McCaw was dropped from the XV starting.

No access to them. Did you happen to catch any highlights of the U 21 Wallabies -v- U 21 England? By any chance at all?

I don’t think they are televised. Your boys apparently were very good indeed.

How much should we read into it? Well the core of our normal U-21 side is in Canada with the senior A side and the two Tigers lads who played the Wallabies have never played first team for Tigers (and one still scored a try). It does mean the Wallaby future looks fairly rosy – and that our strength is suspect once 74 guys are on tour elsewhere?

Without a clear set of laws and consistent interpretations in both hemispheres, two referees on the field won't add that much to the clarity of a game.

There is actually a ‘clear’ set of laws and there should be no such thing as interpretation in an ideal world – you are inside the law or outside it. The ref doesn’t have the right to ignore a law because it stops play for example. But it wouldn’t take long if you looked close enough to find an obscure law that non one in their right mind would apply regularly. What we need are redefined laws but that is some can of worms – little Eddie would be in there like a shot making scrums illegal.

There’s little point in trying to debate specific interpretation here – we have proved time and again never the twain shall meet on this one.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin




I want a written angagement for both the Stade Toulousain and the Frogs.

Only if I can reserve the right to remount the bandwagons if the recipe doesn't work. And, I can assure you, if it doesn't work, it will be through no fault of mine.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Very true. Would it make the game ‘better’ do you think? I think myself it would certainly hamper the continuity of the game considerably unless the second official on the pitch had a very clear and totally separate remit defined for them. And therein lies the point of most argument – what would they police?

Interesting argument. Would policing the rules make it a better game?

They are, I regret to say, off the boil. But there’s room on the graph for them to reach the heights again.

Certainly not while I'm perched atop the bandwagon, trusty lightning rod handy, waiting for the second half of a recipe.

I doubt any bookmaker would entertain the bet. He’ll get a high one nice and early. And if Aus-Eng clashes run true to form he will probably run the length and score from it.

Just my luck too. Lote Tuquiri has learned a whole lot more about rugby in one season than Wendell has in two. And Tuquiri has a much more rounded game than Wendell. He can actually kick. I suspect Eddie is taking him along quietly for the moment, blooding him, probably with a view to using him in the Tri-Nations. And if that works out, using him in the WRC.

I think he over-psyched for the game. You see it at Tigers occasionally – the whites of his eyes glaze and you know you are in for either a huge performance or a card (pick a colour). Remember it was his first test there for England and I think it meant a lot to him (he played there for the Lions in 93 and of course famously for the Kiwi U-19 side four years before that).

Well, I'm perfectly happy for England to play the same spoiling game they did against the ABs as long as the ref penalises it as happened on the weekend. We just have to avoid getting frustrated and giving away penalties ourselves.

And here I think they could learn one thing from us – England have periodic training camps for the 50 senior players throughout the year. Something Woodward fought hard for an was finally established early last year. It means the players and coaches are familiar with each other and the sense of ‘team’ is maintained. It helped stop us being quite so rusty in our first fixtures in the sequences of games.

But then England players are not contracted for a season of service in the same way the ABs work so maybe it is not possible.

I don't see why it couldn't be done. It would be a matter of fitting them in between S12, NPC and Tri-Nations. The same should happen here.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Havak

There is actually a ‘clear’ set of laws and there should be no such thing as interpretation in an ideal world – you are inside the law or outside it. The ref doesn’t have the right to ignore a law because it stops play for example. But it wouldn’t take long if you looked close enough to find an obscure law that non one in their right mind would apply regularly. What we need are redefined laws but that is some can of worms – little Eddie would be in there like a shot making scrums illegal.

Then how would one define playing 'advantage'? ie: wrt duration and circumstances under?
It isn't something one can really define under the category of a 'law' hence has to be subject to interpretation - and its a segment of play few would like to see vanish.
No doubt there are many other highly 'subjective' aspects but this was the first that came to mind.
Even if laws could be 'parameterised' to the extent that interpretation was beyond the scope of a ref, I rather suspect there might be almost as much 'discussion' over the extent of the parameters as there is presently over the extent of the interpretation.