Rugby - Advantage!

[finbar]

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

That, and it wasn't - literally - the team we played in November.

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?

That's the problem. We have optimists here who want to believe they were developing some sort of game plan to use against England. The reality was that as soon as we spread the ball wide, the Welshmen were in trouble against the big, quick backs. But it didn't happen.

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.

Yes, they should have won and didn't. The 2-man advantage situation underlined it. I think the majority of the AB changes for this week are about trying out players and positions.

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.

I have to say, having watched NH and SH refs in action down here, and having seen NH refs in action in NH matches, I think the so-called differences in interpretation have become a bit of a myth. I've seen players allowed to stray offside in NH matches, I've seen decoy runners used, I've seen the same questionable decisions in rucks and at breakdowns. I suspect the reality these days is that we have some less-than-competent refs in both hemispheres.

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon


Then how would one define playing 'advantage'?

One of the best examples of a ref required to use his judgement, meaning you're going to get as many different interpretations of what constitutes advantage as there are refs. Basically, it's down to the intelligence of the ref. I say no more.

BTW, I'm still waiting to see your sources for the media celebration of the Wallabies' performance against Wales.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by finbar
BTW, I'm still waiting to see your sources for the media celebration of the Wallabies' performance against Wales.

Channel 10's Sunday night late sports update IIRC. Don't remember the name of the thing but it starts between 22:00 and 23:00. They slotted in a few highlights of the Aus-Wales match, with comments, just before going to the AFL, at which point I tuned out.


[Edit: Now that I think about it ... which network has the coverage rights to this WRC? ]

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon


Channel 10's Sunday night late sports update IIRC.

They wouldn't know rugby if a ball wedged in their clacker and exploded.

[Edit: Now that I think about it ... which network has the coverage rights to this WRC? ]

7. Who covered the Wales match and whose commentators were as tough on the Wallabies as Greg Growden in the SMH.

[Havak]

Lote Tuquiri has learned a whole lot more about rugby in one season than Wendell has in two

I don’t expect Wendell to do too well against us – but stranger things have happened. Tuquiri one shall watch with interest on Saturday.

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

Check out the minority of kiwis on the BBC website. England are ‘cheats’ with hands in the ruck, not rolling away and lying on the ball. Laugh? I nearly cried – that’s the best “Dear Pot – Love kettle” argument I’ve heard in a long time. It seems rather churlish to criticise a team for using tactics on you that you yourself led the way in? Eddie will no doubt do the same conveniently missing examples like Waughy’s from last weekend.

The other point though is why would England use the same game on you? They won’t be expecting the same level if challenge up front for a start.

Interesting to see the roof will be closed and Eddie is promising a fast running game. I went to University with a Saints fan (but apart from that he is okay) who just emailed me to say “Is it just me on this one or is this just further proof of SH arrogance that they think we're unable to play a running game? Or even possibly
defend against a side playing one?”.

It does bother me that there is this obsession down south with closing the roof – it;’s not how rugger should be played as far as I am concerned.

It isn't something one can really define under the category of a 'law' hence has to be subject to interpretation

From memory I thought Advantage was quite clearly defined? Finbar? It would benefit from interpretation being removed from it to a great extent to stop these multi-phase advantages that plague the southern game.

That, and it wasn't - literally - the team we played in November.

They never look the same side without O’Driscoll to me.

Yes, they should have won and didn't. The 2-man advantage situation underlined it

And emphatically at that. I don’t mind their fans saying ‘you were lucky’ or ‘you played this aspect cynically’ as there may well be truth in that – but there’s been some Ostrich stuff flying about with fans in denial about their own performance. There is a lot of work for their forwards to do – a bit more work on scrumming and even the line out which didn’t fire well.

I suspect the reality these days is that we have some less-than-competent refs in both hemispheres.

It is getting easier to see what the IRB has as flavour of the month that’s for sure. Have you noticed how all refs have eased off slightly on releasing the ball after the tackle? In November it was nanoseconds – now it seems slightly more relaxed?

Mind you if hear ‘through the gate’ again Saturday I swear I will scream!

Basically, it's down to the intelligence of the ref. I say no more.

No need to. It speaks volumes.

7. Who covered the Wales match and whose commentators were as tough on the Wallabies as Greg Growden in the SMH.

I think ITV still have the RWC franchise here. Sadly they are clueless about the game so I dread this being the case.

[Havak]

It never ceases to amaze me how the coach of one of the most cynically professional sides in the world keeps calling on referees to be very very strict with his next opponents.

See Eddie's latest war cry here

Why is he bothering - McHugh is a whistle happy pedant from recent showings - he is after all the guy tackled by that Bok moron.

The sad thing is McHugh will be as picky with the Wallabies as he is with England. Eddie will hate him.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak


I don’t expect Wendell to do too well against us – but stranger things have happened. Tuquiri one shall watch with interest on Saturday.

I wish he'd come on earlier against both Ireland and Wales. He's still very raw, but he's got skills.

“Is it just me on this one or is this just further proof of SH arrogance that they think we're unable to play a running game? Or even possibly
defend against a side playing one?”.

Tell him it's just him. Tell him he shares your national lack of self esteem. Is this the same dill who says Nathan Sharpe can't play?

It does bother me that there is this obsession down south with closing the roof – it;’s not how rugger should be played as far as I am concerned.

The AFL owns the stadium, they decide when the roof is closed. It's ridiculous. It's closed more often than it's open. Games of AFL are played in bizarre, perfectly still conditions. What was interesting, though, was both rugby teams expressing satisfaction with the surface. There's about to be an AFL players' strike - well, a tad of an exaggeration, but there's extreme unhappiness - over the state of the playing surface. They claim it's (a) too hard and the players jar up; and (b) too uneven.

From memory I thought Advantage was quite clearly defined? Finbar?

Here's the law:

(a) The referee is sole judge of whether or not a team has gained an advantage. The referee has wide discretion when making decisions.

(b) Advantage can be either territorial or tactical.

(c) Territorial advantage means a gain in ground.

(d) Tactical advantage means freedom for the non-offending team to play the ball as they wish.

Basically, it relies on a ref's judgement. And, as we've all seen, the judgements can vary. I doubt there's another game on the planet that leaves so many laws and by-laws to a ref's judgement.

and even the line out which didn’t fire well.

Um, if that's the case, nor did yours.

It is getting easier to see what the IRB has as flavour of the month that’s for sure. Have you noticed how all refs have eased off slightly on releasing the ball after the tackle? In November it was nanoseconds – now it seems slightly more relaxed?

Yep. And the tunnels in the lineouts suddenly reared their ugly heads again on the weekend. I think it's a Lucky Dip. Before the game, the ref dips into a barrel and pulls out the law he's going to enforce for the game.

I think ITV still have the RWC franchise here. Sadly they are clueless about the game so I dread this being the case.

I'll recommend Poido and Buddha to them for you.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
It never ceases to amaze me how the coach of one of the most cynically professional sides in the world keeps calling on referees to be very very strict with his next opponents.

See Eddie's latest war cry here

Why is he bothering - McHugh is a whistle happy pedant from recent showings - he is after all the guy tackled by that Bok moron.

The sad thing is McHugh will be as picky with the Wallabies as he is with England. Eddie will hate him.

Surely there has to be a fat drunk amongst the England supporters who will lumber onto the field and do the same job the fat, drunk Bok did? And when I connect fat drunk and England supporter in the same sentence ... I won't go on.

[Havak]

He's still very raw, but he's got skills.

It’s a difficult transition. Sounds like he might make it successfully.

Is this the same dill who says Nathan Sharpe can't play?

Nope it’s a different Dill. The Dill who dislikes Sharpe generally really knows his rugby which is why it surprised me so much. It looks like I won’t get to make my own judgment with his knee ligaments giving grief? I assume the Bok lad will step in rather than my old buddy Justin?

Are you absolutely sure my new Dill doesn’t have a point. I’m sure some of your countrymen believe what he alleges – even if only the banana bunch so beloved of Channel 7’s producers.

The AFL owns the stadium, they decide when the roof is closed. It's ridiculous

I’ve been in it with the roof closed. It’s a nice stadium, good views, walkways all round and wide aisles. Being an AFL pitch though the rugger can be too far away from certain parts of the ground. The closed roof gives it a very weird ambience and the nonks still letting off pre-game fireworks seems plain daft.

Here is hoping it’s a happier hunting ground this time (at least there is no Owen to cut a swathe through us).

What was interesting, though, was both rugby teams expressing satisfaction with the surface.

Does this mean the sports require different surfaces – or does it mean some sportsmen whine less than others?

Basically, it relies on a ref's judgement

So Ravagon was right. And the fact that it is open for interpretation is enshrined in the laws itself (which is interesting).

Um, if that's the case, nor did yours.

Don’t recall claiming it did.

Even so the Johnson-Kay partnership worked ‘better’. Better is a subjective word and open to wide discretion in interpretation.

I think it's a Lucky Dip. Before the game, the ref dips into a barrel and pulls out the law he's going to enforce for the game.

It would be hard to disagree.

I'll recommend Poido and Buddha to them for you.

Might as well. No one says “worlds number one team” with the same contempt Poido injected when interviewing Gregan after the Wales game.

ITV have had problems with the commentary team. They have used Eddie Butler (Austin’s infamous ghost writer) and had a summariser last time around called Steve Smith who made an outrageous racist comment about a Tongan that got him fined by the Commercial broadcasting watchdog. I guess they are on a par with channel 7?

And when I connect fat drunk and England supporter in the same sentence ... I won't go on.

Best not to. It’s all muscle I tell you.

I’m not sure our fan will be the one trying the run on to the field. McHugh has a reputation for being niggly at the scrum. On last weekends showing that is going to cause more grief to your side. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him being heavily reviled by the home crowd.

[Tamerlin]

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

A little written agreement and...

[Havak]

SO I say "it's just you" and the Dill replies

Well let's face it, if he referees the game to the letter of the law we may well be a player or two down. But as for the Aussies, they'll be lucky to be playing with a 7s team I know this is Jones not even bothering to making it a subtle reference to the NZ game and us having 2 players sin binned, but has he seen his own team play recently??? The reason we, and others, score so many penalties against them as opposed to tries is
because they'd sooner give a penalty away than let anyone get quick ball and possibly score a try.

He goes on the say he thinks Jones may be gone by the RWC.

And the most ironic thing? He is a ref at amateur level.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
There is actually a ‘clear’ set of laws...

No there is not, though some laws are clearly define and should not be the obect of varying interpretations (off-side, knock-ons, straight lineout throws... which, unfortunately, does not mean the referees are applying them adequately) some are not:

- Advantage (as Ravagon wrote it)
- Time before punishing a player holding the ball in a spontaeous scrum or maul
- Quickly playing a penalty
- Sweepings around mauls and spontaneous srums
- ...

But IMO the main problem is the clear laws are not applied consistently from game to game.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
I suspect the reality these days is that we have some less-than-competent refs in both hemispheres.

This is exactly what I am saying since last year Finbar, and your quote is especially true in France to the exception of Joël Dumé (though he is missing a game from time to time). Unfortunately, the IRB does not seem to have the least of an interest in this problem, all goes well is the best of worlds...

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
I think what surprises me most is that England simply did not play that well. The defence was awesome and I have to admit defence won the game.

What?! No mention of the horrendous refereeing? Even your man Jonno was ready to spit the dummy!

Carlos failed that first examination on stepping up to the big arena – and whilst his counterpart also had a quiet game the difference between them was Wilko could compartmentalise his kicking. Carlos should have kicked several of the chances he blew.

No doubt about it, Carlos could have won the game for us. I can't be too hard on him, however, because he was instrumental in creating the opportunity for the try.

As for Mr Howlett – well I want him at Tigers is all I can say. What a player. I think Caligastia may need to conceed when he does see it that there was somewhat more than a hint of offside leading to his try though.

No way! He was just quick off the mark. Perhaps you need to conceed that the ref blew too many ridiculous penalties - therefore stifling the game into a kicking match between Wilkinson and Spencer.

The Kiwis really bossed the first half and England did very well to get back on terms in the second. The defining moment for me – when we were down to 13 men and yet came good for a three point credit in that period. Fifteen should punish 13 every time – particularly in a side with the pace the Kiwi backline had. I think what pleased me most was that they were camped on our line in an offensive scrum as we put six men up against eight and they failed to make it tell – eventually conceding the penalty through frustration. That give Mitchell something he really needs to think about – as good as some of his young forwards are the claims they were already the match for the Old England work horses has been shown to be a little too optimistic. I expect changes in the Kiwi pack for the Welsh game.

Yeah, NZ choked. There is no excuse for not scoring against a 13 man team. During that 10 minutes it was nervous knock-on after nervous knock-on.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Nope it’s a different Dill. The Dill who dislikes Sharpe generally really knows his rugby which is why it surprised me so much. It looks like I won’t get to make my own judgment with his knee ligaments giving grief? I assume the Bok lad will step in rather than my old buddy Justin?

I wonder if the Different Dill saw Sharpe against Ireland and Wales. Fine games against both, in lineouts and around the ground. I doubt he saw them. Probably picking lint out of his navel. That aside, I didn't know about Sharpe's knee until you mentioned it. I just checked it out. Eddie is hoping he will play, but it would be a huge risk. Justin isn't in the squad, so Vickerman will come into the team.

Are you absolutely sure my new Dill doesn’t have a point. I’m sure some of your countrymen believe what he alleges – even if only the banana bunch so beloved of Channel 7’s producers.

To be perfectly truthful, I don't think many people here would have seen England play running rugby. We had no access to the 6 Nations this year. We saw the Tests last November. You ran well against the Boks, but then you and I probably could've. You didn't run all that well against the ABs and us. In fact, that was when England seemed lost because of the problems connecting the packs to the backs. So I'm sure England can play running rugby given the opportunity. I'm sure the sensible Australian supporters would agree. I know Eddie thinks they can because he's seen them and said so. Pity more of us don't get free trips to the 6 Nations.

Here is hoping it’s a happier hunting ground this time (at least there is no Owen to cut a swathe through us).

Unless he takes Vickerman's place on the bench. How much would he love that? He's been training with the squad so he must be getting fitter. But two S12 halves since last November might not be enough of a grounding. Fingers crossed though.

Does this mean the sports require different surfaces – or does it mean some sportsmen whine less than others?

Mmmm. AFL doesn't have the massively physical confrontations that rugby has, but there's a hell of a lot more running at speed. A lot of the AFL players - and several of them very sensible chaps - say that it's the only surface on which they "feel" their legs by three quarters through a match. It has to be remembered, too, that all the other grounds are open-air, it's a winter sport, and Melbourne is wet in winter. So it's all relative.

So Ravagon was right. And the fact that it is open for interpretation is enshrined in the laws itself (which is interesting).

Well, x number of tries, he had to sooner or later. And, yes, it's enshrined that it's up to the ref's judgement. As I said - in what other game?

Don’t recall claiming it did.

Yes, I know. I've long since learned to remind you that, in most points you make, the opposite is also usually the case.

Even so the Johnson-Kay partnership worked ‘better’. Better is a subjective word and open to wide discretion in interpretation.

See above.

Might as well. No one says “worlds number one team” with the same contempt Poido injected when interviewing Gregan after the Wales game.

Poido commentates the way he played. No holds barred. The nice thing about having commentators is that one can see what's going on for oneself anyway. And I still think Poido's comment about the machinations of opposing front rows that I quoted a while ago - "It's a dark science" - takes the cake as one of the most astute, mordant observations I've heard about rugby.

ITV have had problems with the commentary team. They have used Eddie Butler (Austin’s infamous ghost writer) and had a summariser last time around called Steve Smith who made an outrageous racist comment about a Tongan that got him fined by the Commercial broadcasting watchdog. I guess they are on a par with channel 7?

7 are a funny mix. Poido is one-eyed. Buddha can be, but can also see the other side. Dan Crowley, the new chap on the block, is very fair. Gordon Bray, 7's main caller, is knowledgeable and fair, even if he likes to dwell on the trivia - players' occupations in former lives - a bit too much. Unfortunately, he's in danger of losing the main calling job because David Leckie - the ex-Packer 9 Network supremo now in charge at 7 - thinks he's an "egg-head".

I’m not sure our fan will be the one trying the run on to the field. McHugh has a reputation for being niggly at the scrum. On last weekends showing that is going to cause more grief to your side. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him being heavily reviled by the home crowd.

Bear in mind that it's being played in Melbourne. They're not rugby-educated down there. They will turn out in droves, but then they would turn out in droves for British Bulldog. Oh what a game that was at school! Anyway, don't expect much from the crowd, they wouldn't know. But if McHugh is niggly at the scrum, it will be nothing new this season. I've never seen so many re-sets of scrums and penalties that leave both packs bewildered. Yet another IRB dictum, obviously.