Rugby - Advantage Over!

[MrWhereItsAt]

/me sings

That's what.... you get.....

God you would not believe the bragging in Kiwi papers the next day. They devoted most of the front page and at least another 5-6 pages of the Sunday Star Times to talking up the win. Thing is, there's a row between the NZRFU and the ABs about pay. The Aussies are getting something like $120k per Tri Nations match, whereas the NZRFU is offering about $60k. The Aussies' bonus for winning the Bledisloe is I believe half a million, whereas the Abs are being offered only $100,000. The RFU has been publicising the ABs' pay packets in the hope the public would shoot down their hold-out for more money, but with successes like Saturday night's one...
/me shakes head.
The RFU have cost us co-hosting the World Cup already this year, I can just see their stupidity and greed costing us everything else, too.

The news item with the next largest coverage was about Uday's shooting, then about how in a Simpsons comic a drunken Homer wakes up as Prime Minister of New Zealand.


'Tis a funny wee country, our Kiwiland.

[LDiCesare]

A few thoughts about players' salary:
Since players can only play rugby for one international team (they can't switch), they are somewhat hostages of the federation, unless thay have an alternative like League to whom they could sell themselves more.
This is, I believe, problematic in NZ, because there are little alternatives. In Australia, League and Australian Rules being there, I think the salaries have to adapt because of the rival sports.

But that's actually worse in the Northern hemisphere, since clubs pay their players, and the federation only borrows them from time to time in order to injure them.
There is competition for salaries between clubs, but no such thing in the national selection. I wonder if someday a club might not pay players to have them refuse a selection in the national team, to make sure they don't get hurt...

[Tamerlin]

Right, the AB backs were impressive and Finbar has efficiently summed up the lacks of the Wallabies. Yes, the game was spectacular, at least in a SH point of view I presume. As far as I am concerned it is better not to talk about the referee.

But the game itself let me a curious feeling... was it a game of Rugby?

- Not a single maul throughout the game
- Undisputed scrums
- Undisputed lineouts
- Not straight lineout throws allowed
- little forward passes tolerated
- Dummy runners hindering the defense in every major AB attack
- ...

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
A few thoughts about players' salary:
Since players can only play rugby for one international team (they can't switch), they are somewhat hostages of the federation, unless thay have an alternative like League to whom they could sell themselves more.
This is, I believe, problematic in NZ, because there are little alternatives. In Australia, League and Australian Rules being there, I think the salaries have to adapt because of the rival sports.

But that's actually worse in the Northern hemisphere, since clubs pay their players, and the federation only borrows them from time to time in order to injure them.
There is competition for salaries between clubs, but no such thing in the national selection. I wonder if someday a club might not pay players to have them refuse a selection in the national team, to make sure they don't get hurt...

You make some fair points. I think it boils down to the fact that events like the WRC are massive money-spinning exercises, and the players - without whom the event wouldn't happen - think they deserve a fair slice of the pie. Such disputes have been going on for years. Back in the 1970s, Australian cricket was split apart after the top players signed up to play for an organisation set up in opposition to the traditional body. The traditional body, an arrogant bunch of old fogeys, essentially treated the players like serfs. They paid the price, too.

Of course, there is a downside for the players who win big pay increases - when they're not playing well, their pay packets come back to haunt them. They're called overpaid. Which is what's now starting to happen with the Wallabies.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
As far as I am concerned it is better not to talk about the referee.

A NH ref, too. I'm not sure where you're going to find a ref who pleases you.

But the game itself let me a curious feeling... was it a game of Rugby?

- Not a single maul throughout the game

Basically, the ABs didn't need mauls. They were too busily and easily murdering us elsewhere.

- Undisputed scrums

You really are going to have to define "undisputed".

- Undisputed lineouts

Do you mean the defending team didn't contest the lineout? On the whole, the only lineouts that weren't contested were those close to the try line. Defending teams often don't contest lineouts in that situation in order to prepare to defend against the push over the line. It happens the world over, and always has happened.

- Not straight lineout throws allowed

As Havak and I have often discussed, the refs seem to decide what they're going to police for the game before they take the field. Sometimes it's lineout throwing, sometimes it's offside play, sometimes - as we were discussing the other day - it's the runners crossing the halfway line before the player has kicked off. And, incidentally, both teams frequently had runners crossing the line before the player kicked on Saturday night. Always on the ref's blind side. I'm not sure why refs are operating so selectively these days but it seems to be the case and I'm very sad about it.

- little forward passes tolerated

I saw a couple I thought were marginally forward. I don't think the ref had a great deal of assistance from his touchies on the night. Someone should have taken action against Brendan Cannon for taking out the player in the air, particularly after Sailor had just been carded for the same thing.

- Dummy runners hindering the defense in every major AB attack

Nuh. I saw maybe one or two potentially dodgy situations. Obstruction means you have to obstruct the defence, and if the ball has already gone in another direction, the defence hasn't been obstructed because the defenders aren't, by definition, defenders because with the ball no longer in the vicinity, they have nothing to defend against. But then we've had this discussion before. And I'll save Havak's typing fingers by mentioning the French habit of using blocking runners.

- ...

Ran out of energy?

[finbar]

Don't spend it all at once, chaps

Ignominy time.

There was a pool of 90 Civ Gold, with the winners receiving as follows:

Caligastia 36
Frozzy 36
LDiCesares 18

So our updated Bank A/c is as follows:

Andydog 286.5
Bearcat 80.5
Caligastia 94.5-20 = 74.5+36 = 110.5
finbar 14.5
Frozzy 88-20 = 68+36 = 104
Havak 88.05
Journeyman 122.5
LDiCesares 144.3-10 = 134.3+18 = 152.3
Mickeyj 143.5
NeoStar 114
ravagon 90.25
redbull 80
Tamerlin 59.3

[finbar]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
* MrWhereItsAt sings

That's what.... you get.....

God you would not believe the bragging in Kiwi papers the next day. They devoted most of the front page and at least another 5-6 pages of the Sunday Star Times to talking up the win. Thing is, there's a row between the NZRFU and the ABs about pay. The Aussies are getting something like $120k per Tri Nations match, whereas the NZRFU is offering about $60k. The Aussies' bonus for winning the Bledisloe is I believe half a million, whereas the Abs are being offered only $100,000. The RFU has been publicising the ABs' pay packets in the hope the public would shoot down their hold-out for more money, but with successes like Saturday night's one...
* MrWhereItsAt shakes head.
The RFU have cost us co-hosting the World Cup already this year, I can just see their stupidity and greed costing us everything else, too.

And the RFU is threatening to select a back-up AB squad to compete in the WRC. Bluff and counter-bluff. I think the French are also having the same problem with their players. It will all be resolved, just as the Wallabies resolved their dispute. The irony for the Wallabies now being that, on current form, they have Buckley's of collecting the bonus for winning the WRC.

I assume the references to the Tri Nations in the post should be to the WRC.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar

A NH ref, too. I'm not sure where you're going to find a ref who pleases you.

I know, I would be satisfied with one who applies the laws of the game as written.

Basically, the ABs didn't need mauls. They were too busily and easily murdering us elsewhere.

The mauls are almost no longer used in the SH...

You really are going to have to define "undisputed".

Not pushed by either side...

Do you mean the defending team didn't contest the lineout? On the whole, the only lineouts that weren't contested were those close to the try line. Defending teams often don't contest lineouts in that situation in order to prepare to defend against the push over the line. It happens the world over, and always has happened.

True, when your try line is threatened I understand this tactic. But the Wallabies have only disputed a few lineouts. If you can see the game again, I know it hurts, you will see that the said lineouts were not always close to the try line.

I'm not sure why refs are operating so selectively these days but it seems to be the case and I'm very sad about it.

Easier to understand game > More Spectacular Matches > Larger Audience > More Adds > More Money > Infuriated Tamerlin BUT... Happier Murdoch

I saw a couple I thought were marginally forward. I don't think the ref had a great deal of assistance from his touchies on the night. Someone should have taken action against Brendan Cannon for taking out the player in the air, particularly after Sailor had just been carded for the same thing.

Same foul, same penalty. I think the referee did not wanted the Australian ship to be reduced to 13 crewmembers. I wonder how professional players can make such stupid mistakes...

Nuh. I saw maybe one or two potentially dodgy situations. Obstruction means you have to obstruct the defence, and if the ball has already gone in another direction, the defence hasn't been obstructed because the defenders aren't, by definition, defenders because with the ball no longer in the vicinity, they have nothing to defend against. But then we've had this discussion before. And I'll save Havak's typing fingers by mentioning the French habit of using blocking runners.

The fact the French team has integrated this perversion of the law into their game does not necessarily mean I agree with it. Actually, what is amazing is the fact the Australian players have not used any dummy runners while they were butchered by a team using them (though not as often as I wrote it, true... ).

Ran out of energy?

A bit yes, I don't think I will have a look at the rest of the Tri-Nations and I am loosing interest in the RWC. I am eagerly waiting for the beginning of the French Championship, I need to see a bit of real Rugby (you know the NH game where the forwards have a real use )...

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


I know, I would be satisfied with one who applies the laws of the game as written.

I have alerted Interpol on your behalf and they're searching for one as we speak. If you find a wrapped parcel - approximately average human height with what looks like a whistle poking through the wrapping paper - on your doorstep, don't be surprised.

The mauls are almost no longer used in the SH...

Actually, the ABs are capable of a pretty good one when they choose. The Boks used to be, I'm not sure if they are anymore. The Wallabies have never been good at them.

Not pushed by either side...

Sorry, mon ami, every scrum on Saturday night was contested. True, they didn't crouch locked like a couple of copulating dogs for forty minutes, but then there was rugby to be played.

True, when your try line is threatened I understand this tactic. But the Wallabies have only disputed a few lineouts. If you can see the game again, I know it hurts, you will see that the said lineouts were not always close to the try line.

Well, we stole six of their lineout throws, so there's six we certainly contested. I think we also lost two of our own throws - and I can guarantee you the Wallaby players didn't stand aside and watch the ABs take the Wallaby hooker's throws - so that's six plus two which equals eight.

I now offer you the official lineout statistics from the match. The Wallaby lineout jumpers won the ball as follows:

Kefu 5 times
Vickerman 4
Waugh 3
Giffen 2
Smith 2
Young 1

That totals 17. The total obviously doesn't include the two throws we lost. The ABs won a total of 11 lineouts.

I rest my case. I knew I shouldn't have abandoned my law studies.

Easier to understand game > More Spectacular Matches > Larger Audience > More Adds > More Money > Infuriated Tamerlin BUT... Happier Murdoch

Yes, but Murdoch doesn't control the rights in the NH, does he?

Same foul, same penalty. I think the referee did not wanted the Australian ship to be reduced to 13 crewmembers. I wonder how professional players can make such stupid mistakes...

In Wendell Sailor's case, he hasn't got a brain in his head. In Brendan Cannon's case, he was fired up and got carried away.

The fact the French team has integrated this perversion of the law into their game does not necessarily mean I agree with it.

But you'll take any try that's scored as a result.

Actually, what is amazing is the fact the Australian players have not used any dummy runners while they were butchered by a team using them (though not as often as I wrote it, true... )

Indeed. For the most part when the Wallabies got the ball, they just slogged it up the middle, straight into a wall of black jerseys. How stupid of them.

I am eagerly waiting for the beginning of the French Championship, I need to see a bit of real Rugby (you know the NH game where the forwards have a real use )...

Yes, I'm rather fond of watching sides of beef locked together in an arm wrestle to the death, too.

[finbar]

I'm not sure why Frozzy hasn't pointed out to Havak that the Maori beat Canada 65-27 so I thought I would.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Will Havak now admit that NZ were rusty playing England, and have now broken into full stride? Not likely

It'd certainly make for an interesting rematch now that the AB's are hitting their stride. After all, England had won 11 on the trot at the time IIRC, including a number of pretty convincing performances.
Now things might be a wee bit more even.

Instead, Eddie says that a game can be won or lost in 10 minutes - referring to Wendell's time in the bin - and the Wallabies will win the crucial 10 minutes next time. No, Eddie, not playing the mindless, one-out style of rugby the team is playing when they actually get the ball. I despair. I honestly despair.

On the bright side though, they've resisted the urge to go hog-wild replacing half their starting lineup - as a number of speculators were hinting at post-match. Now they'll have some stability against the Boks this weekend and may be able to at least put together a half-solid performance.
With a win under their belts (and if they can't beat the Boks on home soil then there really is something seriously wrong) their play should start to improve. Winning does wonders.


Oh and not to rub it in but here's something I got in an e-mail ...

Dear John Howard,

Wishing you a very happy birthday and thanks for all of your support last Saturday.

Best wishes,
The All-Blacks

Apparently his nibs was in attendance and (ostensibly) supporting Australia. They never had a chance.

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
On the bright side though, they've resisted the urge to go hog-wild replacing half their starting lineup - as a number of speculators were hinting at post-match. Now they'll have some stability against the Boks this weekend and may be able to at least put together a half-solid performance.

The fundamental problem is that they're exactly where they were, doing exactly the same things they were doing 12 months ago. The Wallabies haven't moved forward. They've marked time, while other teams - England and the ABs, in particular - have moved a long way forward. I think the bottom line is that Eddie Jones inherited a team pretty much on - or just past - its use-by-date. Things move rapidly in world rugby and, for a whole variety of reasons, the Wallabies have been left behind. Wholesale changes now aren't going to solve the problem. A good hard look in the mirror - as they saying goes - 12 months ago was probably what was required. I'm not sure why it didn't happen - stubbornness, arrogance, ignorance, perhaps a mixture of all three.

[Frozzy]

Talking about the pay dispute, the only reason the French, the Wallabies and the Springboks are being offered so much is because they know they won't win

[Frozzy]

Originally posted by finbar
I'm not sure why Frozzy hasn't pointed out to Havak that the Maori beat Canada 65-27 so I thought I would.

Ye bugger wee Finbar

Interesting article about the pay dispute, entitled "All Blacks furious about being painted greedy":

The All Blacks are angry that they are being portrayed as greedy, according to the lawyer for some of the players.

The NZRFU is offering $50,000 bonuses if the team wins the World Cup, but the players claim that is not enough.

David Jones, who represents several All Blacks, says the players are not paid as much as the union claims, and are upset about suggestions a B team could be selected.

He says that contrary to reports, the players have not threatened to withdraw their services and want to play in the World Cup. However, he says they want to be paid what they believe is a realistic sum.

Both parties have agreed to mediation organised by the Labour Department.

I fear the mediation won't appeal to either side. People here are starting to ponder where the honour in wearing the black jersey has gone, but the thing is, the honour is still there. The thing people don't understand is that a rugby player's job is extremely risky. They work 15-20 years max, and one injury, bang, your out of there, and left to scrounge on what you've earned. If you are lucky, you may get sponsorship deals post-career, but this isn't s*****, where everyone who retires gets a fancy deal with a dog food advertisement, or some such.

finbar 14.5

I'm glad I don't rely on you when it comes to betting the real stuff!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Frozzy
Talking about the pay dispute, the only reason the French, the Wallabies and the Springboks are being offered so much is because they know they won't win

Not far wrong. Precisely the reason the ARU coughed up.