Rugby World Cup 2003 - The Rugby Widows Weep!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
If you read what he is saying he is absolutely right – it was yourself who specifically brought hands in the ruck into the equation.

Only because it constituted 80% of the penalties against England.

He’s talking about the Maul killing crap like ‘truck and trailer’ – and frankly only the SH could come up with such a lame name for anything.

Okay, let's call it what the Laws call it. Obstruction. So J**** wants to get away with obstruction. Fair enough.

Strange isn’t it that Samoa and England have come out of this with mutual respect and it is the Aussie media that is apparently behaving disgracefully – it’s being widely reported here that the Aussie media has gone rabid – any truth in that?

The incident was reported and that's about all. In the papers I read anyway. And the reports are those I referred to as the consensus - that it was a technicality that might earn a reprimand. I think you need to put down The Sun and pick up The Independent or The Guardian.

Who was it yesterday who said Clive didn’t praise Samoa post game? Quite wrong – I watched his post match interview again last night and he praised them to the hilt. It’s easy to see how the wrong impression can become so easily entrenched.

It was probably Tamerlin. Bloody trouble maker!

I could have a double figure IQ for all you know.

You and your hyperbole again.

I wonder if you would run through the Italian line up for me Finbar – I spotted at least two pasta Kiwi’s and a couple of Argentinians (including the fly half) when they played Wales. And I think Stoica the centre is Romanian. They might be the most ethnically diverse side in the cup?

And a Kiwi coach. At least they're back there now! And I'm not!

Oh, and, earlier this year, the coach apparently said something to his Union like: "Judge me on my performance at the World Cup".

M-hm.

[Havak]

The ball carrier not being bound to the maul is illegal. If he is bound there is no obstruction in a properly executed maul. If there was you SH types would have succeeded in your aim to make mauls completely illegal. Get your hands off our beautiful game!



England were not pinged after a maul splintered last Sunday but simply because ‘dire’ Kaplan decided the ball carrier was not bound – and he so clearly was! Spin it how you like – he got the call wrong. Doing so does rather seem to be his speciality.

Talking about mauls I watched the last 30 mins of the NPC game on Saturday night. Wonderfully exciting rugby at times but set pieces varied from totally full on to the farce of almost League like uncontested scrums (I’ve never seen scrums before where not only looseys but locks were not bound properly). Competition for the ball was notable chiefly for it’s absence.

Extremely nice touch with the farewell to Cullen though.

Enjoying your G&T?

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
It was probably Tamerlin. Bloody trouble maker!

Though I qualify as a trouble maker I was away from my keyboard this week-end.

The ball carrier not being bound to the maul is illegal. If he is bound there is no obstruction in a properly executed maul. If there was you SH types would have succeeded in your aim to make mauls completely illegal. Get your hands off our beautiful game!

Ye', keep'ya handz off...


Spit!



Ding!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
The ball carrier not being bound to the maul is illegal. If he is bound there is no obstruction in a properly executed maul.

Quite right. So when Neil Back isn't bound, he's being shepherded, which is illegal. Thanks for clarifying that.

The truck and trailer you referred to in tonight's match was entirely different. The maul had finished. The ball carrier ducked behind two of his teammates who tugged him over the line.

Get your hands off our beautiful game!

Oops. Of course, Tamerlin, sorry.

England were not pinged after a maul splintered last Sunday but simply because ‘dire’ Kaplan decided the ball carrier was not bound – and he so clearly was! Spin it how you like – he got the call wrong.

Oh well, it evens up for the time he missed Neil Back not bound at the back in the early stages of the maul that led to his try.

Enjoying your G&T?

You and Tamerlin even soured my slice of lemon!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


Though I qualify as a trouble maker I was away from my keyboard this week-end.

Oh, sorry. I forgot. So how was sunny Carcasonne?

Spit!

Ding!

[Havak]

Quite right. So when Neil Back isn't bound, he's being shepherded, which is illegal. Thanks for clarifying that.

Neil has been impeccably bound ever since the absolute arbiter of IRB law (aka Eddie Jones) insisted the law be so interpreted last week. One thing that he was not guilty of against Samoa was drifting away from the bind – he was sucked so far in we could hardly see him at times! Kaplan got it wrong – you don’t normally defend the chump so why so keen to now?

The maul had finished. The ball carrier ducked behind two of his teammates who tugged him over the line.

Okay that does sound legitimate – however the term ‘truck and trailer’ needs to go. Sorry but it is awful phrasing. Can they change it to ‘Penalty. For being England, Celts or French (delete as applicable) and thinking mauls have a place in the modern game’?

Still I am sure you will examine the mauling between England and Uruguay very closely on Sunday for transgressions? I’d return the favour if I thought NZ or the ABs might use some.

Oh well, it evens up for the time he missed Neil Back not bound at the back in the early stages of the maul that led to his try.

*Groan* No substance in this allegation at all I’m afraid. Why not follow it up by saying Balshaw was offside?

I actually watched that twenty odd times to satisfy myself in the expectation someone here would bait me with it. He was onside – he is pretty swift for a ‘tractor’.

Now I need that drink. Make it a double.

Strange isn’t it – SH teams tend to be poor at defending mauls. NH teams are good at using them. And there’s a huge stink in Australia right now encouraging refs to castrate mauls as a tactic. It’s no coincidence as far as I am concerned. No one runs competitions by media circus the way Australia can.

[finbar]

Cripes! I was just about to go to bed! Damn daylight savings that adjusts the time difference so you have more time to post!

Neil has been impeccably bound ever since the absolute arbiter of IRB law (aka Eddie Jones) insisted the law be so interpreted last week.

John Eales, actually. But as I mentioned here at the time he raised the subject, you would obviously claim that Eddie had worded him up to raise the subject.

One thing that he was not guilty of against Samoa was drifting away from the bind – he was sucked so far in we could hardly see him at times! Kaplan got it wrong – you don’t normally defend the chump so why so keen to now?

I quite honestly can't recall the incident. You have to realise I was doing a lot of giggling during that game.

Okay that does sound legitimate – however the term ‘truck and trailer’ needs to go. Sorry but it is awful phrasing.

I don't know where it came from. I've only heard it in the last week. I suspect it came from the refs, who also coined "through the gate".

Can they change it to ‘Penalty. For being England, Celts or French (delete as applicable) and thinking mauls have a place in the modern game’?

How about the "Neil Back Clause" of the Obstruction Law?

Still I am sure you will examine the mauling between England and Uruguay very closely on Sunday for transgressions?

Uruguay stacked on several decent mauls tonight. Picked up a try from one, and one of the others brought about the implementation of the "Neil Back Clause". Big strong boys, but that's about all.

BTW, I hadn't realised that their Assistant Coach is the son of one of those poor buggers who perished in the Andes plane crash. His mother was in the plane too. And they were some of those who died on impact. I won't go on ...

I actually watched that twenty odd times to satisfy myself in the expectation someone here would bait me with it.

I suspect you watched it twenty-odd times to satisfy yourself he wasn't in front of the kicker. It was very, very close.

Strange isn’t it – SH teams tend to be poor at defending mauls. NH teams are good at using them.

There's no great history of them here, so there's no great history of defending against them. Anyway, there's virtually no defence against a top class one. Except trying to push it sideways.

And there’s a huge stink in Australia right now encouraging refs to castrate mauls as a tactic. It’s no coincidence as far as I am concerned. No one runs competitions by media circus the way Australia can.

There's no great stink about it. John Eales drew attention to it. And the incidents he showed clearly demonstrated Mr Back wasn't bound. Ironically, he used a video screen the same way Clive did to create a huge stink about decoy runners immediately prior to a Test match against the All Blacks. The ultimate irony, of course, being that Clive blithely uses a tactic that he calls cheating while Australia doesn't use mauls to shepherd ball carriers.

[finbar]

So much for the Wallabies not knowing how to maul! I got into bed, turned on FoxSports, and they're replaying the '91 World Cup final. Timmy Horan breaks down the right touchline, kicks, finds touch. Willie O takes the lineout ball, they form a maul and take it over the line for a try to tighthead Ewen McKenzie!

Wallabies 9
England 0

Anyone care to bet on England in the game?



Now I'm going back to bed to enjoy the rest of the match.

[Havak]

you would obviously claim that Eddie had worded him up to raise the subject.

Are you saying that you don’t believe he did?

I quite honestly can't recall the incident. You have to realise I was doing a lot of giggling during that game.

Oh that’s a clear winner to you right there.

I suspect it came from the refs, who also coined "through the gate".

At least that was semi logical?

How about the "Neil Back Clause" of the Obstruction Law?

Too specific – make it the “Pommy clause”?

Big strong boys, but that's about all.

Still should be enough to give you more laughs Sunday?

Didn’t know about their coach – and as I’m in a flippant mode today I’ll simply say poor buggers and move on too…

I suspect you watched it twenty-odd times to satisfy yourself he wasn't in front of the kicker. It was very, very close.

An inch is as good as a mile – and Mr Howlett would do well to watch it to see how it can be done legally.

Anyway, there's virtually no defence against a top class one. Except trying to push it sideways.

It’s an aspect of play that was so evidently missing in that NPC game I saw – and yet it is a fundamental of the game. The difference between hemispheres continues to astound me on this one – it should tell more at test level than it does – which leads to my suspicion of favourable refereeing at times.

But then you should be asleep now so I can tag Tamerlin in – he will no doubt still be awake when you next scan the thread.

The ultimate irony, of course, being that Clive blithely uses a tactic that he calls cheating while Australia doesn't use mauls to shepherd ball carriers.

What a strong performance from you today.

The ultimate irony is surely though that Australia don’t use them simply because they can’t?

Now I'm going back to bed to enjoy the rest of the match.

The last try ever scored from a maul by a Wallaby?

I'll have twenty on England please - to be the most gentlemanly defeated side in the game.

God that game plagues me – will no one rid me of those damn Australians of 91?

Mission for all other countries left in the mix – don’t let the buggers get into another final and steal it – it will haunt you for decades however many times you whip them between cups!

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
Strange isn’t it – SH teams tend to be poor at defending mauls. NH teams are good at using them. And there’s a huge stink in Australia right now encouraging refs to castrate mauls as a tactic. It’s no coincidence as far as I am concerned. No one runs competitions by media circus the way Australia can.

Replace "Australia" with "the Southern Hemisphere" (or "the heretics" for the sake of variety) and this is what I am hammering since several months.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Now I'm going back to bed to enjoy the rest of the match.

The urge to tease Havak is so strong that Finbar even goes out of his bed when he is looking a Rugby game just to post a few acrid sentences.

[Havak]

You can take the man out of Australia - but you can't take Australia out of the man.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by finbar
Anyway, there's virtually no defence against a top class one. Except trying to push it sideways.

The SH nations demonstrate every game that the best defence is to crumble the said maul as the referees have great troubles to remember there is a law to punish such a behavior.

Originally posted by Havak
...which leads to my suspicion of favourable refereeing at times.

This is also what I am saying since a long time though in a different way, changing the interpretation of the law is like bending the law of the game to suit your needs and leads to a favourable refereeing.

But then you should be asleep now so I can tag Tamerlin in – he will no doubt still be awake when you next scan the thread.

I am ready!

[Havak]

The SH nations demonstrate every game that the best defence is to crumble the said maul as the referees have great troubles to remember there is a law to punish such a behaviour.

I regret England directly benefited from this inherent blindness when Bracken collapsed a Bok maul near the line. I can hardly jump on my high horse until the SH posters forget all about that (so two weeks or so then).

This is also what I am saying since a long time though in a different way, changing the interpretation of the law is like bending the law of the game to suit your needs and leads to a favourable refereeing.

Ah yes this one is a can of worms too. There actually is no interpretation as such as the laws are the laws – but several of them enshrine the officials ‘discretion’ thus making interpretation a cover all excuse.

There’s little doubt referees ‘interpretation’ is influenced by the type of club rugby they officiate – and that this is the source of the differences we perceive at international level. If the NPC game I saw Satruday was tyopical it explains why Kiwi refs are appalling at policing mauls.

The problem is I think international duty homogenises these guys – with the net result we send decent refs away to such duty and get tossers back (Chris white has never been the same since tri-nations duty) – and no doubt the SH says the same.

I am ready!

Between us I am sure we can get him to the stage where he needs a G&T first thing in the morning too.

[Tamerlin]

Is the G&T a Gin-Tonic (as we call it here)?

I used to drink that when I was young...