Rugby World Cup 2003 - Finals!

[fairline]

No. He was in the Aussies pay.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by fairline
No. He was in the Aussies pay.

I was tearing my hair out in the pub, but I didn't know enough about the game to be genuinely indignant!

[spartak]

Actually I thought the ref was good. The only criticism I had was that he seemed to award penalties from scrums alternatively rather than working out who had done what. {a hopeles stask at the best of times but he is supposed to be as good a ref as there is}.

OMG I think I aged 5 years in the last 20 minutes.

[LDiCesare]

Can I ask the rugby fans who know the game (unlike me!), was the ref justified giving all those fouls to the Aussies in the second half?

He was not. The English did many errors, and many penalties were merited, but some were not. Actually, there were 2 instances of an English player trying to retrieve the ball while on his feet which got them penalised without reason. As for the scrums, the referee didn't whistle when the Aussies collapsed it once, and around the rucks, didn't signal advantages for the English when the Wallabies had been offisde or doing some foul. So you could say that most of them were justified, but the ref would have been justified to whistle against the Wallabies two or thee times, which he did not. He also whistled a forward pass when there was not, which is really funny considering the number of real forward passes that haven't been penalised in the tournament.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Can I ask the rugby fans who know the game (unlike me!), was the ref justified giving all those fouls to the Aussies in the second half?

Though I am far from an expert of the game, the Aussies should have been penalized far more often especially in the scrums and rucks where England was penalized instead of them.

But I am known for having a tooth against the referees and those coming from the Southern Hemisphere in particular (I am still talking about the refs).

[finbar]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Actually, there were 2 instances of an English player trying to retrieve the ball while on his feet which got them penalised without reason.

I remember one of them, I think it was Neil Back. It has happened quite a few times in the tournament - I recall, amongst others, both Brian O'Driscoll and Richie McCaw being wrongly penalised. It seems to happen because the ref is out of position when he makes his judgement, usually approaching the breakdown without a clear sight of what's happened. The TV replay, always in the best position, tells the truth. OTOH, when the ref is in position, the tackler has been alllowed to get back to his feet and contest for the ball.

[NeoStar]

How devestating

But... Finbar, what you said about a win being 'faintly embarassing' - well maybe not that far but if the Wallabies had won I doubt in most people's mind (mine included) they would be totally deserving of the title.

And you know what, even though we lost I can't believe how softer the blow is after seeing one of the greatest games of rugby being played for the greatest prize. England's bloody fantastic - Wilkinson is exceptional, but so is the rest of the team, they have a counter for almost everything.

And the Wallabies tried so hard - typical will to win, but they couldn't match the skill - the scrums, the lineouts, the lack of linebreaks - you can't win losing those.

Potential audience of 3 billion, eh? I wonder how many people had heart attacks during extra time?

[NeoStar]

(From BBC) A Nation Gripped

-An estimated 10m people watched the game on TV

-Traffic estimated to be 60% lower than usual

-National Grid report a 2,100 megawatt surge at half-time - the equivalent of 850,000 kettles going on at the same time

-Bookmakers William Hill make Woodward 6-4 to be knighted, with Wilkinson 4-1 to become a sir

-Wilkinson favourite to win BBC Sports Personality of the Year award



Don't worry England, you can wipe off the dust on your trophy cabinet.

[reds4ever]

Neo

Wilkinson to be knighted BY WHEN? Eventually is a certainty let alone a 4-1 shot. This year? forget it, the monarchy doesn't move that fast.

As for BBC Sports Personality, in a non Olympic or (football) World or European Cup year and with the BBC losing most of the good domestic boxing to Sky TV, Jonnys a absolute cert.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Can I ask the rugby fans who know the game (unlike me!), was the ref justified giving all those fouls to the Aussies in the second half?

Most of them were 'justifiable' to an extent but the ref really dropped the ball in the last 10 minutes. Getting England for one pretty harsh penalty given the context of what he'd already let slide from both sides, not penalising the Wallabies when he should have in another instance, and calling England for a non-existent forward pass all worked to level the scores and take it into extra time.
I could imagine a pretty irate English team if they hadn't come through in the end.

Originally posted by Neostar
one of the greatest games of rugby being played for the greatest prize. England's bloody fantastic - Wilkinson is exceptional, but so is the rest of the team, they have a counter for almost everything.

They won and deservedly so.

[Alexander's Horse]

*horse saddles up*

Time to leave this thread to the rugby tragics for another 4 years.

[finbar]

But somehow it won't be the same without you. Don't forget to mention The Eagles when you're in Washington. Count the blank faces.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
*horse saddles up*

Time to leave this thread to the rugby tragics for another 4 years.

[Drake Tungsten]

Don't forget to mention The Eagles when you're in Washington. Count the blank faces.

We have real sports to worry about...

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Don't forget to mention The Eagles when you're in Washington. Count the blank faces.

We have real sports to worry about...

Like mens netball?