Rugby - The game they play in heaven

[Havak]

It was put to me originally that there were moves originating in the SH for uncontested set pieces

Well that is part of the movement yes but the drive is towards ‘continuity’ rather than them admitting outright that they want no contested set pieces. I think even yourself can now make the connection between continuity and Eddie’s thoughts on blocking runners and SH behaviour at the ruck?

However you had better claim outright victory on this one as I simply cannot be bothered to spend the necessary time researching the relevant obscure quotes from the ARU.

Rest assured the next time ARU approach the IRB with stupid law change suggestions I’ll be all over it – it is likely to be November 2003 as there is a two year moratorium on law changes before a RWC (this is also the reason Eddie hasn’t been so vocal about the laws he wants changed this season).

Your optimism rivals that of an english rugby fan!

Heh hold on – Finbar’s optimism is unfounded

For Havak's benefit I will wait for the next thread before making that request...

Much appreciated

Okay guys I have to admit I missed the game – what can I say – got distracted. Could someone please re-assure me that the penalty try really was a boof up by McHugh and that Finbar isn’t simply still upset because the Irishman helmed the Wallabies loss in SA last year?

This was just an example of the NH phobia about dummy runners

Ouch that hurt . Funny that any ‘dummy run’ whatsoever fails the very laws you quoted by definition then?

I'd hate to be accused of overemphasising a point.

Would we dare?

He was, after all, singlehandedly responsible for gifting them at least 12 points in last night's match.

However, when in the very next post you do so again…?

Well I’m pleased Caligastia handled it for me. McHugh is not my favourite ref – I have specific problems with some of the games I have watched him helm – but he isn’t the total loser you might think from Finbar's deconstruction of the guys decisions. Lets face it he is there on the ground and doesn’t have Poido telling him what to think? If ever I needed to actually see a game to comment on these things...

Ah heck don’t tease him Havak – I don’t doubt you are right Finbar – as NH refs go McHugh is comparatively weak on offside. On the plus side he speaks fluent French so he can’t be all bad?

The interesting thing is his replacement Chris White is one of my very favourite refs – the best youngish ref in England for sure – and I have to therefore back myself and say that makes him one of the best in the world IMO. How did he rate on Finbar’s patented ref-o-meter (tm)?

And lets forget legality okay – the entire rugby world should be right behind McCaw in what he did – that idiot had no place on the field and the law needs to avoid being an ass on this one.

Any margins in mind guys? Havak needs to see the money so be kind?

[finbar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem, excuse me but...

Originally posted by NeoStar

Anyone catch that Sharkies game? They're the only league team I follow. That 1st half was the most perfect half of football I've seen in that code 40 0dd - zip.

Listen, NeoStar, get one thing straight! We tolerate the occasional mention of soccer in this thread - well, the occasional accidental mention of soccer - but one thing we won't have is any mention of rugby league! Except to slag it off as the tedious, one-dimensional game for people who can't count to fifteen that it is!

Back on the main game - well Jones seems to be confident we can get the 25 points needed. Can't help be worried though, if the Springbok play like that again...

Well, he's confident on the basis that the Wallabies were that far ahead of the Boks last time. Before the Boks steamed back into the game. Enough said.

[NeoStar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem, excuse me but...

Originally posted by finbar
Listen, NeoStar, get one thing straight! We tolerate the occasional mention of soccer in this thread - well, the occasional accidental mention of soccer - but one thing we won't have is any mention of rugby league! Except to slag it off as the tedious, one-dimensional game for people who can't count to fifteen that it is!

Oops...

In my defense I dont have Fox. Super12 has one game on at midnight each week its on so I can only choose between NRL or ..... Im not even going to mention the other thing somehow associated with Australia

But Ill get this straight - Union is by far the greater, to play and watch.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Well that is part of the movement yes but the drive is towards ‘continuity’ rather than them admitting outright that they want no contested set pieces. I think even yourself can now make the connection between continuity and Eddie’s thoughts on blocking runners and SH behaviour at the ruck?

However you had better claim outright victory on this one as I simply cannot be bothered to spend the necessary time researching the relevant obscure quotes from the ARU.

It's not a matter of victory or otherwise - I was just trying to source the original contention about uncontested set pieces because it was new to me and I like to think I keep up with things. There's a huge difference between Eddie Jones' argument - and he wasn't the only one arguing the case - about dummy runners and "continuity", and uncontested set pieces. In fact, now that you link them, I think we've got to the bottom of the problem. I suspect "uncontested set pieces" is a NH extrapolation of the things you raise. I can see the conclusion being drawn. It's wrong, but that's not the point. [Edit. I just re-read this para. Sorry if it sounds terse. It's not meant to be. I was writing it while tending to the caramelised onions on the stove. ]

Anyway, I'm bored with the whole thing now.

Okay guys I have to admit I missed the game – what can I say – got distracted. Could someone please re-assure me that the penalty try really was a boof up by McHugh and that Finbar isn’t simply still upset because the Irishman helmed the Wallabies loss in SA last year?

I'm sure you'll see a replay of the penalty try somewhere along the way. As we all know, a penalty try requires probability. Umaga had been thoroughly gang-tackled high and low. Take away the high tackle and he couldn't have scored because he was down.

Ouch that hurt . Funny that any ‘dummy run’ whatsoever fails the very laws you quoted by definition then?

Which definition? A dummy run - by definition - is no different to throwing a dummy. It's designed to confuse the opposition. A dummy run can be obstruction when the dummy runner blocks a defender from attacking the ball or the ball carrier. Which means the ball has to be somewhere within the vicinity. If the ball's not in the vicinity, the defender can't attack either it or the player carrying it.

In the case of the disallowed try, the ball had been passed wide - very wide, it was a long pass - before the dummy runner was anywhere near the defenders.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of the Brumbies' dummy runners - the scenario that started the whole debate - were causing obstruction. The problem was, they were passing the ball not only close by but also close behind the dummy runners.

but he isn’t the total loser you might think from Finbar's deconstruction of the guys decisions.

He made two clangers. He missed some off-side. It wasn't an appalling performance. Take away the clangers and he coped - with a game played unpredictably and like greased lightning - well. But, as I said, I think he had trouble keeping up.

If ever I needed to actually see a game to comment on these things...

Quite. You should also try to catch up with at least some of the game, if only to see how the Boks left the biffo and aggro in the sheds. Quite remarkable change of approach.

How did he rate on Finbar’s patented ref-o-meter (tm)?

He was fine. I think he kept up with the game better than McHugh.

And lets forget legality okay – the entire rugby world should be right behind McCaw in what he did – that idiot had no place on the field and the law needs to avoid being an ass on this one.

I couldn't agree more. I just wouldn't want to see some litigious penishead exact revenge.

Any margins in mind guys? Havak needs to see the money so be kind?

I make the same offer to you that I made to Havak. I can't offer the same discount on the interest rate because you aren't kindly teaching me a foreign language.

It's going to be an interesting margin to calculate, though. The Wallabies will definitely go for it. There's nothing in it for them not going for it. If you'll forgive the double negative. It's a game, methinks, in which anything could happen, particularly if the Boks don't resurrect the biffo and aggro and stick to what they did against the ABs.

[finbar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ahem, excuse me but...

Originally posted by NeoStar


Oops...

I should hope so.

In my defense I dont have Fox.

Get it. You'll see every S12 match, all the NH Tests, the 6 Nations, everything. If you can't get it in the area where you're living, move.

But Ill get this straight - Union is by far the greater, to play and watch.

Okay. You're forgiven. But just remember - repeat offenders are locked in an internet chatroom with Havak while he tells you just a tad about Jonno, the Tigers and the Poms.

[Havak]

...and how much better all three are than their contempories of course.

[finbar]

That should take care of the entree. What would you offer for main course?

[Havak]

That was the main course.

The entree was "the astounding Rugby knowledge of the average Wallaby fan".

You are exempt from that as you are clearly a spiritual Pom.

[Tamerlin]

Re: Re: Re: Rugby - The Game They Play In Heaven - Bank A/c at 11/8/02

Originally posted by finbar
His clangers aside, I think he did a reasonable job. It's just that his clangers were big ones. I'll be interested to hear the NH opinion, though, because I think he missed offside play (from both sides)...

Sorry, I have not seen the match, my access to the Tri-Nations matches is disrupted for a while.

The name of David McHugues is not particularly associated to good performances as far as I can remember, I will wait the comments of the french rugby press before posting anything more on this subject.

I think the french press will insist more on the scandalous agression of the referee rather than its performance.

I guess the NH referees operating in the SH are somehow briefed and encouraged to helm the game in a more SH way, this could explain many terrific performances of NH referees in the SH (at least in our standards).

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


I've watched it half a dozen times. He wasn't going to slide over the line. The tackle around his legs precluded that. The only way he'd have got over the line would have been via a double movement. Regardless, the AB charge-down that led to Umaga getting the ball was from an offside position.

Im not sure about the offside position of the chargedown, but Im positive that Umaga would have scored if not for the head-high tackle. He was tackled around the legs, yes, but IMO a try was definitely a "probability". I guess we wont come to an agreement on this one...

Originally posted by finbar
I'm sure you'll see a replay of the penalty try somewhere along the way. As we all know, a penalty try requires probability. Umaga had been thoroughly gang-tackled high and low. Take away the high tackle and he couldn't have scored because he was down.

If he was down, how could he have been high-tackled...?

Originally posted by finbar
Nup. Sorry.

Ok, cant argue with that....

Originally posted by finbar
I do wonder, though, how long Justin Marshall can hold his place in front of Byron Kellaher. I know Marshall and Mehrtens are Crusaders team-mates and therefore an established combination, with the bonuses that brings, but I think Kellaher's a super player - better tactically than Marshall, and definitely more aggressive.

I agree. When Marshall first came on the scene in 96/97, I was a big fan of his, but in 98 and 99 he was dismal, and despite recent improvement he still isnt back to his best form.

I was happy to see Kelleher on for the last 10 minutes or so, but I would have liked to see him come on a bit earlier as Marshall was visibly struggling. I also would have liked more replacements towards the end of that game in general. The Boks replaced several players, and I reckon the All blacks could have done with a few more fresh players too.

Originally posted by finbar
Well, he's confident on the basis that the Wallabies were that far ahead of the Boks last time. Before the Boks steamed back into the game. Enough said.

Yep, it will be nothing short of a miracle if the Wallabies win the Tri-nations. If they do, even I will call them #1!

Ravagon and Neostar, I dont know whats worse, discussing league or soccer here, (actually I do, league is always the worst) but both at the same time...

Originally posted by Havak
Okay guys I have to admit I missed the game – what can I say – got distracted. Could someone please re-assure me that the penalty try really was a boof up by McHugh and that Finbar isn’t simply still upset because the Irishman helmed the Wallabies loss in SA last year?

I didnt see it as a "boof up", but Finbar will disagree...
I think you would have to see it for yourself.

Originally posted by Havak
Any margins in mind guys?

I reckon a 10-point start for the Boks is fair.

[Havak]

The name of David McHugues is not particularly associated to good performances as far as I can remember

As the man who nearly gave the European cup to Stade Francais I can understand why you are not too keen on him.

Just curious but did you mean terrible rather than terrific? Finbar will be all over that like a rash as it suggests SH reffing standards are ‘better’.

If they do, even I will call them #1!

Noooooo! Do not tempt fate with things like this. Rugby needs NZ to win the Tri-nations at least once before RWC or we’ll never hear the end of it?

I think you would have to see it for yourself.

Sadly I have no chance of so doing. Sky shows the game live here but all the rugger magazine shows are off the air as it’s close season. I’ll take a sight-unseen risk and say I’m happy it was a penalty try

I reckon a 10-point start for the Boks is fair.

Surely the Boks must be favourites?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
Noooooo! Do not tempt fate with things like this. Rugby needs NZ to win the Tri-nations at least once before RWC or we’ll never hear the end of it?

But then NZ will have the coveted "underdog" status.

Sadly I have no chance of so doing. Sky shows the game live here but all the rugger magazine shows are off the air as it’s close season. I’ll take a sight-unseen risk and say I’m happy it was a penalty try

Im happy, and I think it was deserved.

Surely the Boks must be favourites?

shhhhh! Im trying to win some of my gold back...

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Havak
Just curious but did you mean terrible rather than terrific? Finbar will be all over that like a rash as it suggests SH reffing standards are ‘better’.

Ooops ! Yes I meant terrible.
Sorry for the mistake.

But no I don't think at all the SH referees are better than ours, far from it.

If they were really applying the laws I guess they won't be worse than ours.

[Tamerlin]

Originally posted by Caligastia I agree. When Marshall first came on the scene in 96/97, I was a big fan of his, but in 98 and 99 he was dismal, and despite recent improvement he still isnt back to his best form.

In my own opinion the Marshall/Merthens pair was the main weakness of the AB against the Aussies, especially with players like Gregan and Larkham in the other side. I think the game would have been won by the AB if they had a more imaginative Scrum Half/Fly half pair.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Tamerlin


In my own opinion the Marshall/Merthens pair was the main weakness of the AB against the Aussies, especially with players like Gregan and Larkham in the other side. I think the game would have been won by the AB if they had a more imaginative Scrum Half/Fly half pair.

Kelleher definitely would have made a difference IMO, but I guess Mitchell is striving for cohesiveness over creativity. What do you think of Kelleher?