Rugby - The game they play in heaven

[Havak]

Thanks for the explanation, when does the european cup start then?

The pool rounds are played in two blocks – 3 weeks in Nov/Dec and then 3 weeks in Jan/Feb. The elimination rounds then take place Mar-May (QFs through to the final).

It all makes for a very full rugby calendar.

Most importantly, they're now aware what a wonderful spectacle rugby can be. In other words, its sheer entertainment value.

Good on those Aussies – they have seen the light.

you would assume, remain somewhere in the top bracket of 3 or 4 teams

Let me play Devil’s advocate again here – I wonder how long the Aussie public, now it ‘gets’ Union, will tolerate an Australian side that isn’t number one? I still, think it could be the acid test for the future of Union in your homeland – a sustained period of not being number one that is.

But growth is growth, and that's okay by me.

Absolutely. Putting aside my flaming advocates wig I want to see Australia remain strong and in growth (maybe not too strong ) as there is something a bit special about an England-Australia test for me – whatever the sport. And whilst Nasser has got the boys a whole lot more Professional I have to face it’s rugger where we will remain most competitive in the near future.

There’s no way I can take that bet on the clash of champions match – you have picked the favourite.

Strangely I thought Paul and Harrison had a fairly controlled game – it seemed to be Sharpe who got the red mist this time? I’m still confused why even De Wet Barry saw yellow – punching is a straight red card offence – yellow is for technical offences?

The ABC has just about been destroyed

Is it, like the beeb, being forced to walk the tightrope of balancing public service against the need to be partially self funding? You can’t be all things to all people?

Im know what the Cook Cup is

Excellent I was a little worried given it’s so long since the Aussies have seen it close up.

have somewhat soured your view of it.

You may be right about the age difference but I hadn’t noticed any sour views expressed? There are aspects of the Wallabies game that can be picked apart just like any other teams can – how does it help to pretend they are perfect?

I'm reliably informed that Nelson, in fact, said: "Kiss me, Havak".

And shortly afterwards got stuffed in a brandy barrel. Coincidence?

Havak - managed to secure my ticket to the November NZ - England game yesterday. I've already begun to exercise my yelling chords...

You have no idea how jealous I am – I have to go into the lottery for my clubs allocation – I figure I have a one in twenty chance of getting one.

Australia could almost won though. The boys put on the fireworks too late...

They exploited the 14 men Boks very well – few teams can do it better.

He's coming along very nicely, IMHO, learning all the time.

And only just 22. I think we have many years of the Smith/Moody dynamic ahead to entertain us in the Cook cup games.

It's going to be a fascinating series of encounters.

It certainly is. I am really looking forward to them now. “Go you England”. Ah no, that doesn’t work for any team does it?

He was definitely of the view - as were others around him - that he'd been eye-gouged.

One of the most dangerous things that can be done on the field – I hate it. If it’s on video haul the Bok concerned to the IRB and give him a lifetime ban.

That's going back as far as the Rob Andrew folly of a few years ago.

Folly? You were beaten by a vastly inferior side playing well above itself simply because they faced you – there’s no shame in that.

Which isn't a defence anyway.

In all fairness I would accept it as one. If someone has fingers in your eye up to the knuckles a punch is perfectly acceptable as a ‘thank you’ as far as I am concerned. It would certainly explain why Sharpe was bullocking into the tackles so strongly.

Bad Bok discipline.

Way too many swinging arms by them.

[NeoStar]

Originally posted by SuperSneak
Wait, I remember...this was the one where the big controversey last year was over whether you were allowed to stick your thumb in someone's butthole, right?
Has that move been cleared yet?

Yeah, a bloke like you would remember that.

That was league, not union.

BTW - Finbar, what other things besides cricket can be spoken of?

[NeoStar]

The Wallabies will not cut it... Rnd 2

Originally posted by finbar
Larkham's kicking his fine. His problem on Saturday night was that he was smashed in a late tackle - yet again - in the first couple of minutes. He got to his feet in cuckoo land and I think it took him quite a while to recover. It's a tactic that just about every team uses on him these days.

Yeah - they all use it on him because he's unfortuantely prone to such attacks. He doesn't have the physical presence of playmakers like Johns. He gets injured so easily. As far as his kicking goes, his glory days are past and they are getting more wobbly all the time. I wont continue on this, however, for its far too debatable

Originally posted by finbar
Gregan probably doesn't kick as often as he should sometimes. It's funny - I remember when he was criticised for kicking too much.

I dont want him kicking. He used the run with the ball quite well but now that doesn't happen.

Originally posted by finbar
If you can't get and control the ball - which was the Wallaby's problem for too much of Saturday night's match - the backs become redundant.

This helps my earlier point. They didn't even get it because Larkham booted it again and again. I know they can be amazing and creative - but there is a sense of weariness about them.

Originally posted by finbar
I suspect he's intelligent and capable enough to muster a kicking game that will suffice. In fact, most of his kicking in his time on the field thus far has been perfectly adequate.

He probably is. When I was watching him at Cronulla I wanted them to give him a go - but I still believe he works better in conjunction with a good five-eighth than being the five-eighth. He could do it but his real talent lies in his ability to boggle defences with his line running and when a good playmaker exploits this he can be unstoppable.

Originally posted by finbar
Obviously we're not watching the same team. IMHO, the forwards are steadily improving, but yet to be tested against the quality forward packs in world rugby (having played only one match against the French with anything like a first-choice pack);

I'll concede on that. I have faith in them though.

Originally posted by finbar
while there's absolutely nothing wrong with the backs - their problems (that I referred to yesterday) with countering quicker, more agile attackers aside - when they actually get their hands on the ball.

The backs are getting old. They have been around for a while, its based around the same players again and again and the things that used to work so well have, over the years, slowly become more inconsistant. Burke can get us those critical points only so many times. Latham has become the epitome of inconsistancy. Its good the ARU has invested in backs from the other code for those they have gotten can revitalise them.

Originally posted by finbar
No it's not. It's the fundamental problem that has haunted the Wallabies for decades. Our relatively small pool of top-class players has always meant that we don't have more than a couple of choices per position. Sometimes we only have once choice. The key to this paragraph being the words "top-class".

Now we are getting to personal impressions I understand your point - if you made the Wallaby team members into a bar graph based on class it would look like a mountain. The team isn't near level and it goes to my other point - old, bloody old! The forwards are progressing, the backs are wallowing.

For some reason the L code has attracted many great backs. Those running rugby here realise this - and they are going the right way. If Rogers doesn't replace Larkham, then better buy Kimmorely! (I doubt Johns will leave a sport he utterly dominates).

This ancient Wallaby backline will not win the WC. They're boast about the experiance in caps the Aussie backs have before the game, don't be proud of it. Its holding us back.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Let me play Devil’s advocate again here – I wonder how long the Aussie public, now it ‘gets’ Union, will tolerate an Australian side that isn’t number one? I still, think it could be the acid test for the future of Union in your homeland – a sustained period of not being number one that is.

The Australian sporting public aren't that fickle. They've supported - in droves - all the major Australian teams pretty much regardless of their ranking in the world. The impact of the S12 comp shouldn't be underestimated in the growth of rugby's popularity here either. (One of that comp's goals, after all, was to help popularise the game, and it has succeeded enormously) In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it has been the S12 comp rather than the supposed #1 world status of the Wallabies - how many years ago was the last WRC? - that has done the job for the game here. The Wallabies, after all, bombed badly on their last NH tour without it affecting their popularity. I remain confident rugby is here to stay. Thank God!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
Strangely I thought Paul and Harrison had a fairly controlled game – it seemed to be Sharpe who got the red mist this time? I’m still confused why even De Wet Barry saw yellow – punching is a straight red card offence – yellow is for technical offences?

I thought all the Wallabies were well behaved under provocation. I suspect it had been drilled into them. I have to say, I'm totally confused about the cards these days. I thought punching used to be a red card. Every ref seems to have a different interpretation.

The Wallabies arrived back here today asking for some clarification and rationalisation of the whole judiciary process. They were bemused (well, they were angry) about Joubert - having been red-carded for the high tackle on Rogers - being cleared by the SANZAR judiciary. I think the whole judiciary process needs to be examined, too, and I would include the meanings of the various cards in the same process.

Is it, like the beeb, being forced to walk the tightrope of balancing public service against the need to be partially self funding? You can’t be all things to all people?

The ABC's biggest problem is always the incumbent government, regardless of its persuasion. The ABC, being - as it were - independent of the various media empires and - as it were - beholden to no one, tends to play devil's advocate against the government of the day. Well, someone has to. Which the government of the day hates, accusing the ABC of bias against it. Thus they slash its funding in an attempt to silence it. While, hypocritically, in opposition, having promised to save the organisation. Most recently, the incumbent Thatcherites have done their best to dismantle it altogether. Thus far, they have failed. The battle does on.

And shortly afterwards got stuffed in a brandy barrel. Coincidence?

You, presumably, managed to hold your breath, except for the occasional mouthful to quench your thirst?

Which reminds me of the old, old joke. About the chap who fell into the vat of beer. And finally drowned. After getting out three times to take a leak.

And only just 22. I think we have many years of the Smith/Moody dynamic ahead to entertain us in the Cook cup games.

George's team-mates had a fine time ribbing him about his speed in the break he made. He's been deliberately bulking up recently - he's not a tall man - to help him in the physical contests.

One of the most dangerous things that can be done on the field – I hate it. If it’s on video haul the Bok concerned to the IRB and give him a lifetime ban.

It's not on video. I taped the game and watched it again. It's impossible to tell. One thing I could see though - the Bok who punched Latham (claiming Latham had bitten him) was pulling himself. The Bok, on the ground with Latham, put his arm across Latham's face. Latham immediately pushed the arm off his face. The Bok punched Latham in the head.

Folly? You were beaten by a vastly inferior side playing well above itself simply because they faced you – there’s no shame in that.

No shame at all. But the kick was still a folly.

In all fairness I would accept it as one. If someone has fingers in your eye up to the knuckles a punch is perfectly acceptable as a ‘thank you’ as far as I am concerned. It would certainly explain why Sharpe was bullocking into the tackles so strongly.

I meant that retaliation is usually not a defence.

Way too many swinging arms by them.

The Wallabies arrived back very ticked off with the whole Bok experience. And not because they lost. Both Bok games produced a lot of off-the-ball incidents after very few in the All Blacks games.

There was an interesting interview with prop Bill Young on TV tonight. Asked to compare the Bok and AB packs, he said the Boks just try to out-muscle you (and around the scrum and ruck), while the ABs try to out-think you as well.

[finbar]

Originally posted by NeoStar
BTW - Finbar, what other things besides cricket can be spoken of?

You still need to ask?

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
Actually Caligastia I also thought Mr O'Brien was very wrong not to penalise Sharpe for blocking the tackler from Keifu just before the league boy took his try? I felt Skinstad was interfered with at the line out leading to their last try as well?

I missed that one, but I'll take your word for it.

Originally posted by Finbar
Now, the interesting question is, what do we do with our fortunes?

Im the pauper of our group...spare some change?

Originally posted by Finbar
It's to their credit that they pulled it off last night without Pretorius. While Russell is a very promising, very dangerous player, it was fairly evident that - via inexperience and enthusiasm - only he knew what was going on when he had ball in hand. His backs ran with him in hope.

When I saw those first 2 horrendous penalty kicks I thought they were done for! Lucky for them most of their tries were scored close to the posts.

Originally posted by Finbar
That's going back as far as the Rob Andrew folly of a few years ago.

Folly? I remember the aftermath of that game well. I was living in London at the time, and I remember some aussie bloke punching a hole in the wall after seeing that game...

Originally posted by Finbar
The Sharpe incident was interesting. It was evident that Sharpe - and others around him - were complaining about eye-gouging. I couldn't quite pick up what Paddy O'Brien was saying, but he could have been acknowledging the provocation. Which isn't a defence anyway.

So he really should have got a yellow card because the ref didnt see the eye gouging. I just felt it was inconsistent to send De Wet Barry off for the same thing.

Originally posted by Havak
One of the most dangerous things that can be done on the field – I hate it. If it’s on video haul the Bok concerned to the IRB and give him a lifetime ban.

Originally posted by Finbar
It was the Boks' fourth or fifth high tackle, most of which could have been avoided. The ref made it very clear after the previous one that the next one would result in a send-off. Bad Bok discipline.

I can live with that, but why would the ref have pulled a red card if there had been more than 10 minutes left? It just doesnt seem like a red card offence, more like a yellow card. Was the ref just showboating?

Originally posted by Finbar
I suspect he's intelligent and capable enough to muster a kicking game that will suffice. In fact, most of his kicking in his time on the field thus far has been perfectly adequate.

A resounding accolade from Finbar.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
So he really should have got a yellow card because the ref didnt see the eye gouging. I just felt it was inconsistent to send De Wet Barry off for the same thing.

On the basis of punches alone, the ref was certainly inconsistent. That, or the ref was acknowledging the eye-gouging as provocation. In which case, why didn't he pursue the eye-gouging? OTOH, the ref's name is Paddy.

I can live with that, but why would the ref have pulled a red card if there had been more than 10 minutes left? It just doesnt seem like a red card offence, more like a yellow card. Was the ref just showboating?

The ref had warned that the next high tackle would be a send off. It's that simple. As I said, most of their high tackles were avoidable. The final one - on Rogers - was obviously deliberate and would've - I hope - been red-carded at any time in the game. It was only luck - in that the timing was off - that saved Rogers from injury.

A resounding accolade from Finbar.

Careful, Cal, I might deliver a resounding accolade for your moderatorship of this thread. Speaking of which, can you please threaten NeoStar with a card if he once more responds to - ergo, encourages - a goose like SuperSneak? Thanks muchly. Oh, and while you're at it, another card if he continues to write such bilge about the Wallaby backs? Thanks ever so muchly.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar


On the basis of punches alone, the ref was certainly inconsistent. That, or the ref was acknowledging the eye-gouging as provocation. In which case, why didn't he pursue the eye-gouging? OTOH, the ref's name is Paddy.

How would he pursue the eye gouging? Can he call for the video ref to look at it?

The ref had warned that the next high tackle would be a send off. It's that simple. As I said, most of their high tackles were avoidable. The final one - on Rogers - was obviously deliberate and would've - I hope - been red-carded at any time in the game. It was only luck - in that the timing was off - that saved Rogers from injury.

Sounds fair to me.

Careful, Cal, I might deliver a resounding accolade for your moderatorship of this thread. Speaking of which, can you please threaten NeoStar with a card if he once more responds to - ergo, encourages - a goose like SuperSneak? Thanks muchly. Oh, and while you're at it, another card if he continues to write such bilge about the Wallaby backs? Thanks ever so muchly.

Well seeing as you ask so nicely...

Neostar!!! Stop talking bollocks!!!
You keep referring to l***** teams and players as if we are interested. Next time its a red card !

[Havak]

The Wallabies, after all, bombed badly on their last NH tour without it affecting their popularity

I have to disagree – that tour actually made them a lot more popular in England and France.

Frankly I suspect your media largely ignored this tour – losses away from home are easier to gloss over after all.

I thought punching used to be a red card. Every ref seems to have a different interpretation.

Most tend to bottle it and show yellow however. I believe a punch should still be red – maybe you can find the relevant law?

I think the whole judiciary process needs to be examined, too, and I would include the meanings of the various cards in the same process.

I would agree with you there. Worst case scenario you could always put our RFU in charge of it – they are not known for being lenient – Joubert would probably have got a 6 week ban instead of a dismissed card.

Which reminds me of the old, old joke. About the chap who fell into the vat of beer. And finally drowned. After getting out three times to take a leak.

The old ones are the best. Though Neostar might disagree?

He's been deliberately bulking up recently - he's not a tall man - to help him in the physical contests.

You know I thought his body mass had changed…

The Bok punched Latham in the head.

When I saw it live it looked clear cut the Boks fault. On replay nothing changed my mind. It should still have been red though (and remember this from myself who wanted SA to win!).

No shame at all. But the kick was still a folly.

As I have mentioned before that kick launched a whole inglorious coaching career for the former fly half.

I meant that retaliation is usually not a defence.

Not to the gaming authorities no I guess not – but I am sure prepared to cut him some slack if it was the case.

And not because they lost

Are you sure?

Both Bok games produced a lot of off-the-ball incidents after very few in the All Blacks games.

Well the ABs are a much more disciplined outfit all round. I’m really hoping to see them become the all round package again – it looks like the forwards are making progress.

he said the Boks just try to out-muscle you (and around the scrum and ruck), while the ABs try to out-think you as well.

That is a super quote. Alluding to the autumn again you can expect a great deal of the former from us, and maybe some of the latter. We will be a lot more disciplined than the Boks were with the out-muscling though.

I missed that one, but I'll take your word for it.

In all fairness the hookers throw was dire – but I’m still sure Bobby was held back somewhat.

Was the ref just showboating?

He isn’t known for this, but who knows? Straight red for a high arm but yellow for a blatant punch – it is hardly consistent unfortunately?

[LDiCesare]

the forwards are steadily improving, but yet to be tested against the quality forward packs in world rugby (having played only one match against the French with anything like a first-choice pack);

If you mean the French had a first-choice pack, they didn't. We lacked de Villiers in the front row and Galthie at the scrum (okay he's not a forward, but he makes a difference by leading them).

[SuperSneak]

Well, you all have to admit--and I'm being completely serious here--that to an outsider, a controversey based on such a heinous and invasive act does not do much to recommend the sport to others! But there are similar stories r.e. US football in the piles--people biting, spitting, gouging, etc...bizarre.

What is the difference between league and union? Is it similar to the minor vs. major leagues in baseball?

[Caligastia]

Sneak-
The main difference between l***** and union is that in l***** there is no contest for the ball at the tackle. Also in l***** possession changes after 6 tackles. Union is the original Rugby, and is far superior.

BTW, watch your language!

[NeoStar]

Im not going to say anything, due to the nature of the thread but the Wallabies could have a great prospect right here.

Later!

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
How would he pursue the eye gouging? Can he call for the video ref to look at it?

I was shooting down my own logic to make a point. Looking for a reason why he didn't card Nathan for the punch - (i) either he saw the eye-gouging and accepted it as provocation; in which case, why didn't he pursue the eye-gouging that he saw? (ii) or he didn't see the eye-gouging and didn't card Nathan (when he later carded the Bok for the same offence) because he was being inconsistent. The simple answer is that he was being inconsistent. As so many refs - and judiciaries - are these days.

Neostar!!! Stop talking bollocks!!!
You keep referring to l***** teams and players as if we are interested. Next time its a red card !