Rugby - The Ball's Out!

[Havak]

no runner should be ahead of the ball.

You'll not convince them of this oh-so-obvious point I suspect.

I'am rather concerned by the commonwealth conspiracy against Cédric Heymans and his undisputable try.

I've not seen it so my funning around is simply that.

But Finbar - well he still denies a blatantly good try by Dan Luger two years ago so you may have your work cut out there.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak
Well we all saw the fallacy of the ABs crying wolf last week – can we let the Aussies do it too? What do the neutral guys think?

I think 11 1/2 is way too much. The conditions must have played a part in Australia's loss, and Ireland are almost on par with England these days. I wouldn't make the margin any more than 7 1/2 as Australia will definitely lift their game against England.

[Caligastia]

Looks like Jason Robinson rates Sailor. Is he just sticking up for another l***** convert?

http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/rugby/international/2002/11/14/FFXNCV93G8D.html

[Havak]

Ireland are almost on par with England these days

16th February 2002. England 45-Ireland 11.

Run that assertion by me again? They are a promising side - but they are not a match for England just yet.

Is he just sticking up for another l***** convert?

I doubt it. Jason is one of life's nice guys, I don't think I've ever seen him say anything bad about an opponent.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Havak




16th February 2002. England 45-Ireland 11.

Run that assertion by me again? They are a promising side - but they are not a match for England just yet.

I thought that would get a response from you...

Seriously though, I agree Ireland are still well behind England, but the Wallabies will definitely be more motivated to beat England than Ireland.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak
As a general rule of thumb only if it’s an NH official. It’s another marker of the difference in attitudes between north and south. Still it seems very likely the IRB will make them illegal – more grist for that journos Celtic conspiracy theory?

How do you make decoy runners illegal? What exactly do you make illegal? A player (or players) starting a run (or runs) from a position behind the ball carrier? I've never heard so much nonsense. I say again - if a decoy runner causes obstruction he breaks the law.

Woodward has asked the IRB this week to decide one way or another before RWC. He is happy to coach either way but wants the issue cleared up.

In his dreams. He can't coach for dummy runners because he hasn't got an organised, integrated backline.

I can’t really worry about law changes that hurt SH coaching styles – call me biased if you like.

Frankly, I think we should save this topic for those times when we don't have internationals to blather on about. It's one of our annual bones of contention. I suggest we file it in the "How Can We Keep The Thread Alive Till The Next International?" folder along with the other perennials like:

1. Havak's worrying obsession with a certain lantern-jawed lock;

2. Havak's even more worrying obsession with sucking every last sud out of his pint glass;

3. Havak's decline into despair after the Tractor Boys relegate Leicester's we-haven't-lost-at-home-since-the-day-the-Dinosaurs-held-the Pteradactyls-to-a-tryless-9-all-draw record to the dustbin of history.

Referees were instructed several seasons ago to stamp on it. Didn’t that work well?

[finbar]

Originally posted by Tamerlin
This time I have to agree with Finbar, Havak. I hope this will have no effect on our unity against the heresies of the SH

England is only ever a fair weather friend to France, Tamerlin. OTOH, our agreement on the matter signals the birth of a long and great Franco-Australian relationship, the hallmark of which shall be mutual respect, support and slagging off of Clive Woodward's petites Anglaises.

though I'am rather concerned by the commonwealth conspiracy against Cédric Heymans and his undisputable try.

Hey Havak - do you detect the same subtext of guilt that I detect?

*finbar decides his diplomatic skills and commitment to international peace and goodwill qualifies him to be the next Secretary General of the United Nations*

I know the law but I still think the decoy runners should be completely forbidden whether they cause an obstruction or not, no runner should be ahead of the ball.

But a dummy runner doesn't have be ahead of the ball. The point of dummy runners is to create confusion in the defence's mind - which way will the ball go? The dummy runners can be behind the ball and still create the confusion.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Havak

I've not seen it so my funning around is simply that.

Tamerlin - he's dissembling. He doesn't need to have seen something to form a judgement. (See below)

But Finbar - well he still denies a blatantly good try by Dan Luger two years ago so you may have your work cut out there.

Case in point. Havak was wiping the last sud from his pint glass with his finger and licking it at the time Dan Luger: (a) didn't ground the ball according to the laws; and (b) wasn't in the field of play when he didn't ground the ball according to the laws. Thus he didn't see the incident but it doesn't stop him from passing judgement.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Ireland are almost on par with England these days.

Havak shot that one down better than I could.

I wouldn't make the margin any more than 7 1/2 as Australia will definitely lift their game against England.

Trouble is, you didn't see the Irish game. Nor, in fact, the Pumas game. The bottom line is that no one - certainly not me - is going to bet on the Wallabies with 7 1/2 points start. There's just nothing to warrant that margin. So it's unlikely there will be a betting situation on the game.

Simply, if the Wallabies play better than they have done it's only because they probably couldn't play worse. If they play to the same standard, they will be resoundingly thumped.

The only threat to England is the fact that David Campese has tipped them.

*Havak wakes screaming in the night*

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Looks like Jason Robinson rates Sailor. Is he just sticking up for another l***** convert?

http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/rugby/...XNCV93G8D.html

Robinson's right. Wendell Sailor was an outstanding L***** player. He was virtually unstoppable. But all that's being highlighted is the difference between L***** and rugby. A L***** winger with strength, speed and athleticism will be unstoppable because he's the last link in a tightly structured chain. That rarely happens in rugby. As Robinson points out - and it's a very good, thoughtful analysis, I thought - the winger has to get off the wing, read the play and get into it. That's where Wendell has trouble. He had no rugby background, and it doesn't come naturally to him. Matt Rogers, OTOH, represented Australia at Schoolboys level - played against the likes of Christian Cullen - so he went from rugby to L***** and back again.

To be fair, Wendell was largely ignored in the Irish game on occasions when he was unmarked, ready and waiting to go. I have no idea why, and I have no idea why no one has asked the team why.

BTW, we're rapidly heading towards the 500 mark. About time we cast around for another title?

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Caligastia

Seriously though, I agree Ireland are still well behind England, but the Wallabies will definitely be more motivated to beat England than Ireland.

I'd agree that they'll have more of an incentive against England but, motivation-wise an England side fresh from a hard-fought win against the AB's will have an even bigger boost, particularly playing in front of their own fans.
Much as I hate to do this (yet again ), the 7 1/2 sounds too small and the 11 1/2 too large. How about splitting the difference?
*ravagon jumps off his, by now, well-worn spot on the fence*

England is only ever a fair weather friend to France, Tamerlin. OTOH, our agreement on the matter signals the birth of a long and great Franco-Australian relationship, the hallmark of which shall be mutual respect, support and slagging off of Clive Woodward's petites Anglaises.

I think I've wandered into the Civ2 MP forum by mistake. Is that you Deity? And how did you get finbars password?

Anybody have any insight into Italy-Argentina? - also due this weekend apparently ...
I'll back Wales if Havaks interested in a little side-bet. I'll need a pretty large magin though. Say 15 points to Canada?

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon

Much as I hate to do this (yet again ), the 7 1/2 sounds too small and the 11 1/2 too large. How about splitting the difference?
*ravagon jumps off his, by now, well-worn spot on the fence*

I wouldn't back Australia at 9 1/2. They are in very poor form at the moment. Yes, they will do their best to lift against England, but England would have to slip quite a way from their effort against the ABs.

I think I've wandered into the Civ2 MP forum by mistake. Is that you Deity? And how did you get finbars password?

Bugger off or I'll start on you.

Anybody have any insight into Italy-Argentina? - also due this weekend apparently ...

The Pumas don't travel well, but on their effort against us - terrier-like, happy to eye-gouge - they should handle the Italians.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
Trouble is, you didn't see the Irish game. Nor, in fact, the Pumas game. The bottom line is that no one - certainly not me - is going to bet on the Wallabies with 7 1/2 points start. There's just nothing to warrant that margin. So it's unlikely there will be a betting situation on the game.

Simply, if the Wallabies play better than they have done it's only because they probably couldn't play worse. If they play to the same standard, they will be resoundingly thumped.

Yeah, and I think ravagon brings up a good point about England's spirits being high after a win against NZ. I will still be surised if Oz lose by more than 14 points though.

The only threat to England is the fact that David Campese has tipped them.

*Havak wakes screaming in the night*

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
BTW, we're rapidly heading towards the 500 mark. About time we cast around for another title?

It will be Rugby - One game to rule them all

Thats what the last one was going to be, but you may remember me going with your suggestion instead (out of the kindness of my heart).

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
It will be Rugby - One game to rule them all

Thats what the last one was going to be, but you may remember me going with your suggestion instead (out of the kindness of my heart).

As I recall, it was a minor case of blackmail - I threatened to let the world know your middle name is Jeb.