Lets Blame the Ref again shall we...
Stephen Doyle
Get a life and a coach who CAN cut it international level!!
Cheers
Stephen
Matua
"Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yep and blame the ref for a 7 point try THAT NEVER FUCKING WAS!!!!! as
well.
It's getting a bit embarrassing for "Dingo Red Neck Deans" A great record of
losses, he he he he.
Put your Akubra and your oilskin on and sing Waltzing Matilda
you fucking ponce Deans.
Matua
Simon S-B
"Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote in message
news:jlvHm.51550$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Must admit as a neutral I though Aus got the rub of the green.
Charles
wrote:
My abiding memories of the game were the amount of cheating the NZ
team got away with, and those awful anthems.
Can it get any more squirmingly embarrassing, than the two
note-rotating skinny bimbos screeching irreverently into the heavily
amplified public-address system.
The players were clearly embarrassed, as were the 'notables' who the
cameras espied and landed upon. The raised eyebrows, grimaces and the
clear attempts not to laugh said it all.
It was a good game though, with the Oz pack looking much more
accomplished, although they had no answer to the NZ bodies on the
floor all over the ball at the breakdown.
Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(
Matua
"Charles" <cha...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:oq7te5dg89tqfhdki...@4ax.com...
Behave yourself Charlie, I saw just as many wallabies lying across on the
ABs side blocking the ball from coming out.
Have a good week mate!!
Why so serious?
> "Charles" <char...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:oq7te5dg89tqfhdki...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:35:19 -0000, "Simon S-B" <baitt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote in message
> >>news:jlvHm.51550$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>> "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>>news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I thought it was just me noticing the anthems- the worst I've seen
them performed. I think they were trying to jazz it up for the
Japanese audience, but... something went wrong.
And yes, I think the way the All Blacks swarm the ruck when there's
half a chance of getting the ball has been a very successful tactic
against the Wallabies. I'm not sure it is cheating, but legal or not
it's highly effective. Against the Boks less so- they just crunch them
off the ball.
Why so serious?
And by off the ball I meant cleaning out, rather than anything more
cynical. Although that too when Bakkies is around :)
BrritSki
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:35:19 -0000, "Simon S-B" <bait...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote in message
>> news:jlvHm.51550$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
>>> news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/monday-maul/2009/11/01/1257010107171.html
>>>>
>>>> Get a life and a coach who CAN cut it international level!!
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>> Yep and blame the ref for a 7 point try THAT NEVER FUCKING WAS!!!!! as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> It's getting a bit embarrassing for "Dingo Red Neck Deans" A great record
>>> of losses, he he he he.
>>>
>>> Put your Akubra and your oilskin on and sing Waltzing Matilda
>>> you fucking ponce Deans.
>>>
>>> Matua
>>>
>>
>> Must admit as a neutral I though Aus got the rub of the green.
>
> My abiding memories of the game were the amount of cheating the NZ
At the breakdown I would agree.
I changed my mind about the try about a dozen times as I saw the 2
alternate camera angles. 1 seemed to show it out, the other in. I still
don't know for sure which it was and that skinny corner flag didn't
help, nor the lack of additonal cameras. However, dare I mention the FP
in the AB try ? The 1st pass from McCaw, but apart from that it was a
brilliant piece of handling all round.
Sivivatu should have been red-carded, that was deliberate, outrageously
dangerous foul play. Nonu should have been penalised for knocking the
ball dead in goal and also for his trick of being offside at the tackle
(only once this time tho' at about 9 mins). I also thought he
deliberately knocked on, but it was less clear on the replay.
Something really does have to be done about the breakdown though. It's a
total mess and leads imo to a lot of the kicking because sides don't
dare to risk being tackled in their own half.
Charles
wrote:
You're probably right; it's such a shambles it's a job to know just
what *is* going on. It's surely time that area of the game was sorted
out once and for all.
>
>Have a good week mate!!
>
Thanks mate, you too. I'm feeling a bit rough at the moment after
other "great weekend", but I'm off to the gym at 1130 which usually
sorts me out.
didgerman
Sauna Charles? Good man.
Brent Hadley
> > wrote:
>
> >> "Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote in message
> >>news:jlvHm.51550$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >>> "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>>news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> >>>> Get a life and a coach who CAN cut it international level!!
>
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> Stephen
>
> >>> Yep and blame the ref for a 7 point try THAT NEVER FUCKING WAS!!!!! as
> >>> well.
>
> >>> It's getting a bit embarrassing for "Dingo Red Neck Deans" A great record
> >>> of losses, he he he he.
>
> >>> Put your Akubra and your oilskin on and sing Waltzing Matilda
> >>> you fucking ponce Deans.
>
> >>> Matua
>
> >> Must admit as a neutral I though Aus got the rub of the green.
>
> > My abiding memories of the game were the amount of cheating the NZ
> > team got away with...
>
> At the breakdown I would agree.
>
> I changed my mind about the try about a dozen times as I saw the 2
> alternate camera angles. 1 seemed to show it out, the other in. I still
> don't know for sure which it was and that skinny corner flag didn't
> help, nor the lack of additonal cameras.
You're looking for the wrong thing. If you want to look at the video
again, pay particular attention to how the ball is forced before the
tryline, and then rolls out of Hynes' hand before it goes over the
line.
Cheers
Brent
Andrew Dunford
"BrritSki" <Brri...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:7l7qvoF...@mid.individual.net...
Possibly a matter of semantics. He may not have set out to deliberately
knock on; however he wasn't going to catch the ball in one arm at full
strength so some referees would have made the 'deliberate' interpretation.
I didn't see the first half and hence the first NZ try, but the final pass
for the second try (Smith) looked slightly forward to me.
<snip>
Andrew
viper
"Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
The Wallabies are rubbish and anyone who thinks this is a good All Black
team is delusional.
The ARU and the Waratahs are going to have to perform marketing miracles to
get break even
crowds next year. A goodly number of us switched the TV off after the first
AB try.
Viper
>
BrritSki
> On Nov 2, 10:35 am, BrritSki <Brrit...@iname.com> wrote:
>> Charles wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:35:19 -0000, "Simon S-B" <baitt...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:jlvHm.51550$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>>>> "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>>> Get a life and a coach who CAN cut it international level!!
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>> Stephen
>>>>> Yep and blame the ref for a 7 point try THAT NEVER FUCKING WAS!!!!! as
>>>>> well.
>>>>> It's getting a bit embarrassing for "Dingo Red Neck Deans" A great record
>>>>> of losses, he he he he.
>>>>> Put your Akubra and your oilskin on and sing Waltzing Matilda
>>>>> you fucking ponce Deans.
>>>>> Matua
>>>> Must admit as a neutral I though Aus got the rub of the green.
>>> My abiding memories of the game were the amount of cheating the NZ
>>> team got away with...
>> At the breakdown I would agree.
>>
>> I changed my mind about the try about a dozen times as I saw the 2
>> alternate camera angles. 1 seemed to show it out, the other in. I still
>> don't know for sure which it was and that skinny corner flag didn't
>> help, nor the lack of additonal cameras.
>
> You're looking for the wrong thing. If you want to look at the video
> again, pay particular attention to how the ball is forced before the
> tryline, and then rolls out of Hynes' hand before it goes over the
> line.
>
"Forget about grounding, was it touch or not?" ?
That apart, it certainly was knocked on, but again I'm not sure if that
was after it had crossed the line or not. You're sure, I'm not so sure...
Two Dogs
He said "Forget about the knock on". The touchie was telling him it
was a knock on, which it was, but Lawrence had probably decided the
touchies were morons before the game and wasn't listening to them at
any time during the match.
I thought the TMO would give the second try after being embarrassed
by Lawrence on the first, but he stuck to his guns and made the right
call.
Two Dogs
northshoreguynz
> "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
>
> news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> > Get a life and a coach who CAN cut it international level!!
>
> > Cheers
> > Stephen
>
> The Wallabies are rubbish and anyone who thinks this is a good All Black
> team is delusional.
>
> The ARU and the Waratahs are going to have to perform marketing miracles to
> get break even
> crowds next year. A goodly number of us switched the TV off after the first
> AB try.
>
> Viper
>
>
>
>
Look snake eyes, if you turned off after the first AB try you only did
it cos you couldn't bear the sight of another reaming. Go back to
league.
Cheers
Stephen
viper
"northshoreguynz" <northsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0ce79283-c9b1-461f...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Cheers
Stephen
Another quality immigrant ........up on the North Shore shagger ? Terry
Clarke's old place ?
Viper
northshoreguynz
> "northshoreguynz" <northshoregu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
No immigrant me mate, born in Rotorua. Thanks for asking.
Cheers
Stephen
grant
(snipped)
> It was a good game though, with the Oz pack looking much more
> accomplished, although they had no answer to the NZ bodies on the
> floor all over the ball at the breakdown.
>
Yeah right because NH teams would never ever do that liying on/over
the ball and killing it stone dead stuff would they?
Oh yeah that's right, naughty SH teams used to ruck them off the ball
for killing it back in times before the mid-90's. Now thats been
banned. Largely by the very same ball killing NH own authorities. You
know - your governing bodies no less Charles.
Bring back rucking I say. As did 95% of Air NZ Cup Player in a recent
players poll by the way.
grant.
---
BrritSki
Charles
wrote:
>Charles did say;
>
>(snipped)
>
>> It was a good game though, with the Oz pack looking much more
>> accomplished, although they had no answer to the NZ bodies on the
>> floor all over the ball at the breakdown.
>>
>Yeah right because NH teams would never ever do that liying on/over
>the ball and killing it stone dead stuff would they?
>
>Oh yeah that's right, naughty SH teams used to ruck them off the ball
>for killing it back in times before the mid-90's. Now thats been
>banned. Largely by the very same ball killing NH own authorities. You
>know - your governing bodies no less Charles.
You can be as prickly and jingoistic as you like, but it does nothing
to alter the truth of what I said.
You have also completely overlooked my follow-up to Matua when I made
it quite clear that it is no particular team's/nation's/hemisphere's
fault:
"You're probably right; it's such a shambles it's a job to know just
what *is* going on. It's surely time that area of the game was sorted
out once and for all.
>
>Bring back rucking I say. As did 95% of Air NZ Cup Player in a recent
>players poll by the way.
I agree entirely; it would keep the main offenders honest and tidy up
the entire shambles that the breakdown has become.
Chris Parslow
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 09:45:12 GMT, "Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:oq7te5dg89tqfhdki...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 08:35:19 -0000, "Simon S-B" <baitt...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"Matua" <Matua@cOOps isawelcher.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:jlvHm.51550$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>>> "Stephen Doyle" <st...@dmsystems.co.nz> wrote in message
> >>>>news:hcloif$fvv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
You are of course correct in calling the breakdown a shambles. In the
main it is all that and worse. But what to do about it?
The IRB seems utterly opposed to the reintroduction of rucking. And
yet the pre-ELV, ELV and post-ELV breakdown do not seem sufficiently
different to me to justify another bout of fannying about over what
should or should not be a long arm penalty.
A truly fundamentalist interpretation of the existing tackle laws
rigourously and consistently applied might reap short-term dividends,
but in the long-term the law of unintended consequences may be the
biggest agent of change.
My suspicion is that a generalised crack-down on breakdown offences
would result in more kicking or more uncontested rucks. Or both.
I simply cannot see a palatable solution that does not involve
rucking...
CP
Mike Whooley
> I simply cannot see a palatable solution that does not involve
> rucking...
Never mind difficulty finding a solution, I think there's difficulty
in defining the problem! :)
Some feel we need to prevent slowing down of the ball in rucks; while
others want to see a genuine contest for the ball. It's not that these
two aims are difficult to reconcile, they're pretty much mutually
exclusive.
And then you have the consequences of the "solution". If you succeed
in ensuring the ball comes back quickly from rucks, then the defending
side will disengage and you'll have loose forwards flooding midfield.
Whereas if you succeed in making the rucks a contest, you'll have a
pile of bodies on the ground and very slow ball.
I wondered if having a 5m law at rucks would help (i.e. instead of
having to stay behind the back foot, you have to stay behind the back
foot + 5m); so you're either (correctly!) bound in the ruck, the scrum
half, or 5m back. That would free up a lot of space for the attacking
team, and encourage them to ruck once then go wide on second phase.
Plus the defending team would be disrupted by having to retreat 5m
after each phase. I think it's almost definitely unworkable, but it's
a thought..
Maybe we just need wider pitches? :)
grant
Actually I agree with this too - although I'd love to see rucking
brought back I suspect it's not what is going to happen irrespective
of what many players, coaches & true supporters want. The IRB are
terrified of what the TV crowd and soccer mums perceive and say.
Given that I have also argued RSRU previously for the 5m behind the
ruck law you refer to above Mike. A major blight on the game today is
that defensive lines are constantly standing off-side at the ruck, let
alone being in line with the hindmost foot in the ruck. It is killing
the flow of the game and refs and assistant refs (ugh!) seem to not
to care awfully much about it - just on the odd occasion. They are
far more focused on what is, or what is alleged to be, in rucks.
A 5 meter law would give attacking teams more scope to set moves while
dealing to off-side at the ruck pretty effectively I reckon. The game
would be a much better spectacle as a result and probably better to
play too.
grant.
---
Lodi
>> On Nov 4, 2:34 am, Mike Whooley <w...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 9:24 am, Chris Parslow <parslow.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> I wondered if having a 5m law at rucks would help (i.e. instead of
>> having to stay behind the back foot, you have to stay behind the back
>> foot + 5m); so you're either (correctly!) bound in the ruck, the scrum
>> half, or 5m back. That would free up a lot of space for the attacking
>> team, and encourage them to ruck once then go wide on second phase.
>> Plus the defending team would be disrupted by having to retreat 5m
>> after each phase. I think it's almost definitely unworkable, but it's
>> a thought..
>>
> Actually I agree with this too -
>
> A 5 meter law would give attacking teams more scope to set moves while
> dealing to off-side at the ruck pretty effectively I reckon. The game
> would be a much better spectacle as a result and probably better to
> play too.
>
> grant.
> ---
I hope you both realize that you're pretty much describing rugby league.
Five metres back instead of ten and no six tackle rule. But apart from
that, it's league.
Personally I love the mess at the maul. Rugby league is tackle, retreat,
tackle, retreat, tackle, retreat etc. Boring. Whereas union is tackle,
maul, half a dozen people fighting for the ball, then (eventually) up it
pops and away we go again.
What's annoying is the ref blowing his whistle. Just let the maulees get on
with it. Less rules, not more.
Regards
Lodi
lord shineything
> http://www.rugbyheaven.com.au/news/news/monday-maul/2009/11/01/125701...
>
> Get a life and a coach who CAN cut it international level!!
>
is really plumbing the depths if that's who he's taking lessons
from...
Why so serious?
Amen.
Chris Parslow
>
> > I simply cannot see a palatable solution that does not involve
> > rucking...
>
> Never mind difficulty finding a solution, I think there's difficulty
> in defining the problem! :)
>
> Some feel we need to prevent slowing down of the ball in rucks; while
> others want to see a genuine contest for the ball. It's not that these
> two aims are difficult to reconcile, they're pretty much mutually
> exclusive.
>
> And then you have the consequences of the "solution". If you succeed
> in ensuring the ball comes back quickly from rucks, then the defending
> side will disengage and you'll have loose forwards flooding midfield.
> Whereas if you succeed in making the rucks a contest, you'll have a
> pile of bodies on the ground and very slow ball.
A pile of bodies lying on the ground *is* the problem.
> I wondered if having a 5m law at rucks would help (i.e. instead of
> having to stay behind the back foot, you have to stay behind the back
> foot + 5m); so you're either (correctly!) bound in the ruck, the scrum
> half, or 5m back.
Perhaps, but only if both sides are kept back 5m. When RL dumped the
need for both sides to be equidistant from the play-the-ball, the
boring as bejesus monotony of dummy-half or one-pass runs followed as
surely as night follows day.
CP
grant
Except rugby doesn't have a six tackle law, which I would have thought
was the crucial difference in the context of our discussion Lodi old
mate.
In regards to whistle-happy refs, I agree. Seems to me the game
attracts more than its share of pedants to its refereeing ranks.
grant.
---
Why so serious?
The 6-tackle law is important precisely because of the 10-metre rule
in RL. It's the only incentive in RL to actually do something useful
with the ball- if you don't you lose it. So rugby that has a 10 (or 5)
metre rule with no tackle count would soon descend into farce.
Out of curiosity, how would you have any kind of contest for the ball
if people have to be 5 metres behind it? Do you have to be five metres
behind the ruck to join from an 'onside' position? If you're on the
fringe of a ruck can you tackle the halfback if he snipes?
Basically I don't think it would work.
grant
Because you have to be 5m behind the ruck other than for the first
receiver. I guess teams could choose not to contest the ruck but they
would do that at their absolute peril wouldn't they? If you are bound
to and committed to the ruck then yes you can have a go at the half-
back from an onside position, just like now. It's designed more to
police those *not joined to the ruck* - many of whom blatantly stand
offside in front of the hind-most feet in the ruck these days.
I'm not sure how you reach the conclusion that 'rugby that has a 10
(or 5) metre rule with no tackle count would soon descend into
farce.' Want to expand on that a bit?
cheers,
grant.
---
grant.
---
Chris Parslow
I'm not sure I follow the logic here.
When league went to 6 tackles from 4, it was 5m. Some time later it
went to 10m (for a shithouse reasons, namely that Siddeny refs were
making 5= 8 anyway).
Pretty much the same time that contested play-the-balls were outlawed,
the 10m was applied to the defending team only. Hence far too fuckin'
many dummy-half & one-pass runs, reason being there are easy metres to
be made while defenders get back the 10. Hence also the wrestling
bullshit to give defending players the opportunity to get back the
etc.
Despite fitter players, the play-the-ball seems no quicker than when
it was 5m for each side. And passes before or at the advantage line
are IMHO fewer than when it was 3m, back when mammoths roamed the
earth.
I'm not sure at all 5m or whatever back per side would be a good thing
for union, but I am damn sure it must be the same for both. Any thing
else would see endless halfback dashes, forward pick & goes or one-
pass forward rumbles.
In my HO, any solution has to involve keeping players off the deck at
the tackle contest. Whether it is fast or slow ball thereafter should
depend on the effectiveness of the contest at the tackle and the
choice of the attacking team, should they look like retaining
possession...
CP
Why so serious?
I may have come on a little strong with the whole 'farce' comment,
especially as I offered no real explanation. My reasoning is this:
- there are now 2 offside lines to police, and I'm not sure that the
idea of an 'offensive offside' is equivalent to a defensive one. But
you'd need either better referees or more referees (or for the touch-
judges to do it, of course... which makes sense).
- the 'being committed to a ruck' becomes ambiguous, because the more
people you can commit to a ruck without actually being 'committed',
the better. Once the scrimmage breaks up, those guys can quickly
follow the halfback to make 2-3 easy meters every time. Of course the
defence can do the same thing, but I can see it getting very messy,
very quickly. Kind of like scrums, I guess. Which is fine, except to
do it right you need to slow the game down, which makes it more
boring.
- the distinction between tackle and ruck becomes even more important,
because rather than just get 'onside' by falling behind that imaginary
plane across the field, you have to fall back 5 meters behind it.
Hence the best strategy for the attacking team is actually NOT to get
quick ball. They should ensure every tackle becomes a ruck, because
there are always 5 metres to be had.
- the nature of kicking will change- the halfbacks will kick less,
because their chasers all have 5 meters more to make up, while the
other players will kick more, because the charge down would basically
cease to exist. I think that there has to be some pressure on kickers
to clear.
In general, I think it favours the team in possession too much.
Obviously not as much as in RL, which is a joke, but still
significantly.
Basically: there are ways to manipulate the 5-metre rule, and they
would make the game more formulaic, necessitate better (or more)
referees, and I think would be worse to watch.
grant
Or we could just bring back rucking.
Which is where this whole discussion started in the first place.
Something needs to be done about the breakdowns, at the moment they
are a mess, made worse by ref's and touchies who dont enforce properly
the current offside rule for those not in the breakdown while
presiding over rucks, in particular, with a bleeding 'magnifying
glass'.
grant.
---