Rugby World Cup

SimonAH

I am sitting in my office in Cwmbran surrounded by surly grumpy people. Every second word today has been 'travesty' or 'robbed'. I'm on the road for the rest of the week thank gawd.

clarkey cat

Are they talking about the rugby or what the local youths have been up to?

sketchley

You can get 13/2 on France
1/8 is best for NZ.

Top try score is interesting. Ashton is still around 4/1 level with Clerc (2/1) on 6 tries and one ahead of Dagg (3.3/1) and Adam Ashley cooper (17/2). Loads of All Blacks and few others on 4 tries.

I really really want NZ to thrash France.

walkingbootweather

Should Wales considered cheating, or more to the point should Gatland admitted to considering cheating?

sketchley

walkingbootweather wrote:

Should Wales considered cheating, or more to the point should Gatland admitted to considering cheating?

I cannot see what is wrong with saying you considered it, but dismissed it for the correct reasons.

benno68

walkingbootweather wrote:

Should Wales considered cheating, or more to the point should Gatland admitted to considering cheating?

It was a tactical discussion which was dismissed, it would have been cheating if they had followed through with it but as it stands no offence has been committed.

It seems to have been blown out of all proportion but maybe Gatland wanted to make the IRB aware of things that maybe going on - they seem to have taken the bait hook line and sinker.

Maybe we should have used a different ball for kicking

SimonAH

Blinkin' stupid to have admitted it though.........The obvious conjecture is that at other times it was considered and carried out. Doesn't paint too clean a picture really now does it?

benno68

SimonAH wrote:

Blinkin' stupid to have admitted it though.........The obvious conjecture is that at other times it was considered and carried out. Doesn't paint too clean a picture really now does it?

I think it was a ploy to get to the IRB and, maybe a dig at the referree.

Every rugby coach worth their salt would have known this tactic, Gatland is simply pointing out that they "could" have cheated and gained from it, but rose above it.

The conversation may have been like this...(staff)"If we wanted to cheat, we could fake an injury to a prop". (Gatland) "We could, but it would be out of order". end of.

It seems that a mountain has been made out of a molehill to me.

rick_chasey

Benno68 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

Blinkin' stupid to have admitted it though.........The obvious conjecture is that at other times it was considered and carried out. Doesn't paint too clean a picture really now does it?

I think it was a ploy to get to the IRB and, maybe a dig at the referree.

Every rugby coach worth their salt would have known this tactic, Gatland is simply pointing out that they "could" have cheated and gained from it, but rose above it.

The conversation may have been like this...(staff)"If we wanted to cheat, we could fake an injury to a prop". (Gatland) "We could, but it would be out of order". end of.

It seems that a mountain has been made out of a molehill to me.

Isn't more part of a broader story of ambivalence towards the professionalisation of Rugby? From a 'gentleman's' amateur game, where everyone is polite and honest, to one where they're all on the jungle juice, pouring fake blood on themselves, and feigning injury (like another kind of football...)

ddraver

Hmm, We thought about cheating but we didnt so therefore the referee was wrong? Or is he suggesting that everytime a team gets a decision against them, they should be allowed one "rule break" back?

Sorry, doesnt wash much with me - It's almost like he's asking for credit for NOT shoplifting - General opinion (outside of Wales) seems to be in favor of the referee but either way, what's done is done now, Time to move on.

Pross

I was actually screaming at the TV to take James off more or less straight after Warburton was sent off and the scrum was struggling. Wales could have brought on an extra back rower or Burns which would have given them more around the park and meant that the creaking scrum was sorted. I was amazed they didn't do it - I think any other team would have. Yes, it is cheating but it was naiive not to all the same.

benno68

ddraver wrote:

Hmm, We thought about cheating but we didnt so therefore the referee was wrong? Or is he suggesting that everytime a team gets a decision against them, they should be allowed one "rule break" back?

Sorry, doesnt wash much with me - It's almost like he's asking for credit for NOT shoplifting - General opinion (outside of Wales) seems to be in favor of the referee but either way, what's done is done now, Time to move on.

Personally I'm glad that Wales didn't cheat although I reckon that we would have beaten the French had we done it. Missed kicks were also part of our demise.

I believe that he is pointing out a potential hole in the rules that could be open for abuse and may well have been - nothing more.

I think that well known err Welshman called Francois Pienaar is the most upset about it, Lynagh and Fitzpatrick also seem to think that Rolland could have handled it better.

Just a shame that there are probably 4 teams more deserving of getting to the final than France.

Anyhow, onwards and upwards as they say. It'll be interesting to see how the game on Friday will be played and I'm definitely looking forward to seeing some points scored on Sunday.

walkingbootweather

So if one of the Wales props had genuinely had a minor injury (one that he could conceiveably have played on with) should he continue to play, or should he come off resulting in uncontested scrums, and a potential advantage to his team? If the prop had come off would this have been cheating?

benno68

If the prop was genuinely injured and Wales did not have another prop to put on then he would have been subbed and uncontested scrums would have followed. This would not have been cheating.

It would have been cheating if he had faked an injury and gained the advantage.

walkingbootweather

Yes but how serious does the injury need to be? A broken arm, a bruised shoulder, a dislocated finger, a bit of a headache, a sore throat?

Pross

There are two ways of preventing this tactic (which occurs regularly - the Aussies did it against England a few years back):-

1. Enlarge the match day squad by one place but insist that there are two props plus a hooker on the bench rather than just saying all positions need to be covered (i.e. a prop being allowed to cover either side of the scrum).

2. Possibly more drastic and might penalise genuine injuries, you could have a situation where if a scrum has to go passive the team who are short in the front row have to sacrifice a player as punishment. This would probably lead to teams having an extra front row player on the bench at the expense of a loose forward.

Really can't understand what the IRB are doing wasting time investigating Gatland for considering cheating. Everyone gets tempted to do the wrong thing at times, it is whether you give in to that temptation that counts.

sketchley

It is already resolved in club rugby, why the IRB didn't see fit to introduce it for internationals and the world cup is anyone's guess

In club rugby match day squads are now 23 and most include 3 front row players, should at any time in the game a side not being able to continue to scrummage they are reduced to 14 men. Since doing this first in France then in the rest of club rugby the uncontested scrum has disappeared.

Problem solved.

Fact is though no matches in the RWC to my knowledge have had an uncontested scrum, meaning that current policy is working.

jamesco

Benno68 wrote:

The conversation may have been like this...(staff)"If we wanted to cheat, we could fake an injury to a prop". (Gatland) "We could, but it would be out of order". end of.

It seems that a mountain has been made out of a molehill to me.

Absolutely. It's like the biblical idea of commiting adultery "in one's heart"; he's just acknowledging the temptation, but obviously nothing happened and there's no reason for columnists to act so shocked... worse things have happened at the bottom of a ruck, and not just thought about.

Anyway, can Wales beat an Aussie side that's had less recovery time and made 8 changes? Heart says Wales, head says Aussie to run away with it.

benno68

jamesco wrote:

Benno68 wrote:

The conversation may have been like this...(staff)"If we wanted to cheat, we could fake an injury to a prop". (Gatland) "We could, but it would be out of order". end of.

It seems that a mountain has been made out of a molehill to me.

Absolutely. It's like the biblical idea of commiting adultery "in one's heart"; he's just acknowledging the temptation, but obviously nothing happened and there's no reason for columnists to act so shocked... worse things have happened at the bottom of a ruck, and not just thought about.

Anyway, can Wales beat an Aussie side that's had less recovery time and made 8 changes? Heart says Wales, head says Aussie to run away with it.

Here's hoping for a Wales win but I have no idea how the game will pan out - guess we'll have to wait and see.

As for Sunday, I'm thinking of getting an All Blacks jersey.

Stone Glider

@Benno68 you will have to be picked for the squad first, then get on the pitch before you would be 'entitled' to wear it

benno68

Stone Glider wrote:

@Benno68 you will have to be picked for the squad first, then get on the pitch before you would be 'entitled' to wear it

I don't even deserve to wear my local team's old boys jersey these days

ddraver

jamesco wrote:

Anyway, can Wales beat an Aussie side that's had less recovery time and made 8 changes? Heart says Wales, head says Aussie to run away with it.

I think Wales have got a great chance, as a nation they are probably the best at getting "up" for a rugby match whereas I reckon Aus would have been on a plane home on Monday morning if they'd had the chance (see 8 changes). Plus they have some scores to settle whereas, again, Aus were pretty resoundingly beaten last weekend...

cjcp

ddraver wrote:

jamesco wrote:

Anyway, can Wales beat an Aussie side that's had less recovery time and made 8 changes? Heart says Wales, head says Aussie to run away with it.

I think Wales have got a great chance, as a nation they are probably the best at getting "up" for a rugby match whereas I reckon Aus would have been on a plane home on Monday morning if they'd had the chance (see 8 changes). Plus they have some scores to settle whereas, again, Aus were pretty resoundingly beaten last weekend...

Yep, I think we can beat them. And Shane Williams's last game in the red jersey means he has a lot to play for.

cjcp

The goal-kicking is worse than useless. Someone, please, stop him kicking.

Clever Pun

unlucky taffs.. good effort at the end

ddraver

Ah well - You give us Shaun Edwards and we ll give you a (hopefully) newly retitred Jonny Wilkinson as a kicking coach.

Fair trade?

Pross

Very poor display by Wales today and yet another piece of shocking refereeing missing that forward pass (last time I saw one missed that badly was ironically the Aussies scoring against Wales to knock them out of RWC '99!).

Hook's days for Wales in the 10 jersey at least must be very limited?

cjcp

Pross wrote:

Very poor display by Wales today and yet another piece of shocking refereeing missing that forward pass (last time I saw one missed that badly was ironically the Aussies scoring against Wales to knock them out of RWC '99!).

I thought that, too! How the heck did the linesman miss that?

Hook's days for Wales in the 10 jersey at least must be very limited?

I hope so. If Williams retires after the Aus match in December, and Byrne doesn't find his form, Hook at full-back with H'penny and North on the wing? Stoddart's an option, too.

That kicking display was just bad, bad, bad.

Pross

I'm hoping Byrne never makes it into a Welsh shirt again, his head went on the Lions tour and has never been the same since.

Looking to the future I would pick 3 out of North, Halfpenny, Stoddart and Tom Prydie for the back three. Prydie was excellent in his one cap so far against Italy (think he was only 17 at the time and tackled Bergamasco out of the game when Bergamasco tried to run through him!) but then got injured.

Other than Jones and Phillips the back line is very young so hopefully it bodes well for the future. Props are knocking on a bit but can go on a few more years and Matthew Rees will be fit again soon to take his place back at hooker, back row are very yound and very good.

I don't think Wales have been as good as some in the media have blown them up to be but they were certainly better than I thought they would be. Hopefully they can build on this campaign rather than sit on the laurels of a moderate success as they did after the 2005 and 2008 Slams.

Gallywomack

As an England fan, I wouldn't call two slams in 3 years 'moderate success'!

The future looks bright for Wales alright but if this RWC is anything to go by, Priestland is very important. I don't really rate Biggar and this young lad Morgan looks like Arwel Thomas MK II to me (although I wish him well as he's an incredible player). Hook has proved himself flakey in the extreme at FH. I think if Priestland can be your steady Stephen Jones-esque FH for a few years there's no reason why Wales can't be one of the top sides in the world.