Rugby World Cup 2015
Comments
-
What I would say, if Aus have watched the video, is that Argentina have no kicking game. None at all. Not just in terms of don't kick much, not even once. It was terribly endearing but, in attack, the occasional up and under wouldn't go amiss.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Semi-final surely?Can't really see past the AB's, but if they are going to choke, no place better than a World Cup QF!
My first born is currently 4 days late, so no doubt I won't be watching any of the rugby! Perhaps a World Cup try fest might nudge things along.
Back to the question, Oz v NZ final, NZ win.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What I would say, if Aus have watched the video, is that Argentina have no kicking game. None at all. Not just in terms of don't kick much, not even once. It was terribly endearing but, in attack, the occasional up and under wouldn't go amiss.
Whilst I agree that Argentina haven't done as much kicking as some others to suggest that they have no kicking game at all is plainly wrong. As a regular watcher of the Top 14 competition, Los Pumas have two of the best exponents of the kicking game, Toulon's Nicolas Sanchez and, in particular, Juan Martin Hernandez. Both of these players have an ability to drop a high ball onto a penny and as team mates for both club and country they already have an innate understanding of each others game. If both of them play to their abilities then I can easily see Argentina in their first World Cup final.0 -
What I would say, if Aus have watched the video, is that Argentina have no kicking game. None at all. Not just in terms of don't kick much, not even once. It was terribly endearing but, in attack, the occasional up and under wouldn't go amiss.
Whilst I agree that Argentina haven't done as much kicking as some others to suggest that they have no kicking game at all is plainly wrong. As a regular watcher of the Top 14 competition, Los Pumas have two of the best exponents of the kicking game, Toulon's Nicolas Sanchez and, in particular, Juan Martin Hernandez. Both of these players have an ability to drop a high ball onto a penny and as team mates for both club and country they already have an innate understanding of each others game. If both of them play to their abilities then I can easily see Argentina in their first World Cup final.
To be fair I don't mean to suggest that they cannot play a kicking game. Just that they don't have one at the moment. I hope they put a few balls up but, frankly, watching them spread it is a joy.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
I must say I fancy Argentina for the World Cup. They've been winning convincingly and the other semi-finalist have faltered. And on paper (world cups aren't won on paper I know) Argentina had the toughest quarter final.Pinno, מלך אידיוט וחרא מכונאי0
-
I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
point 1. NZ had a penalty first and no advantage was had. This meant it went back. However due to TMO touch judge it was found a neck roll had occurred and so SA got the penalty. Felt it was unfair but I couldnt work out if they ref knew about the neck roll when he blew up.
point 2. NZ card? Yes it was cynical and he meant to remove the ball from SA play0 -
I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
point 1. NZ had a penalty first and no advantage was had. This meant it went back. However due to TMO touch judge it was found a neck roll had occurred and so SA got the penalty. Felt it was unfair but I couldnt work out if they ref knew about the neck roll when he blew up.
point 2. NZ card? Yes it was cynical and he meant to remove the ball from SA play
1. SA can feel robbed, but that makes sense.
2. Fair enough if it was cynical. I got caught up in a conversation and missed the replays.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with rugby.0 -
Why is it a problem?I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with rugby.
The referee would have explained the logic of the decision, I just couldn't hear it.
I simply need to go to a different pub.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Quite a dour power game, all told. Hoping for better today. Hoping for Argentina.
I honestly think they have nothing to lose. And can win it all.
Owens will be refereeing the final. I hope he fades into the background rather than becoming centre stage.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
They deserved it but the decisions took the pressure off.Shame for the neutrals but you can't really argue that the Aussies didn't deserve that....The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
What decisions? The massive mistake on the knock on, 1 try. The nowhere near a yellow card one, 1 try. The forward pass with no effort to look to the TMO, 1 try. Fair play, great game Barnes.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Yes, those decisions.What decisions? The massive mistake on the knock on, 1 try. The nowhere near a yellow card one, 1 try. The forward pass with no effort to look to the TMO, 1 try. Fair play, great game Barnes.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yes, those decisions.What decisions? The massive mistake on the knock on, 1 try. The nowhere near a yellow card one, 1 try. The forward pass with no effort to look to the TMO, 1 try. Fair play, great game Barnes.
I do cause and effect. If mistake 1 had happened then mistakes 2 and 3 never would have. New timeline. But in the context of the timeline presented, Barnes had a shocker. Shows up the TMO thing again though. He was sympathetic to the 1st mistake, saw it on the screen, knew it was wrong, could not change it.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
I agree. Ifs, buts and maybes.
Yes, those decisions.What decisions? The massive mistake on the knock on, 1 try. The nowhere near a yellow card one, 1 try. The forward pass with no effort to look to the TMO, 1 try. Fair play, great game Barnes.
I do cause and effect. If mistake 1 had happened then mistakes 2 and 3 never would have. New timeline. But in the context of the timeline presented, Barnes had a shocker. Shows up the TMO thing again though. He was sympathetic to the 1st mistake, saw it on the screen, knew it was wrong, could not change it.
Relieving the pressure helped though IMHO.
I will be humble this time as I admit to not being an expert.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Why is it a problem?I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with rugby.
The referee would have explained the logic of the decision, I just couldn't hear it.
I simply need to go to a different pub.
Too many counter intuitive rules (unless you play it) which happen under a pile of bodies.
If you need the ref to explain why he whistled, it's not a great spectacle. F1 can suffer from the same problem with arcane engineering rules that get examined only after the race.
This is one of the main things football has over rugby. In football everyone's the ref and it's clear to see - that's presumably why they're much more willing to have a go at the ref 'cos pretty much everyone can see it and knows what's going on (as opposed to any class snobbery reasons...)0 -
I could counter that some football referees really should explain some of their decisions.
But I really don't care.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Worst kept secret ever but Nigel Owens will referee the final - Good on him
OT, I saw something about trying to get him nominated for SPOTY which I think is a great idea. Not sure i can think of a better option this year....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Worst kept secret ever but Nigel Owens will referee the final - Good on him
OT, I saw something about trying to get him nominated for SPOTY which I think is a great idea. Not sure i can think of a better option this year....
Indeed. Perhaps he could be nominated for best supporting actor as well?My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Worst kept secret ever but Nigel Owens will referee the final - Good on him
OT, I saw something about trying to get him nominated for SPOTY which I think is a great idea. Not sure i can think of a better option this year....
If lewis won it last year he should definitely win it this year...! (and how many UK sports stars can you first name only?)0 -
Bradley
Daly
Linford
Mo
Johnny
Bobby
Kind of cheating as it's so traditional to refer to team sportstars by their surnames, Rooney, SteveG, Ronaldo etc. Everyone says Messi, but there is rarely a need to specify Lionel. No one hears Messi and thinks of Fred Messi from Droitwich...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Why is it a problem?I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with rugby.
The referee would have explained the logic of the decision, I just couldn't hear it.
I simply need to go to a different pub.
Too many counter intuitive rules (unless you play it) which happen under a pile of bodies.
If you need the ref to explain why he whistled, it's not a great spectacle. F1 can suffer from the same problem with arcane engineering rules that get examined only after the race.
This is one of the main things football has over rugby. In football everyone's the ref and it's clear to see - that's presumably why they're much more willing to have a go at the ref 'cos pretty much everyone can see it and knows what's going on (as opposed to any class snobbery reasons...)
But that's precisely why Nigel Owens is particularly good. If you listen during the course of the game to him talking to the players rather than the inane chatter of the commentators you learn exactly why decisions are made and what laws are being contravened. I do not understand why the reluctance to mic up football referees when you would clean up players behaviour at a stroke - no swearing and abuse of the ref because every word will be picked up and also a good chance to understand exactly what the ref THINKS he saw.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
Why is it a problem?I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with rugby.
The referee would have explained the logic of the decision, I just couldn't hear it.
I simply need to go to a different pub.
Too many counter intuitive rules (unless you play it) which happen under a pile of bodies.
If you need the ref to explain why he whistled, it's not a great spectacle. F1 can suffer from the same problem with arcane engineering rules that get examined only after the race.
This is one of the main things football has over rugby. In football everyone's the ref and it's clear to see - that's presumably why they're much more willing to have a go at the ref 'cos pretty much everyone can see it and knows what's going on (as opposed to any class snobbery reasons...)
But that's precisely why Nigel Owens is particularly good. If you listen during the course of the game to him talking to the players rather than the inane chatter of the commentators you learn exactly why decisions are made and what laws are being contravened. I do not understand why the reluctance to mic up football referees when you would clean up players behaviour at a stroke - no swearing and abuse of the ref because every word will be picked up and also a good chance to understand exactly what the ref THINKS he saw.
It's an interesting one. He communicates very well. But being a good communicator is not evidence of correctly interpreting or applying the laws.My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
I think a large number of players would take good communication and consistency of interpretation during a game, over poor communication and especially lack of consistency during the course of a game.
I guess what I mean is that if a referee is going to control the breakdown in a certain way (the rules seemingly allowing different interpretations) he should communicate that to both teams before the game and then remain consistent throughout the game.Cube - Peloton
Cannondale - CAAD100 -
Why is it a problem?I was watching in a pub with no sound. Can someone please explain 2 decisions?
A ruck with NZ in possession, a NZ player makes an illegal tackle (penalty given), the ball is played wide where it is intercepted and a try looks inevitable.
Why did the ref stop the try to award a penalty back in their own 22?
The offside kick. Definitely offside but worth a yellow card?
I just want to know the thinking.
This illustrates the fundamental problem with rugby.
The referee would have explained the logic of the decision, I just couldn't hear it.
I simply need to go to a different pub.
Too many counter intuitive rules (unless you play it) which happen under a pile of bodies.
If you need the ref to explain why he whistled, it's not a great spectacle. F1 can suffer from the same problem with arcane engineering rules that get examined only after the race.
This is one of the main things football has over rugby. In football everyone's the ref and it's clear to see - that's presumably why they're much more willing to have a go at the ref 'cos pretty much everyone can see it and knows what's going on (as opposed to any class snobbery reasons...)
But that's precisely why Nigel Owens is particularly good. If you listen during the course of the game to him talking to the players rather than the inane chatter of the commentators you learn exactly why decisions are made and what laws are being contravened. I do not understand why the reluctance to mic up football referees when you would clean up players behaviour at a stroke - no swearing and abuse of the ref because every word will be picked up and also a good chance to understand exactly what the ref THINKS he saw.
It's an interesting one. He communicates very well. But being a good communicator is not evidence of correctly interpreting or applying the laws.
Nope, but most people in the rugby world agree that he's the best at that as well. Plus, as I said, the fact that you actually hear their thought processes and what they think they've seen and how they're interpreting the laws gives you a great insight and you can forgive them the odd moment (in Owens case it's very few!). I'd love to have heard Marriner's interpretation of Milner's wild swipe at Wanyama on Sunday or the same players rugby challenge on Bertrand (neither of which were punished!). I'd also like to see footballers having to wise up and cut out all the language, faux-protestations and constant whining - because they couldn't be doing that live on TV and still making big sponsorship bucks!Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
I think a large number of players would take good communication and consistency of interpretation during a game, over poor communication and especially lack of consistency during the course of a game.
I guess what I mean is that if a referee is going to control the breakdown in a certain way (the rules seemingly allowing different interpretations) he should communicate that to both teams before the game and then remain consistent throughout the game.
Quite!Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0
