 |
|  |
 |
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970 time: 06:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by NeoStar
EDIT - Look, is this real money? |
ravagon basically explained it. We chose Civ Gold as our fantasy currency because we couldn't decide between the myriad national currencies represented via the posters in this thread.
So we can allocate you 100 Civ Gold - that's what everyone started with - and you can start betting on the forthcoming Boks-ABs game. We usually start betting within a couple of days of the match, and I post the details of who has backed whom, how much everyone stands to win, and so on.
We normally bet on margins rather than straight out win/lose. (Although last Saturday night's match was straight out because of the closeness of the teams) A couple of days before the match, we will determine, by consensus, which team should start favourite.
In all likelihood, in the next match, it will be the ABs. If that's the case, we will determine, by consensus, a (scoreboard) points "start" for the Boks. If, for example, it's decided that the ABs are favourites by 9 1/2 (scoreboard) points, then the equation would be as follows:
1. Back the ABs - they have to win by 10 points or more for you to win your bet. If they win by 9 points or less, you lose your bet.
2. Back the Boks - they have to lose by less than 9 points; or draw the match; or win the match; for you to win your bet. If they lose by 10 points or more, you lose your bet.
Pretty simple, huh? 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970 time: 06:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by NeoStar
To be fair to them, the rugby rule book is pretty complex. |
Only, IMHO, relating to certain aspects of the breakdown. That's what they seem to keep tweaking. For example, the time the tackled player is given to release the ball seems to fluctuate from reasonable opportunity to no opportunity, and "bridging" - or that descrition anyway - seems to confuse players.
quote: BTW This is a while back, but how did you kiwis take the fiasco invloving NZ losing the rights to co host the WC? Was it unexpected? I was actually fairly disappointed, compared to some of the places they're holding the games here, give me a rugby mad NZ crowd anyday. |
We batted that around quite a bit. The Kiwi posters seem to have pulled their heads in since the results of the NZ inquiry into the matter were released. I have, though, conceded before this that it was very sad all around.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:21
|
|
My feelings about refs at training are really bad. We shouldn't need them there because the first thing to do in a season in any club is to explain the rules. My first training with a real rugby trainer was ahead of a black board. He was just the coach, not a referee.
If you don't teach the rules to ALL players, at club-level, how do you expect a newly capped player will suddenly forget his bad reflexes accumulated over years? Teaching the players how to behave in clubs and at championship level should be where to send the refs. Let them give a course in front of a black board. They sure need to explain things to players, but not during training. Training is for tactical/physical/technical stuff, not learning the rules. Maybe you can teach some front-row subtleties during training, and need an actual scrum to show how this and that position is legal, but you just do it once and for all.
At pro level, explanations of new rules in every club ONCE should be enough. Afterwards, discipline is more a matter of knowing you will not be selected again if you give away too many penalties. France used to have players like that (Carminatti springs to mind) who cost between 6 and 9 points penalty-wise every match they played. If players with little discipline know they will be out if they make fouls, they start paying attention.
As for discussing with a ref with whom you've had problems, I think it is a good idea. But usually it is only a good idea with a beer in hand (a Guiness for instance) and not being too serious about it. You usually realize either you didn't know a rule, or the referee was 60 meters away and didn't see things well so he made a mistake, or you didn't see or realize something. It is very common to get offline because you honestly didn't see there were more than two players of your team near the "regroupement" (sorry - forgot the English word for now), or don't have the same understanding of what releasing a ball "in the movement" means as the ref. (I actually would penalize most pro players there considering many keep the ball a full second before trying to push it away from their body once they are tackled - I don't like the fact modern rugby wins so little balls on good tackles).
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970 time: 06:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Havak
Extremely pedantic point here guys but could you all please stop referring to the rules of rugby? Rugby has no ‘rules’, only ‘laws’ of the game.
Sorry – this is a pet hate of mine! |
Fair enough, too. I agree entirely, and I plead guilty to carelessness. It's yet another of rugby's beautiful little idiosyncracies. 
quote: I would be interested to hear you name the offenders here – I can’t finger any top five teams for this myself. Seriously. England don't panic. They might play sodding uselessly at times but they don't panic |
Panic might not be the perfect choice of word, but frankly, I suspect every team in the world has, at some point, reacted in a way that could loosely be described as ... whatever. Players are human, after all.
quote: Just last year the McQueen/O’Neil double act was ranting about rolling mauls being out of place in modern rugby – it was pure coincidence the Wallabunnies were awful at defending them at the time (getting better now). It’s this short-termism by the ARU that bugs me – they must think long term benefit of the game not short term Wallaby silver all the time. |
I wouldn't disagree with any of that. With the proviso, though, that a lot of that sort of stuff is (for want of a better term) mind games. And pretty pointless. No one - most of all the double act to which you refer - seriously believes the rolling maul would ever be removed from the game.
quote: – even going so far as stating recently that they intend to retain ‘competition’ for the ball in the game (every so often the demon of uncontested set pieces raise its ugly league head – I can assure you that suggestion never comes from the NH). |
This is something to which Tamerlin referred a month or so ago. The suggestion was that the SH wanted uncontested set-pieces. I say again, I've never heard of it. Can you source this for me, Havak?
quote: As Finbar picked (and probably dismissed) it was actually a little dig at a specific flanker on my part. |
I gave it all the attention it deserved. As in:
finbar: (aside, to himself) "Better that tired, knackered old hobby horse, I guess, than another tribute to Jonno".

quote: I also expect this to be the acid test of Aussie ‘calm’ – I can’t honestly say I noticed too much of that in the first game.  |
Too true, unfortunately. It will be a very interesting test this time around. The Boks are guaranteed to be niggling - and more - from the kick-off. It's the only way they know, after all. 
quote: Heh Finbar it’s a straight start for the game on Saturday right - now that the Aussies have beaten both it has to be surely? |
I'm honestly not sure what the margin should be. The ABs' margin over the Boks was a lot more than the Wallabies', which is probably the major factor to take into consideration. But the Boks are always stronger at home. OTOH, they're playing at sea level. (I'm really not sure, anyway, how much of a factor playing at altitude really is) Look, I reckon, after due consideration, I'd give the Boks 7 points start.
quote: Fortunately it is between two single country bids (no shared venues like 91 or 99) in 2007 – France or England. Two excellent places to hold it. |

quote: Havak, having breezed through his O’Levels yet again – steps right up to a cheesy masters degree in courting favour with his amis français |
Dr Havak, PhD in EU Suck. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999 time: 13:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by finbar
How "familiar" should players be with refs and vice versa? I've noticed that some refs tend to call the players by their christian name on the field. I've even heard some players call the ref by his christian name on the field. At what point, I wonder, does this sort of familiarity impact on the policing of the game? Does it encourage players to push the rules even more than usual? I'm not talking about communication between ref and players - the ref giving quick explanations on the run - because that can only be good for the game. Anyone have any thoughts on "familiarity" on the field?
|
In most cases lately I've observed the refs communicating pretty much solely through the captains wrt warnings etc, interacting with players only to actually enforce some infringement.
I don't know about encouraging players to push the envelope any either. I'd think they might even be more restrained playing under the officiating of someone they knew fairly well. I don't have anything to back that up mind you, its just an impression.
It might certainly be an advantage knowing the refs limits and preferred playing style though, particularly if the other team doesn't, but theres not much of a solution to that. Its a bit too much to have anonymous refs wearing SAS-style camo gear and balaclavas to hide their identities from the players ....
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Bearcat
|
|
Oregonia
Dec 1999 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: Agreed again. But it raises an interesting question. How "familiar" should players be with refs and vice versa? I've noticed that some refs tend to call the players by their christian name on the field. I've even heard some players call the ref by his christian name on the field. At what point, I wonder, does this sort of familiarity impact on the policing of the game? |
As far as I know, the only player that is supposed to address the referee is the team captain and the referee is to always be referred to as "sir". But than again if it's a more relaxed setting, such as a club and everybody knew each other I could see it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: I'd think they might even be more restrained playing under the officiating of someone they knew fairly well. |
Actually, I think the referee might be more intransigeant (picky, if the former word is not Emglish), with players they know.
I have refereed a few times, and I ended up penalising players I knew more than others. Considering I have given an average of one penalty per match to my current captain/president for opening his big mouth, that may be yet another reason why he won't let me play scrum half?
7 points for Boks? Or do you mean 7 1/2?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001 time: 05:21
|
|
I didn't see the boks play, so I am a bit uncomfortable with giving a margin myself. I think 5 1/2 is a bit generous. I'd expect the blacks to win by a bit more, if only because the local kiwis will be unhappy if they don't redeem their defeat a bit. 7 1/2 sounds better to me. Then I will bet on the boks and be damned when they lose by 6 points.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|