 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Well that is part of the movement yes but the drive is towards ‘continuity’ rather than them admitting outright that they want no contested set pieces. I think even yourself can now make the connection between continuity and Eddie’s thoughts on blocking runners and SH behaviour at the ruck? 
However you had better claim outright victory on this one as I simply cannot be bothered to spend the necessary time researching the relevant obscure quotes from the ARU.  |
It's not a matter of victory or otherwise - I was just trying to source the original contention about uncontested set pieces because it was new to me and I like to think I keep up with things. There's a huge difference between Eddie Jones' argument - and he wasn't the only one arguing the case - about dummy runners and "continuity", and uncontested set pieces. In fact, now that you link them, I think we've got to the bottom of the problem. I suspect "uncontested set pieces" is a NH extrapolation of the things you raise. I can see the conclusion being drawn. It's wrong, but that's not the point. [Edit. I just re-read this para. Sorry if it sounds terse. It's not meant to be. I was writing it while tending to the caramelised onions on the stove. ]
Anyway, I'm bored with the whole thing now.
quote:
Okay guys I have to admit I missed the game – what can I say – got distracted. Could someone please re-assure me that the penalty try really was a boof up by McHugh and that Finbar isn’t simply still upset because the Irishman helmed the Wallabies loss in SA last year? |
I'm sure you'll see a replay of the penalty try somewhere along the way. As we all know, a penalty try requires probability. Umaga had been thoroughly gang-tackled high and low. Take away the high tackle and he couldn't have scored because he was down.
quote:
Ouch that hurt . Funny that any ‘dummy run’ whatsoever fails the very laws you quoted by definition then? |
Which definition? A dummy run - by definition - is no different to throwing a dummy. It's designed to confuse the opposition. A dummy run can be obstruction when the dummy runner blocks a defender from attacking the ball or the ball carrier. Which means the ball has to be somewhere within the vicinity. If the ball's not in the vicinity, the defender can't attack either it or the player carrying it.
In the case of the disallowed try, the ball had been passed wide - very wide, it was a long pass - before the dummy runner was anywhere near the defenders.
For what it's worth, I think a lot of the Brumbies' dummy runners - the scenario that started the whole debate - were causing obstruction. The problem was, they were passing the ball not only close by but also close behind the dummy runners.
quote:
but he isn’t the total loser you might think from Finbar's deconstruction of the guys decisions. |
He made two clangers. He missed some off-side. It wasn't an appalling performance. Take away the clangers and he coped - with a game played unpredictably and like greased lightning - well. But, as I said, I think he had trouble keeping up.
quote:
If ever I needed to actually see a game to comment on these things... |
Quite. You should also try to catch up with at least some of the game, if only to see how the Boks left the biffo and aggro in the sheds. Quite remarkable change of approach.
quote:
How did he rate on Finbar’s patented ref-o-meter (tm)? |
He was fine. I think he kept up with the game better than McHugh.
quote:
And lets forget legality okay – the entire rugby world should be right behind McCaw in what he did – that idiot had no place on the field and the law needs to avoid being an ass on this one. |
I couldn't agree more. I just wouldn't want to see some litigious penishead exact revenge.
quote:
Any margins in mind guys? Havak needs to see the money so be kind? |
I make the same offer to you that I made to Havak.  I can't offer the same discount on the interest rate because you aren't kindly teaching me a foreign language.
It's going to be an interesting margin to calculate, though. The Wallabies will definitely go for it. There's nothing in it for them not going for it. If you'll forgive the double negative. It's a game, methinks, in which anything could happen, particularly if the Boks don't resurrect the biffo and aggro and stick to what they did against the ABs.
Last edited by finbar on 12-08-2002 at 14:18
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
I've watched it half a dozen times. He wasn't going to slide over the line. The tackle around his legs precluded that. The only way he'd have got over the line would have been via a double movement. Regardless, the AB charge-down that led to Umaga getting the ball was from an offside position. |
Im not sure about the offside position of the chargedown, but Im positive that Umaga would have scored if not for the head-high tackle. He was tackled around the legs, yes, but IMO a try was definitely a "probability". I guess we wont come to an agreement on this one...
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
I'm sure you'll see a replay of the penalty try somewhere along the way. As we all know, a penalty try requires probability. Umaga had been thoroughly gang-tackled high and low. Take away the high tackle and he couldn't have scored because he was down. |
If he was down, how could he have been high-tackled...?
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
Nup. Sorry. |
Ok, cant argue with that....
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
I do wonder, though, how long Justin Marshall can hold his place in front of Byron Kellaher. I know Marshall and Mehrtens are Crusaders team-mates and therefore an established combination, with the bonuses that brings, but I think Kellaher's a super player - better tactically than Marshall, and definitely more aggressive. |
I agree. When Marshall first came on the scene in 96/97, I was a big fan of his, but in 98 and 99 he was dismal, and despite recent improvement he still isnt back to his best form.
I was happy to see Kelleher on for the last 10 minutes or so, but I would have liked to see him come on a bit earlier as Marshall was visibly struggling. I also would have liked more replacements towards the end of that game in general. The Boks replaced several players, and I reckon the All blacks could have done with a few more fresh players too.
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
Well, he's confident on the basis that the Wallabies were that far ahead of the Boks last time. Before the Boks steamed back into the game. Enough said. |
Yep, it will be nothing short of a miracle if the Wallabies win the Tri-nations. If they do, even I will call them #1!
Ravagon and Neostar, I dont know whats worse, discussing league or soccer here, (actually I do, league is always the worst) but both at the same time...
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Okay guys I have to admit I missed the game – what can I say – got distracted. Could someone please re-assure me that the penalty try really was a boof up by McHugh and that Finbar isn’t simply still upset because the Irishman helmed the Wallabies loss in SA last year? |
I didnt see it as a "boof up", but Finbar will disagree...
I think you would have to see it for yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by Havak
Any margins in mind guys? |
I reckon a 10-point start for the Boks is fair.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
In my own opinion the Marshall/Merthens pair was the main weakness of the AB against the Aussies, especially with players like Gregan and Larkham in the other side. I think the game would have been won by the AB if they had a more imaginative Scrum Half/Fly half pair. |
Kelleher definitely would have made a difference IMO, but I guess Mitchell is striving for cohesiveness over creativity. What do you think of Kelleher?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Caligastia
but IMO a try was definitely a "probability". I guess we wont come to an agreement on this one... |
Since when has that ever stopped us?
quote:
If he was down, how could he have been high-tackled...? |
He was gang-tackled!
quote:
I agree. When Marshall first came on the scene in 96/97, I was a big fan of his, but in 98 and 99 he was dismal, and despite recent improvement he still isnt back to his best form. |
To be honest, I don't know what Marshall's doing in the team. I haven't seen anything from him of real quality for a long time. I suspect it's the Mehrtens/Canterbury connection that's keeping him there.
quote:
I also would have liked more replacements towards the end of that game in general. The Boks replaced several players, and I reckon the All blacks could have done with a few more fresh players too. |
It was a puzzle, wasn't it? It was also particularly interesting that Jonah didn't get a run. If ever there were a game that suited his style, that was it.
quote:
Yep, it will be nothing short of a miracle if the Wallabies win the Tri-nations. If they do, even I will call them #1! |
It will be the miracle of all times. But one thing's for sure - with that many points required, it's going to make for an entertaining match. Death or glory.
quote:
Ravagon and Neostar, I dont know whats worse, discussing league or soccer here, (actually I do, league is always the worst) but both at the same time... |
It's okay, Cal, I called them out and gave them a stern lecture. They're aware that, next time, it's a card.
quote:
I reckon a 10-point start for the Boks is fair. |
Mmmm. It's hard to know how much to factor in the fact that the Wallabies need all those points. And they're going to be trying for them, of that there's no doubt.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2002 13:14
|