 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
We scored again putting us up 10-0, I think it was run in by our flyhalf. |
Bearcat shows he is a true forward: Even on the bench, he can't make out a back from another one (I "think"...).
As for myself, I have been playing on tuesday on the same field which was a mudfest last time but was hard and dusty this week... Just to lose a match (6 tries for them vs. 5 for us) thanks to a sometimes absent defense and an awful referee. If on saturday the ref doesn't see how the reds hold the ball when tackled the way ours did on tuesday, the French are in trouble...
Speaking of which, I'll be playing on saturday morning at 9 AM... because France-Wales is at 2 PM and the other team has come to PAris to see the match...
I bet Italy will beat Scotland. The way both teams played in second half this weekend, Scotland is in trouble.
Ireland-England should be a good match. I think the odds are for the English, but Murphy, O'Driscoll are real good players, and Irish in Dublin for a Grand Slam against England, that will be a tough team for Havak's favourite players.
As for Wales-France, it depends on how France plays. Like the first half this week end or the second? I hope for the first...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:26
|
|
Blues 41 -d- Brumbies 15
The Blues simply too strong, the Brumbies simply made too many errors. And, as one of the commentators noted, no one told the Blues' Fijian winger Caucau that the driving rain and slippery conditions made ball-handling difficult. His performance to gather, one-handed, a loose Brumbie ball, avoid half a dozen tacklers and run half the length of the field to score one of his two tries was simply astonishing rugby.
Yet again, however, a ridiculous yellow card marred the game. The two #8s were scragging each other, the ref claimed he saw the Brumbies #8 throw three punches and asked the video ref to check (a) who the other player was; and (b) what the other player contributed to the situation. The replay clearly identifed the Blues #8 as the other player and showed him aiming an open-hand slap at the Brumbies #8 which seemed to miss. The Brumbies #8 retaliated with a couple of open-handed slaps none of which seemed to make contact.
These, apparently, were the "three punches" the ref had claimed to see. But the video ref reported back to the ref that it wasn't clear what had started it. Which is absolute crap. But worse, the video ref didn't clarify for the ref that that none of the blows were punches. So the ref sinbinned the Brumbies #8 for "punching" and the Blues #8, who committed exactly the same "offence" - slapping with an open hand - wasn't even spoken to. The appropriate response from the ref in this case would have been to tell both players to grow up.
And, with the Brumbies #8 off the field, the Blues immediately scored two tries. The sin-binning didn't affect the overall result - the Blues were too strong and the Brumbies made way too many errors - but this is the second case of an unwarranted yellow card within a couple of weeks. This time, the video ref - having been involved by the ref - had the opportunity to prevent the mistake and didn't. If video refs are going to be called on by refs to clarify matters, it has to be the video ref's responsibility to correct a ref's apparent perception and prevent a team being wrongly disadvantaged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
Blues 41 -d- Brumbies 15
The Blues simply too strong, the Brumbies simply made too many errors. And, as one of the commentators noted, no one told the Blues' Fijian winger Caucau that the driving rain and slippery conditions made ball-handling difficult. His performance to gather, one-handed, a loose Brumbie ball, avoid half a dozen tacklers and run half the length of the field to score one of his two tries was simply astonishing rugby. |
That was definitely the try of the match. Brilliant skills - I don't think he even got into top gear for that one. Rugby provides moments like these that simply cannot be matched by any other sport - the combination of skill, power and heart is beautiful to behold.
Perhaps my memory is fading after such a long time since seeing a NH game, but I don't think I have seen anything this exciting ever in a game up there.
quote:
Yet again, however, a ridiculous yellow card marred the game. The two #8s were scragging each other, the ref claimed he saw the Brumbies #8 throw three punches and asked the video ref to check (a) who the other player was; and (b) what the other player contributed to the situation. The replay clearly identifed the Blues #8 as the other player and showed him aiming an open-hand slap at the Brumbies #8 which seemed to miss. The Brumbies #8 retaliated with a couple of open-handed slaps none of which seemed to make contact.
These, apparently, were the "three punches" the ref had claimed to see. But the video ref reported back to the ref that it wasn't clear what had started it. Which is absolute crap. But worse, the video ref didn't clarify for the ref that that none of the blows were punches. So the ref sinbinned the Brumbies #8 for "punching" and the Blues #8, who committed exactly the same "offence" - slapping with an open hand - wasn't even spoken to. The appropriate response from the ref in this case would have been to tell both players to grow up. |
I agree, the ref was too heavy handed in this decision - fortunately it didn't affect the outcome of the game.
quote:
And, with the Brumbies #8 off the field, the Blues immediately scored two tries. The sin-binning didn't affect the overall result - the Blues were too strong and the Brumbies made way too many errors - but this is the second case of an unwarranted yellow card within a couple of weeks. This time, the video ref - having been involved by the ref - had the opportunity to prevent the mistake and didn't. If video refs are going to be called on by refs to clarify matters, it has to be the video ref's responsibility to correct a ref's apparent perception and prevent a team being wrongly disadvantaged. |
I wonder if the video ref was a kiwi or not. It just seemed to me that they were being deliberately vague in the hope that the Blues player would not be penalised.
How about that temper tantrum from Gregan?! Kicking the ball in the ruck!? 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:26
|
|
Queensland Reds 35 -d- Waratahs 23
The Queensland jinx continues for the Waratahs. They have never beaten the Reds in the S12 competition. And this time they contrived to lose to a Reds team that had, prior to this match, looked third-rate in losing its every match. Yet again, the Reds lifted themselves for the traditional grudge match. Why can't they do it against other teams?
Overall, a fairly ordinary match in terms of skill levels, with the Waratahs missing far too many tackles, coughing up too much ball, and never looking like they had an attack plan. Chris Latham, who could see out of only one eye prior to the match thanks to a heavy knock last week, and whose other eye was closed after a heavy knock in this match, played a scorcher for the Reds. From full back, he controlled the defence, cleaning up any Waratah attack that got past the 22, before he slotted into the attacking line and drove forward.
On the downside, yet another bizarre decision by a ref. The Waratahs, for the second time in a row, were driving for the line from 20 metres out. For the second time, the maul was pulled down by a Reds player. A similar thing had happened earlier. The Waratahs weren't close to scoring, but the ref awarded a penalty try on the basis that it was the third time the Reds had pulled down a maul. A penalty try, as we all know, is awarded when a try would have been scored in all probability. In this scenario, a try was a possibility and nothing more. The correct decision would have been to yellow- or red-card the offender.
Oh, and yet again, penalties were awarded - and reprimands handed out - for players doing little more than pushing each other. After the ridiculous yellow cards handed out this weekend and last weekend, it's plainly obvious that, along with all the other IRB directives, there's a policy to crack down on anything resembling physical altercations. Where will these directives stop?
I really worry about the Australian S12 teams this season. The Brumbies looked second-rate against the Blues on Friday, the Reds still sit at the bottom of the ladder, and the Waratahs continue to mix the abysmal with the very good. I can easily see a S12 finals series without an Australian team.
Last edited by finbar on 30-03-2003 at 05:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bearcat
|
|
Oregonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
We played considerably well against the number 1 NCAA Div 3 team in the country. They only scored once in the first half and only once while I was in. We held them considerably well.
|
What school do you got to, just out of curiousity?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:26
|
|
My comments on this last day of Tournament:
Scotland - Italy: The most disputed match. Italy didn't win, but they showed they were almost there and they are at the same level as Scotland. They clearly deserve to be part of the 6 nations. Scotland won but not by much,and the game was entertaining.
France - Wales: The first minutes of the game were frightening. I had played as blue against a red team on the same morning and the blues (us) had been beaten by the reds so it didn't bode well. Afterwards, France played mildly in the first half, then played correctly in the second half. Castaignede and Garbajosa were particularly good. Clerc proved IMO that he is a better choice in the starting XV than Rougerie. So bad France is so erratic. Wales only proved it is at its lowest.
Ireland - England: Ireland wasn't up to the task. Their match against Wales showed they had problems versus a weak team, and England had bashed the Scots that week. The score is a little large considering the game (one try could have been avoided by the Paddies), but even a 35-6 would have shown well enough the difference between the teams. I think only Costello was good on the Irish side. Overall, the English used their superior forwards very well, and played intelligently, whereas the Irish were too badly organized to be a menace. Murphy in particular would have been excellent if he had passed the ball once or twice, but the whole team slowly disintegrated under the pressure of the English charges.
Overall, I think the most dangerous NH teams in the world cup will be (surprise surprise) England, obviously very strong everywhere (great pack, great fly half, some solid backs), and then France. I rank France above Ireland because overall, I think the Paddies are more regular, but they can't raise their level to that of the best teams. France didn't lose by 42 points against England, and they didn't play well that day. Of course, we have an erratic team...
As for myself, I played a match on the morning of France - Wales. On, the joy of waking up at 6 AM to play rugby! We met a team of relatively old players. When you play hooker, you learn to fear these teams. They have lots of experience, cohesion, and happened to be big and have strong arms. We lost 30-15, and I witnessed from the inside (and the bad side alas) the terribe efficiency of a maul. When I just managed to get your hands on the ball in a maul of theirs, an opponent immediately took it further back, I reached it again, and they took it further back (and got me going the opposite direction in the process)... I managed to make a pass leading to a try and several good throws in lineout, though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
Overall, I think the most dangerous NH teams in the world cup will be (surprise surprise) England, obviously very strong everywhere (great pack, great fly half, some solid backs), and then France. I rank France above Ireland because overall, I think the Paddies are more regular, but they can't raise their level to that of the best teams. France didn't lose by 42 points against England, and they didn't play well that day. Of course, we have an erratic team... |
I didn't get to see any of the matches - which was outrageous! How can FoxSports ignore the 6 Nations!  - but your summary sounds accurate. It was typical of the Paddys that they played out of their boots against the Wallabies late last year and then failed ever to repeat the performance.
England are obviously more solid and consistent than France. That can, though, arguably, make France a bit more dangerous. If they have a day out, they can probably beat anybody. The downside is the grief suffered in between.
The Kiwi S12 teams are all performing very, very well. The Australian S12 teams are under-performing terribly. The skill levels at the moment of some of our best players - all Wallabies - are shocking. Obviously they will improve, and it's a long road to the WRC, but I really do worry.
quote:
I witnessed from the inside (and the bad side alas) the terribe efficiency of a maul. When I just managed to get your hands on the ball in a maul of theirs, an opponent immediately took it further back, I reached it again, and they took it further back (and got me going the opposite direction in the process)... |
And were they saying nice things to you as you went past? 
quote:
I managed to make a pass leading to a try and several good throws in lineout, though. |
Is this the same team in which the club President plays? If so, I hope you threw to him in the lineout. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bearcat
|
|
Oregonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
The Australian S12 teams are under-performing terribly. The skill levels at the moment of some of our best players - all Wallabies - are shocking. Obviously they will improve, and it's a long road to the WRC, but I really do worry. |
At least you can still say you're better than the South Africans, though the Bulls haven't done too shabby.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
On the downside, yet another bizarre decision by a ref. The Waratahs, for the second time in a row, were driving for the line from 20 metres out. For the second time, the maul was pulled down by a Reds player. A similar thing had happened earlier. The Waratahs weren't close to scoring, but the ref awarded a penalty try on the basis that it was the third time the Reds had pulled down a maul. A penalty try, as we all know, is awarded when a try would have been scored in all probability. In this scenario, a try was a possibility and nothing more. The correct decision would have been to yellow- or red-card the offender.
|
Although I didn't see the match I have to say I rather like the sound of that referee. Its one thing for the defenders to have a breakdown when the opposition is pressing on the tryline. It can happen. Desperation bringing about desperate measures and all...
But when it happens repeatedly and becomes a pattern it needs to be rectified. Penalizing with points on the board, moreso, points that the attackers might otherwise not have gained, seems to me to be the most effective method of doing this. Sending a player off in a rugby match doesn't have nearly the same effect as it does in soccer (for example ). Likewise giving away a 3-point penalty in front of the posts isn't nearly as effective as a penalty shot in that other sport (that won't be named again) which has a 90-odd% probability of scoring.
It is hard on the defending team but it's also a lesson well-learned. I'm guessing there wasn't a fourth time...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ravagon
Although I didn't see the match I have to say I rather like the sound of that referee. Its one thing for the defenders to have a breakdown when the opposition is pressing on the tryline. It can happen. Desperation bringing about desperate measures and all...
But when it happens repeatedly and becomes a pattern it needs to be rectified. Penalizing with points on the board, moreso, points that the attackers might otherwise not have gained, seems to me to be the most effective method of doing this. Sending a player off in a rugby match doesn't have nearly the same effect as it does in soccer (for example ). Likewise giving away a 3-point penalty in front of the posts isn't nearly as effective as a penalty shot in that other sport (that won't be named again) which has a 90-odd% probability of scoring.
It is hard on the defending team but it's also a lesson well-learned. I'm guessing there wasn't a fourth time... |
The point is that a penalty try is what it is - a try awarded when the attacking team would, in all probability - which isn't possibly or might - have scored a try but for the infringement. The Waratahs were nowhere near close enough to the line for it to be judged they would, in all probability, have scored the try. Anything could have happened. The Waratahs could have lost the ball as they'd been doing for most of the game.
The ref used the penalty try as an alternative to a red or yellow card and that's not what it's designed for. OTOH, the ref who awarded the penalty try against George Gregan in the Brumbies -v- Blues game got it right. The Blues were, literally, two feet short of the line about to pick and drive, the Brumbies defence was scattered, and Gregan ran around the side to kick the ball away. The Blues would obviously have scored a try without Gregan's interference. Ergo, the penalty try was awarded.
A rugby team isn't handicapped playing one man down? Tell that to the teams who concede tries when they're one man down.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-03-2003 21:09
|