 |
|  |
 |
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999 time: 13:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by finbar
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.
|
I understand this. What I do support is the ref taking a very liberal interpretation of "probability". If teams come to know that they're going to give a try away in situations such that the opposition might not have scored then they'll be less likely to do it (which, afterall, is the whole idea). How many times have a team on the "verge" of scoring been fouled when they've had a break (even if not too near the line) only to have a penalty awarded and either put it through the posts or run it (with the defenders having regrouped)?
Soccer, OTOH may go a bit too far in such situations - with a penalty shot giving an almost certain goal (which would generally count for much more than an equivalent rugby try) so it may not be such a good example.
quote:
A rugby team isn't handicapped playing one man down? Tell that to the teams who concede tries when they're one man down. |
A rugby team of 14 players going against another team of 15 is far less handicapped though than a soccer team of 9 going against one with 10. The difference is further magnified by the way the 2 games play out. Rugby, with opposing offensive and defensive lines (optimally anyway) uses far less of the field at any one time than does soccer, hence a tighter player density reduces the impact of losing a single player.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by ravagon
I understand this. What I do support is the ref taking a very liberal interpretation of "probability". If teams come to know that they're going to give a try away in situations such that the opposition might not have scored then they'll be less likely to do it (which, afterall, is the whole idea). How many times have a team on the "verge" of scoring been fouled when they've had a break (even if not too near the line) only to have a penalty awarded and either put it through the posts or run it (with the defenders having regrouped)? |
I much preferred you when you had the cheap only-on-Fridays ISP.
So how then is the penalty try redefined? As punishment for a defending team deliberately stopping an attacking team? That punishment already exsists in the form of a card of either colour for a professional foul. Where exactly on the field, under your system, does the penalty try become - or cease to be - an option for the referee? What does "on the verge" of scoring mean? The law, as it stands, is as clear as it's possible to be - "in all probability" means a try would have been scored except for the interference. We already have enough confusion in our rugby laws without creating more, IMHO.
quote: Soccer, OTOH may go a bit too far in such situations - with a penalty shot giving an almost certain goal (which would generally count for much more than an equivalent rugby try) so it may not be such a good example. |
Soccer and rugby can't be compared because they're entirely different games with, most importantly, massively different scoring systems. The fewer the goals scored (as in soccer), the greater the possibility of one errant act - or errant ref's decision - impacting on the result.
quote: A rugby team of 14 players going against another team of 15 is far less handicapped though than a soccer team of 9 going against one with 10. The difference is further magnified by the way the 2 games play out. Rugby, with opposing offensive and defensive lines (optimally anyway) uses far less of the field at any one time than does soccer, hence a tighter player density reduces the impact of losing a single player. |
Ironically, I was watching the round-up of the weekend's S12 matches last night. There were players sent off in several games. In each case, the opposition scored at least one try while the player was off the field. Q.E.D.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Bearcat
I vote YEA to retire to a different thread |
I'd like to be a fly on the wall in Havak's office when he fires up the computer, opens up the OT forum, hunts for the rugby thread, desperate to gloat ... and the thread isn't there. Well, it is, but it's called Growing Geraniums, and he wouldn't bother looking in such a thread because he gets enough of that, at Mrs Havak's behest, at home on the weekends.
Let me rephrase that. I'd like to be a fly on Havak's breakfast Pork Pie in his office when he fires up the, et cetera, and so on.
At this point, I think I might get back to work.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote: Originally posted by finbar
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. |
What a crying shame that would be..   
Unfortunately I didn't get to see the Reds-Waratahs game, Fox had mistakenly posted on their website that they were showing it.
Thanks for the summary though! Good to hear Latham had a good game, he's probably my favorite aussie player.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Havak
Now that was nice subtle bait ? my compliments. |
Anything to get you to your desk, fire up the computer and open up the OT forum before 9am! 
quote: What I was saying of course is that I doubt the ability of any NH side to win a RWC in Australia. No mention of ?just us? at all. |
Given that there are only ever two bona fide NH candidates - one, unless Les Bleus get their act together - you're talking about England.
quote: And the factors involved are complex ? location, that stupidly slightly larger ball you guys use, appalling SH refs getting all the big games ? oh yes and the Australian media haranguing visiting teams at every turn for the crime of not being Australian |
*violins* It's a world game. 
quote: We are of course the best team in our own back yard. But let me see ? Clive has now won 38 out of our last 43 games is it? Hmm, guess we are the best side in many other peoples backyards too then. |
We'll find out later in the year.
quote: I don?t think so. Have there ever been two luckier sides in RWC history? |
I'll excuse three pongy old baits in a row on the basis that you're still only half-awake. 
quote: It?s actually fairly important for World rugby that the hemisphere that can make some money from Rugby finally win a world cup to keep that momentum going. It would be a disaster is Australia won it again quite frankly. Why? Well because we actually need an RWC where the best side in the world wins for once of course. Han?t happened since 87 as far as I?m concerned. |
That's four. You're testing my charity.
quote: Incidentally did you know that the Irish RFU is in huge financial trouble ? nine million in debt ? and they do not know if they can stay fully Professional. Losing the Grand Slam will not have helped. Therein lies the reason that the fourth Province Connacht is going to be axed. Wales are re-organising into three provinces and two ?super? clubs. Scotland are viable only because the SRU is accused of never spending anything on it?s clubs and players. So when I say hemisphere maybe I should simply have said England and France ? but does the French Federation make money?? |
I didn't know about Ireland, I read about the Welsh reorganisation within the last couple of days. What's their problem? Player payments? Lack of income? Lack of supporter base? Each of those and more, probably. BTW, how do both Ireland and Wales stack up against Australia in terms of player base, crowd base, and so on? Probably not a whole lot different.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970 time: 06:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Havak
What can I say ? work sometimes keeps me busy. |
I think you need counselling! 
quote: You know I?m sure I saw Ireland beat an SH team recently ? was I imagining it? |
That's what I was bemoaning only the other day. The bastards played out of their boots against us and never came close to repeating it. Of course it helped them that we played one of the worst games in Wallaby history but that's no excuse. I just wish the Paddys could have reproduced the form somewhere else along the line. Even for their own sake.
quote: No bait involved that I can see. |
You've mastered the subtle bait to the extent that it eludes even you! 
quote: Wales = lack of fans, lack of players, lack of business acumen, amateur Union holding them back. Ireland the first three factors but not the latter one. |
So what's the answer? He said, rhetorically. I suppose this is one of those classic rich-get-richer-poor-wither-away-and-die scenarios. They can't be allowed to, of course.
quote: Australia: Senior Male players 45794
Wales: Senior Male players 16500
Ireland: Senior Male players 11500
England: Senior Male players 174000
Boks: Senior Male players 145000
NZ: Senior Male players 28349
France: Senior Male players 93470
Source: IRB official figures. |
Yes, these figures have always been a source of great mirth, particularly amongst the Bricklayers' Co-Op Social Club XV who compete in the Tradesmen's Sunday Morning League over two 10 minute halves with the loser to shout the keg. "Hey! We made it into the IRB's stats!", they guffaw, before opening the keg, after which they couldn't give a flying f*ck about anything.
quote: Fascinating stuff exploding a few myths ? less Kiwis than Wallabies by some distance. More Wallabies than all the Celts put together. And it explains why France and England are the commercial heart of the game I suspect?! |
Yes, and the key, of course, apart from the ratio of potential rep players to total participation, is the participation figure per head of population. New Zealand have 28, 349 participants out of a potential 1.28 million males between the ages of 15 and 64. Australia has 45,794 participants out of a potential 6.45 million males between the ages of 15 and 64. Close to 5 times the potential participants and a tad more than 1 1/2 times the actual participants. Good old lies, damned lies and statistics strike again! 
quote: And to think I?ve praised Australia before for succeeding with limited resources!!! NZ clearly deserve that mantle along with Ireland? |
Six out of ten as a bait because (a) it's an oldie; and (b) it's so easily shot down. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Bearcat
|
|
Oregonia
Dec 1999 time: 05:26
|
|
Did anyone hear about Portugal winning the Six Nations B championship?
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|