Who should have contested the RWC final, on form shown?

Zat wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:Drop goals aren't part of the change, but a lot of the opposition to them is just silly. They are a highly skilful part of the game. I can understand the dislike of penalties, but as I said above, reducing their value will create MORE infringements, not fewer, as preventing a try will become more important.

I may have this wrong Shoeshine, but the Stellenbosch rules are actually trying to correct some of the inequities that came in when the last round of rule changes were implemented in about 92 or 93. Penalties will not be reduced in value, but the number of offences punishable by penalties is cut way back under the new rules, with the side offended against given the choice of a short-arm kick or feeding a scrum. This should result in more tries, which is - apparently - supposed to be the main aim of the game.

Oh, that that were true!

No, the points remain as they are, that is correct, but the means of encouraging more tries is by reducing the importance of forward play. I can imagine many a prop being livid at the supposed changes. Take the England-Australia match, for example, where the Australian front row is getting absolutely murdered by the English one. They can't take the pressure and continually collapse the scrum. Instead of that being penalty after penalty, it would now be a free kick or a re-set scrum. The fundamental weakness of not being able to compete up front is no longer such a devastating problem for the Australian side. And once that happens, then you are going to start having a collection of loose forwards rather than specialist scrummagers, to the delight of the Aussies, and the horror of the South Africans, English, Argentinians, Irish and French.

Then we come to the whole thing about it being beneficial for running rugby. Really? So on a muddy January day in Gloucester, they are going to be running the ball, are they? Balls.

Those elements of these rules ideas are purely and simply for the benefit of Australian rugby and take no notice of how the game is played elsewhere. I'm all for trying to open the game out, but what you cannot do is fundamentally alter the game so that is skewed completely in the direction of the backline rather than the other half of the team.

I agree that with defences being on top it's fine to look at the game and see where it can be improved. I cannot agree that the means to do it is to neuter the side who are stronger up front.

rather than specialist scrummagers, to the delight of the Aussies, and the horror of the South Africans, English, Argentinians, Irish and French.

Don't think our future team would be too fazed. They mostly play on the wing.

Odds for the 2011 World Cup:

New Zealand 2.20

South Africa 4.20

Australia 5.50

France 9.00

England 12.00

Argentina 21.00

Ireland 34.00

Wales 51.00

Scotland 101.00

Italy 101.00

Fiji 251.00

Samoa 251.00

Tonga 301.00

Canada 501.00

U S A 501.00

Romania 1,001.00

Georgia 1,001.00

Japan 2,501.00

Odds from where? Odds vary by country, because money goes in different ways depending on sentiment. If that's Australia, then little money will go on England, say.

Having said that, if I were you, JGK, I'd get some money down on England at those odds. Four years away is an absolute lifetime, and there's no reason whatsoever to view England, with their player base, as being rank outsiders for it.

These are Sportsbet.com.au odds.

I did think England were pretty long (and NZ a bit too short!).

Patriotic money skews odds a great deal - which is why in football World cups England are always such a stupidly short price. Aussies will be a bit reluctant to bet on England for emotional reasons, so their odds go out a long way. Likewise, Australia are far too short. It is highly peculiar to see England longer odds than France though, but even their odds are far too long.

New Zealand are always short odds though, everywhere, because of all the nations, they're the one you'd say should certainly be in with a decent shout.

But surely after 5 successive chokes the punters must realise the Kiwis don't have it in them?

Shoeshine wrote:Odds from where? Odds vary by country, because money goes in different ways depending on sentiment. If that's Australia, then little money will go on England, say.

Having said that, if I were you, JGK, I'd get some money down on England at those odds. Four years away is an absolute lifetime, and there's no reason whatsoever to view England, with their player base, as being rank outsiders for it.

I'd suggest a couple of bucks on Japan, considering (a) how they miraculously turned round their economy after WWII and (b) financially you have little to lose and much to win...

tac wrote:But surely after 5 successive chokes the punters must realise the Kiwis don't have it in them?

Like a bank chucking money into a failing business, they reckon it'll have to come right eventually....

Mind you, how funny will it be if they choke yet again, but this time at home!

Two major points here on all this change the rules for running rugby b0ll0cks.

1. So you enable a front row getting bnailed by the oppo to start dropping scrums say, or a pack be killed by another mauling so they can drop these. Apart from the points stated above, your actually causing the potential for alot more injuries to occur to plauyers in these instances. Thats why apart from cheating these laws are also in place!

2. Running rugby, basketball, throw it about... Go watch Farking 7's.

This is the way the game is played, so changing the rules to essentially nullify the major building block of a game of rugby i.e. the Forwards means whats the point of Union.

holcs wrote:This is the way the game is played, so changing the rules to essentially nullify the major building block of a game of rugby i.e. the Forwards means whats the point of Union.

But isn't the game about scoring tries? There's not a sport in the world that's not trying to entice new supporters by 'livening' things up. Living in the past extolling the virtues of line out jumping and relishing the technical aspect of a scrum is all well and good if you're already a fan, but unless you want rugby union to remain a minority sport it has to change.

On the scoring front, while I appreciate there is an element of skill involved in scoring a drop goal, for it to be worth almost as much as a try imo stifles attacking/entertaining rugby. Therefore the points difference between a dg and a try should be much wider, and, to stop teams intentionally giving penalties away to deny try scoring opportunities a penalty kick should be worth a lot more than a drop goal. That way, God forbid, you might see the ball get beyond the stand off and first receiver more often. Maybe something like 3 for a dg, 9 for a pen and 8 for a try could work. As a defender that should stop you from deliberately infringing, and as an attacker, if you know it's going to take four drop goals to score more points than a try your first thought's going to be 'pass'.

There's not a sport in the world that's not trying to entice new supporters by 'livening' things up.

Best not to make that your first priority in a final, even if it's the biggest audience you'll ever get.

Well, Rugby has some new fans amongst South Africa's politicians.

I'm not sure how many other new fans have been attracted.

Geoffrey Trueman wrote:

holcs wrote:This is the way the game is played, so changing the rules to essentially nullify the major building block of a game of rugby i.e. the Forwards means whats the point of Union.

But isn't the game about scoring tries? There's not a sport in the world that's not trying to entice new supporters by 'livening' things up. Living in the past extolling the virtues of line out jumping and relishing the technical aspect of a scrum is all well and good if you're already a fan, but unless you want rugby union to remain a minority sport it has to change.

On the scoring front, while I appreciate there is an element of skill involved in scoring a drop goal, for it to be worth almost as much as a try imo stifles attacking/entertaining rugby. Therefore the points difference between a dg and a try should be much wider, and, to stop teams intentionally giving penalties away to deny try scoring opportunities a penalty kick should be worth a lot more than a drop goal. That way, God forbid, you might see the ball get beyond the stand off and first receiver more often. Maybe something like 3 for a dg, 9 for a pen and 8 for a try could work. As a defender that should stop you from deliberately infringing, and as an attacker, if you know it's going to take four drop goals to score more points than a try your first thought's going to be 'pass'.

Rugby already has a game like that.. Its sh1te and its called League. In fct even in league where there are 'no' scrums, no lineouts and penalties are worth diddly as are DG's you dont get try after try after try.

The rugby 1/4's semi's and final in the WC were about the contest, and enthrawling due to the edgyness of them. If thats not a draw to someone who is a 'fan', that there can be such a tense and enthrawling finish then what is?

Or are you suggesting that seeing quite a bland game of 5 tries to 2 is as interesting?

Well, football (soccer in Australian terms) isn't a goal filled frenzy, but it's still (mostly) attractive to watch. The skills are easily appreciated by a spectator.

I've tried watching Union and I can understand the passing skills, when they're on show. Line-outs, too, to a degree. I can't even see what's going on in the rucks and mauls ... I'd rather watch golf, or Formula 1.

lardbucket wrote:Well, football (soccer in Australian terms) isn't a goal filled frenzy, but it's still (mostly) attractive to watch. The skills are easily appreciated by a spectator.

I've tried watching Union and I can understand the passing skills, when they're on show. Line-outs, too, to a degree. I can't even see what's going on in the rucks and mauls ... I'd rather watch golf, or Formula 1.

Your one very strange person then Lardy...

Round and round racing??? Phurt!

I didn't say I liked golf or Formula 1 ...

You said you'd rather watch it though...

Thats bad enough.

Sorry. I did say that I love watching good football (soccer) ... well, really just the World Cup, and the occasional FA Cup Final.

Phurt Gayball.

Each to their own though hey Lardy!

aye ... at least we've got a choice

Too true!

holcs wrote:Phurt Gayball.

Each to their own though hey Lardy!

Gayball... fork orf... they're men(manly men), men in long socks.

Batfink Begins wrote:

holcs wrote:Phurt Gayball.

Each to their own though hey Lardy!

Gayball... fork orf... they're men(manly men), men in long socks.

If you say so Danny Boy...

holcs wrote:Rugby already has a game like that.. Its sh1te and its called League. In fct even in league where there are 'no' scrums, no lineouts and penalties are worth diddly as are DG's you dont get try after try after try.

Well, being a rugby league fan I'm obviously going to disagree with that. My beef with union is it's entertainment value as a spectator sport can be almost nil. Low scoring games of RL on the other hand can still be thoroughly entertaining because both sides will be constantly 'running the football' and trying their damnedest to get over the try line with ball in hand.

holcs wrote:The rugby 1/4's semi's and final in the WC were about the contest, and enthrawling due to the edgyness of them. If thats not a draw to someone who is a 'fan', that there can be such a tense and enthrawling finish then what is?

Yes they were 'edgy' and 'enthralling', but they were edgy and enthralling for no other reason than it was the most important rugby union tournament in the world with a global audience of millions. Most of whom wouldn't go and watch a club game if it was free to get in and held at the bottom of their street. Let's face it, due to the media coverage World Cup games played between rival countries are always going to be edgy and enthralling, but would you feel the same watching Old Crossleyans and Pontefract in North 2, or even Rotherham and Bedford in National League 1??? Maybe you would, but believe me, your average bloke on the street couldn't give a toss.