Rugby World Cup 18 Sep - 31 Oct 2015

yep...the Oz were undeniably lucky...the Welsh ran out of soldiers but still were competitive....the Argies played with flair and the snoozies were awesome.

unless the saffies pull off a bizarre miracle, it is an all Blacks win there and the Final.

I think the +'ve stories out of the WC to date have been the Welsh and the Japanese.

So, is Japan currently the best northern hemisphere team?

I'll be interested in this tournament IF we make the final, and may even watch a game, if only to see whether the All Blacks can do the unthinkable, and choke when the game and tournament is apparently 'inevitably' theirs.

Some of our blokes still injured?

Personally, I think - with one mammoth, predictable and predicted exception - I think the European teams made a very reasonable show for the 6N and its merits.

What reasons could anyone possibly offer for this bizarre, outlandish and laughable claim - given the chastening "SF whitewash"?

(Well, we've discussed England's travails. So let's sidefoot that bloody mammoth into touch, while nobody's looking.)

As was also foreseeable, Wales and Ireland did themselves proud. The former with big injury bodyblows already suffered, started to amass a couple of hospital wards of casualties in battling as far as they did. With a half-way full squad, who would have backed SAf to best them? I'm sure it would have been a different result, if they'd had only Halfpenny fit! ~ And then Ireland, with their two massive lynch pins suddenly knocked out, two other key injuries, and greatly depleted in force by the effects of the recent war against France, where the first team had been needed. Again, I'm sure it'd have been a different story with even one of those three factors different.

Scotland, wooden-spooners in the last 6N, would have beaten the World #2 if the ref had done his job properly. (I see the refereeing of that match is now officially under full review - so it's not just L#2 and meself who have doubts about a particular official's judgment/s.)

Italy - well, perennial strugglers in the 6N, who can beat other teams who are unwary or in a dip, but that's usually about it. They acquitted themselves about as well/moderately as usual.

France? Well, they were so-so, as so often the French. Completely inconsistent. And unlucky enough to get hammered first by one of the two most spirited 6N teams in the competition, and then the best.

And England? Oh, England. Bugger. Already discussed ad nauseam. Pass. (Drop.)


Stats can deceive. The Six Nations is alive and well. Cruel fortune - and in one case massive jitters (and perhaps the surpassed limits of solid but uninspiring coaching & captaincy?) - accounted for their best.

lardbucket wrote:I'll be interested in this tournament IF we make the final, and may even watch a game, if only to see whether the All Blacks can do the unthinkable, and choke when the game and tournament is apparently 'inevitably' theirs.

Some of our blokes still injured?

Do you know it's an oval ball?

So it appears all of those criticising Joubert for not consulting the TMO didn't understand the rules.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/rugby-world-cup/11939472/Australia-35-Scotland-34-World-Rugby-confirms-Craig-Joubert-right-not-to-consult-with-TMO.html

I think he was getting criticised more for the yellow card and for getting the final penalty decision wrong than for not consulting with the TMO.

Surprised to see you coming to the defence of a ref, you are usually the first to point out officiating mistakes.

vilkrang wrote:I think he was getting criticised more for the yellow card and for getting the final penalty decision wrong than for not consulting with the TMO.

Surprised to see you coming to the defence of a ref, you are usually the first to point out officiating mistakes.

I have just rewatched the game. On the yellow card he specifically asked the TMO whether it was yellow and he agreed. I also thought it was a knock down.

Not even sure the penalty was wrong. All the commies agreed with him at the time. One said it definitely came off a Scottish shoulder.

Um no. I have always said that they are on a hiding to nothing. Which is why I have always supported DRS or TMO. It is frigging easy to sit in a studio, watch 50 replays in slomo, from various angles, and trash the official.

PeterCS wrote:

lardbucket wrote:I'll be interested in this tournament IF we make the final, and may even watch a game, if only to see whether the All Blacks can do the unthinkable, and choke when the game and tournament is apparently 'inevitably' theirs.

Some of our blokes still injured?

Do you know it's an oval ball?

Yes, I know about that much. Oh, and it's a different colour to the AFL ball; I know that, too. Growing up in WA and then Tasmania did nothing for my Rugby Union education; and then I just couldn't be arsed with it. I got dragged along to a match once in mid-1982 with some Uni mates, Queensland were playing somebody I think, but it could have been an international. The beer was infinitely more interesting and certainly the girlfriends of my mates were more memorable.

It's nicer to hear that 'we' win rather than lose; but that's the extent of my interest. It's sort of there with netball and basketball for me. I reckon I would struggle to name a dozen Australian players from the last 30 years. Campese, Gregan, Pocock, Farr-Jones, Eales, Mark Loane, Folau, Beale, George Smith ... yes, I'm struggling. Two of them I know only because their names are currently splashed all over the news because they're injured ...

I know the game is a national obsession across The Dutch, and yes I received a text from one of my English friends on here saying what an absolutely cracking game Australia v Scotland had been, but it's hard to reply sensibly when you've forgotten the game was on, and would have chosen to sleep anyway, even if you hadn't forgotten ...

That's not a bad list of names to reel off in supposed "ignorance" ....

and I think the beer & girlfriends line makes very solid sense, to any but the most tragic rugby nerd (if such exists).

Nothing against boyfriends, and all.

Rugby chicks, Ahhhh! Normally high class tootie too. More Picture homie of the month than just a homie.

PeterCS wrote:Massive display by the Cotter-rebooted Scots.

It was very nearly the Wannabees.

And the Scots would have won, if the match-deciding final meaningful kick of the match had been referred to the TMO. That decision of all decisions, after all the far less necessary checks. Given the ball bobbling around like a keepy-uppy , and the Aussie replacement #9 clearly (if you use TV) making the final contact.

I think the "deliberate knock-on" regulation should certainly be revised too. It's one thing for the player cynically to punch/slap the ball forward; quite another for him instinctively to try to grab the ball, and for it to hop forward up off his upturned palm. But actually, the yellow card was just another poor decision, even on the present regs.

Anyway: well done Scotland. Lucky Australia! A lot of errors sprung into view when they were pressurised.

Still can't see Argentina getting past them. (Best hope for them is that Oz lose discipline several times anywhere near their own half - the Pumas' kicker is a killer.) The Woomerangs will be less complacent next time surely, after sneaking through this time?

Finally got around to watching the game. I disagree that Australia were lucky to win. I think its more that Scotland were lucky to get so close. Aust scored five tries to three & had another disallowed. It was only Australia's lapses that kept the Scots in the game rather than their own gameplay. Jouberts decision aside, i think the Wobblies deserved to win.

Big Dog wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Massive display by the Cotter-rebooted Scots.

It was very nearly the Wannabees.

And the Scots would have won, if the match-deciding final meaningful kick of the match had been referred to the TMO. That decision of all decisions, after all the far less necessary checks. Given the ball bobbling around like a keepy-uppy , and the Aussie replacement #9 clearly (if you use TV) making the final contact.

I think the "deliberate knock-on" regulation should certainly be revised too. It's one thing for the player cynically to punch/slap the ball forward; quite another for him instinctively to try to grab the ball, and for it to hop forward up off his upturned palm. But actually, the yellow card was just another poor decision, even on the present regs.

Anyway: well done Scotland. Lucky Australia! A lot of errors sprung into view when they were pressurised.

Still can't see Argentina getting past them. (Best hope for them is that Oz lose discipline several times anywhere near their own half - the Pumas' kicker is a killer.) The Woomerangs will be less complacent next time surely, after sneaking through this time?

Finally got around to watching the game. I disagree that Australia were lucky to win. I think its more that Scotland were lucky to get so close. Aust scored five tries to three & had another disallowed. It was only Australia's lapses that kept the Scots in the game rather than their own gameplay. Jouberts decision aside, i think the Wobblies deserved to win.

100% correct. Of course nothing was said about the great piece of refereeing that led to the try being disallowed.

taipan wrote:

Big Dog wrote:

PeterCS wrote:Massive display by the Cotter-rebooted Scots.

It was very nearly the Wannabees.

And the Scots would have won, if the match-deciding final meaningful kick of the match had been referred to the TMO. That decision of all decisions, after all the far less necessary checks. Given the ball bobbling around like a keepy-uppy , and the Aussie replacement #9 clearly (if you use TV) making the final contact.

I think the "deliberate knock-on" regulation should certainly be revised too. It's one thing for the player cynically to punch/slap the ball forward; quite another for him instinctively to try to grab the ball, and for it to hop forward up off his upturned palm. But actually, the yellow card was just another poor decision, even on the present regs.

Anyway: well done Scotland. Lucky Australia! A lot of errors sprung into view when they were pressurised.

Still can't see Argentina getting past them. (Best hope for them is that Oz lose discipline several times anywhere near their own half - the Pumas' kicker is a killer.) The Woomerangs will be less complacent next time surely, after sneaking through this time?

Finally got around to watching the game. I disagree that Australia were lucky to win. I think its more that Scotland were lucky to get so close. Aust scored five tries to three & had another disallowed. It was only Australia's lapses that kept the Scots in the game rather than their own gameplay. Jouberts decision aside, i think the Wobblies deserved to win.

100% correct. Of course nothing was said about the great piece of refereeing that led to the try being disallowed.

I think the teams were pretty evenly matched. You could presumably argue that Australia's lapses, as you refer to them BD, were as a result of the pressure being applied by Scotland. Scotland certainly had the better of the Australian pack - not that Joubert got his head round that. I think Aus also scored at least one of their tries when they were a man to the good - which was a pretty contentious decision. I don't think that was a yellow card. When the incident occurred, neither the ref nor the touch judge (who was about 4 yards from the ball when it happened) cried foul. It was a TMO initiated deal - and seemed extremely harsh on Scotland. Consistency is what pros generally ask for - so if that is the benchmark for a yellow card deliberate knock-on then I guess we should prepare for a lot of sin-binnings.

On the TMO, the incident that to me was the most pivotal was the non-review of Drew Mitchell's late hit on Hogg ater he'd booted the ball downfield. Whilst it wasn't overly malicious it certainly looked a bit late - but TMO input came there none. Where was he? At the bar? Having a piss?

Joubert - I feel for him getting hung out to dry by his own governing body but he is a poor ref. His interpretation of when the advantage rule was over after a knock-on was bizarre, his ruling of the scrum weak and whilst you point out his great call on the disallowing of the try I could also suggerst that if he thought it was a knock-on at the time and he saw it then why not call it (he certainly wasn't shy of making a snap decision at the end of the game). Consistency.

Well the simple answer that he could use the TMO for the knock on while he couldn't use it for the final decision.

The bottom line is that the protocols for use of the TMO are all over the place. That is not the referee's fault but world rugby.

taipan wrote:Well the simple answer that he could use the TMO for the knock on while he couldn't use it for the final decision.

The bottom line is that the protocols for use of the TMO are all over the place. That is not the referee's fault but world rugby.

Your simple answer is absolutely correct and I agree with you on TMO protocol - it is a mess and the way that some refs and TMOs communicate on decisions is embarrassing. That said I believe the TMO has the ability to intervene without ref input - so the Mitchell/Hogg incident going by with no comment was so odd given that the TMO is largely there to look out for potential foul play. But looking into your first comment in a bit more depth it leads me to trying to figure out Joubert's decision making or thinking process.

He was unsure of the knock-on so let play go on and then asked for TMO input once the ball had been grounded over the try line (because that is one time at which you can get TMO input). What if no try had been scored or several more phases had occurred before a try was gained? Or no try scored but a penalty given for a defensive infringement a few phases later? Or some other sequence of events unfurled that fell outside of the TMO's jurisdiction. His 'letting go' of the knock-on would have been a mistake and would not have been subject to review or overrule. So basically in his mind at the time of the knock-on he thought there was a knock-on but wasn't sure - and was simply lucky enough to end up in a situation where he could call upon the TMO to check back on it. He did not make a swift call on something he felt was unclear but which he thought may have occurred.

However, with the end of the match incident he made a seriously quick call on something which was certainly not clear cut (well to pretty much everyone apart from him perhaps). It happened very quickly, the ball ricocheting amongst bodies charging around and he determined that it was deliberate offside and a penalty rather than an accidental offside and scrum to Aus. You'd have thought that maybe erring on the side of caution there would have been the way to go...as with the knock-on non-call earlier on in the match. Ruling accidental offside would have given Aus the ball and at least given them and Scotland a chance to decide the match in open play rather than by a swing of the boot.

One episode - hesitant. Last episode - at a critical point of the match he makes a sudden call which decides the outcome. I think he maybe just got caught up in the drama and tension and made a big mistake. Something which his legging it 'from the scene of the crime' after the final whistle he maybe realised (or perhaps he really did need a wee).

Well the bottom line is a scrum would have still given the wallabies some time. And we need Pocock back

LN2 if you rewatch the game as I have, you will see that the commentators were quite happy with the decision at the time. In hindsight, after numerous replays in ultra slomo it was clear he had made an error. Nobody disputes that.

However the amount of vitriol poured on him by those who should have known better is unacceptable. Gavin Hastings in particular. If Hastings wants to discuss on field mistakes I would suggest he rewatch the 1991 semifinal. WR was also totally out of line with its statement.

What this has taught us, is something I have been calling for, for years. A total rewriting and simplification of the rugby laws so that the general public can follow the game better.

I was quite shocked when I read the papers on Monday. I was eager to read the sports section because I thought it would be celebrating a cracking game of Rugby.

Instead I saw article after article wringing its hands over Joubert's decision to award a penalty.

I hadn't realised it was controversial at the time and neither had the Scots I was watching it with. It was only after watching about 15 replays that I felt confident Phipps had played at it.

It's worth pointing out that Joubert ruled Scotland's five-eighth was accidentally offside in the 57th minute after he scooped up a ball that had ricocheted off Nel. It was a clear mistake from Joubert. Scotland scored their charge down try from the ensuing scrum.

I'd say this incident was in the back of Joubert's mind come the end of the game. He didn't want to make the same mistake again.

I do agree that the sin-binning of Maitland was harsh (although that was the TMO not Joubert). Then again, I thought a couple of scrum penalties that put points on the board for Scotland should actually have gone the other way, but I guess that's just scrum lotto.

We were the better side, but we needed every bit of luck we got. Hopefully luck won't be necessary against the Argies tomorrow - and with Pocock back I dare say we won't need it!

25-11 to the All Blacks tonight, I reckon.

taipan wrote:LN2 if you rewatch the game as I have, you will see that the commentators were quite happy with the decision at the time. In hindsight, after numerous replays in ultra slomo it was clear he had made an error. Nobody disputes that.

However the amount of vitriol poured on him by those who should have known better is unacceptable. Gavin Hastings in particular. If Hastings wants to discuss on field mistakes I would suggest he rewatch the 1991 semifinal. WR was also totally out of line with its statement.

What this has taught us, is something I have been calling for, for years. A total rewriting and simplification of the rugby laws so that the general public can follow the game better.

I hear you taips - errors occur and sometimes one just has to accept that will always be the case. That said I don't think we can necessarily rely on the commentators 'real time' calling of the match to be a barometer of how accurately the ref is calling the game. Some incidents are a lot clearer to a commentator watching a TV screen and others ought to be clearer to a guy at pitch level a few yards from where the play is unfolding. Perhaps it was as Hass suggests - Joubert evening up a potential earlier mistake on a knock-on/offside call. One does sometimes get a sense that rugby refs do look to balance the books a bit later on if they realise they have maybe made an erroneous call earlier. It's almost a perverse sense of trying to ensure fair play, a kind of 2 wrongs making a right.

As for Gavin Hastings, he has form when it comes to opening his gob and getting peevish when Scotland seemingly get the rough end of things. Shame really - he's the kind of guy you'd like to show a bit more class, as he always seemed to play the game hard and fair and never seemed to be too chippy on the field.

Bradman wrote:Well the bottom line is a scrum would have still given the wallabies some time.  And we need Pocock back

Totally agree with you - a scrum would have given you guys time to score but it would also have given Scotland a chance to prevent you from scoring. It would have been a thrilling and perhaps more fitting end to what I think was, along with Japan v South Africa, the most exciting game of the tournament to date.

Well water under the bridge now.

The day has started well with the mighty Lions winning the Currie Cup.

Off to the pub now for the next game.

So Boks by 3 or blacks by 20

Henry wrote:25-11 to the All Blacks tonight, I reckon.

Trev's kiss of doom. ...