Did Joubert feel the pressure?

[Blob]

May be it was deemed accidental contact with an offside player making no effort to clear the gate?

This is a perfect example of the cynical AB infringements that was the basis of Scarfie's video.

The amount of times the French appealed to the ref and then went *&%$ it and cleared the ball by using the boot on the player. FFS boot on the player is a penalty but Joubert was blind to the boots as he was of the layers killing the ball which made necessary to the boots in the first place.

I was cheering the French because haven't most of us been calling for the Wallabies to stomp a few for killing the ball for the last decade or so.

So kneeing in the head is okay. How about eye gouging?

 

[twenty seven]

So you saw Richies knee make contact with the French player?

 

[Blob]

Yes I did. Thought it was accidental. The Read one might have been accidental too.

 

[Gnostic]

So kneeing in the head is okay. How about eye gouging?

Did I say that? Get off the soap box and read with an open mind.

Joubert must take a modicum of responsibility for not enforcing the laws. The French had feet on the players and he did nothing. They started with the feet because they couldn't clear the ball (which is a complaint every game when playing the ABs).

The point is if you condone offences at the low end it is more likely to become a free for all and things start happening especially when the emotions are running high and so much is at stake. In fact I was surprised at the comparative lack of venom in the boots the French put in.

All that being said nothing can excuse eye gouging under any circumstances. Players who undertake such actions must be wiped from the game, especially if they do it a second time.

On that score I would like to see the TMO report acts of dangerous play to the ref. and actually have the power to say to the ref. that a sanction is required. Such things like gouging are a disgrace and the perpetrators should be removed from the game immediately where identified. The technology is there so use it. It could also be used to advise the ref if he catches something in a split second and wants to check on the facts before possibly determining the outcome of a major fixture by issuing a card that may or may not be warranted based on his split second viewing.

 

[Blob]

You're all over the place. Rucking is one thing. Stomping is another. Kneeing in the head is quite another. It's not a continuum. The player is usually in control of these things.

Nobody sane is arguing that McCaw deliberately kneed Parra. Nobody. Anybody who makes the claim is getting laughed off the other web sites by everyone else.

 

[BRIX]

The importance of the All Blacks to World Rugby from a marketing perspective and the revenue it generates for the IRB is a vested interest and not a conspiracy. While still a great team, some may argue that the preferential treatment and 50/50 calls that go to them is a testament to this.

 

[Jay]

The importance of the All Blacks to World Rugby from a marketing perspective and the revenue it generates for the IRB is a vested interest and not a conspiracy. While still a great team, some may argue that the preferential treatment and 50/50 calls that go to them is a testament to this.

And how does Cardiff 2007 gel with this theory of preferential treatment?

 

[Blob]

The importance of the All Blacks to World Rugby from a marketing perspective and the revenue it generates for the IRB is a vested interest and not a conspiracy. While still a great team, some may argue that the preferential treatment and 50/50 calls that go to them is a testament to this.

I quite agree. Apart from the penalty that Joubert gave the French that if they had converted they might have won the game, Joubert was never going to give the French any penalties that they could have converted to win the game.

 

[Gnostic]

You're all over the place. Rucking is one thing. Stomping is another. Kneeing in the head is quite another. It's not a continuum. The player is usually in control of these things.

Nobody sane is arguing that McCaw deliberately kneed Parra. Nobody. Anybody who makes the claim is getting laughed off the other web sites by everyone else.

Boots on the body is illegal. End of. Rucking is moving the BALL with the foot. The facts in my post stand. I expect that unless Referees start to police the ABs illegalities expect much more French style play as teams seek to compete. It doesn't make it right but then neither is what the ABs are doing and the referees are allowing the game to degenerate by not taking action on both sides of the coin.

Again we come back to the Referees and what they have been instructed to concentrate on, and the fact that some referees have clear weaknesses in the games which should be getting addressed. I mean what use is a review process if the reviews are not used to improve the performance of referees. In the case Bryce Lawrence in has refereed that way for years, why? It is clearly in breach of the Laws of the game so why hasn't he been coached in the aspects where he is deficient? He is a very good referee in all other aspects of the game expect the breakdown where he is woeful. He certainly keeps up with the play much better than Barnes and his personal field positioning is far better Walsh who regularly obstructs play.

 

[Blob]

The importance of the All Blacks to World Rugby from a marketing perspective and the revenue it generates for the IRB is a vested interest and not a conspiracy. While still a great team, some may argue that the preferential treatment and 50/50 calls that go to them is a testament to this.

Aside from the hosting fee, endorsements and tv rights, which were all settled deals before the World Cup began, can you quickly list all the other revenue the IRB got from having the All Blacks win in the final.

 

[Jay]

Aside from the hosting fee, endorsements and tv rights, which were all settled deals before the World Cup began, can you quickly list all the other revenue the IRB got from having the All Blacks win in the final.

I'd also quite like to hear why the IRB wouldn't be keen on a French win. I'd have thought increasing the profile of rugby in France would be a very lucrative market for rugby considering its population base.

 

[BRIX]

And how does Cardiff 2007 gel with this theory of preferential treatment?

Drop in the ocean, pal. All Blacks have played over 50 odd tests since Cardiff in 2007. I struggle to find a crucial call that didn't go their way since then (when they're not blowing teams off the park).

IRB World Rankings

Better players/coaching staff/tactics then any other nation or the rub of the green?

Aside from the hosting fee, endorsements and tv rights, which were all settled deals before the World Cup began, can you quickly list all the other revenue the IRB got from having the All Blacks win in the final.

That's not what I'm saying, you haven't missed the point you've just failed to see it.

Joubert must take a modicum of responsibility for not enforcing the laws. The French had feet on the players and he did nothing. They started with the feet because they couldn't clear the ball (which is a complaint every game when playing the ABs).

Lying on the wrong side of the ruck and killing the ball is one thing, but when you do that while grabbing onto an opposing players boot you deserve to get rucked.

I'd also quite like to hear why the IRB wouldn't be keen on a French win. I'd have thought increasing the profile of rugby in France would be a very lucrative market for rugby considering its population base.

This world cup is a small picture, my posts are with regards to the bigger one.

 

[Jay]

This world cup is a small picture, my posts are with regards to the bigger one.

A French World Cup win would have been huge for the game there, and France has one of the largest population bases of the major unions which is largely untapped.

And if there were World Rankings going back to 1900, NZ would be on top for a significant proportion of that time if not the majority. Including when they used to play against home referees half the time. Rub of the green?

 

[Blob]

Drop in the ocean, pal.

What about 2003, 1999, 1995 and 1991 then?

Better players/coaching staff/tactics then any other nation or the rub of the green?

I agree. It is more likely that the IRB have conspired to keep them at the top.

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

The importance of the All Blacks to World Rugby from a marketing perspective and the revenue it generates for the IRB is a vested interest and not a conspiracy. While still a great team, some may argue that the preferential treatment and 50/50 calls that go to them is a testament to this.

Goodness me. Talk about sour grapes.

5 failed wc campaigns in a row doesn't come close to supporting your theory. We finally win one and all if a sudden it's cos the irb favors us.

Seriously, you need to get a grip. No evidence, anywhere supports your tin foil hat theory.

 

[BRIX]

I was one of the first posters to congratulate NZ on the win. But like I said, I wasn't talking about World Cups you pack of geese. I'm more interested in the amount of tests AB's have played since 1886, and what their win/loss ratio is since then.

Suggesting that a population of 4.3 million with 141,726 registered players has better players/coaches/tactics/doctors than the rest of the world is courageous.

The NZRU is the IRB's son.

I would be happy to put forth some compelling evidence to back up my points but it will take a little bit of time as I am not cut out for forum ping pong - regardless of whether one's rebuttal holds merit or not. I think that the problem is that I haven't got the time nor the patience, better still, a lot of the times, I don't think I express myself correctly. I'm either getting misinterpreted or taken out of context really - people look for things that aren't there sometimes also - maybe that's what I'm doing...?

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Australia, population 20 odd mill, does very well in Olympics and punches far above it's weight.

Thus, I conclude it's because the Oz Olympic team are the IOC's son.

You regularly beat india and england at cricket, how can that be with their far superior playing numbers??

Oh, must be because the icc favor you.

Just not physically possible without some sort of interference from the top.

 

[Blob]

I would be happy to put forth some compelling evidence to back up my points but it will take a little bit of time as I am not cut out for forum ping pong - regardless of whether one's rebuttal holds merit or not. I think that the problem is that I haven't got the time nor the patience,

Wrong. What you don't have is compelling evidence. Or even any evidence at all. Your theory is bonkers.

 

[BRIX]

Australia, population 20 odd mill, does very well in Olympics and punches far above it's weight.

Thus, I conclude it's because the Oz Olympic team are the IOC's son.

You regularly beat india and england at cricket, how can that be with their far superior playing numbers??

Oh, must be because the icc favor you.

Just not physically possible without some sort of interference from the top.

...Yawn

 

[Richo]

Better players/coaching staff/tactics then any other nation or the rub of the green?

Errr. The first one.

I think even the people who feel NZ gets away with a lot at the breakdown would agree.