• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

One hell of a whinge from our Kiwi compadres

Status
Not open for further replies.
barbarian

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
Wow. Talk about one-eyed.

From watching that you would think the Crusaders were dominant in every aspect, but the Reds somehow managed to pinch the win due to a combination of good luck and a dodgy ref.

How was that comparison of Carter v Cooper? Showed every good piece of play by Carter, and then showed the three or four errors Cooper made all game. Made Quade look like a bumbling idiot and Carter a fucking genius. Carter had a great game but Quade was almost as good in my eyes.

Shit and we think the Rugby Club is bad.
 
vidiot

vidiot

John Solomon (38)
Heh Heh, thanks for posting, that match review was a crack up. Reminds me why I love kiwis.
 
Tiger

Tiger

Alfred Walker (16)
Dear Team Kiwi from That Show in That Clip,

Please be aware that my time is up. Please stop trying to bring me back to life.

Sincerely,

Sunday the 29th of May 2011.
 
J

Jay

Guest
Austin said:
No it doesn't - as the diagram says 6 and 8 can only enter the ruck if they bind onto 7. McCaw doesn't bind onto anyone so illegally enters the ruck.
Click to expand...

What that diagram shows is that McCaw came from an onside position. He'd argue he was acting as halfback as the ball was clear, Dickinson would say the ball was still in the ruck. No one could reasonably argue he came from an offside position.

As for your argument - who exactly is McCaw supposed to bind onto?
 
J

Jay

Guest
The problem with that Re:Union clip is that it contains both Tony Johnson and Stu Wilson are completely awful at analysis. Far too reactionary and Wilson in particular is staggeringly ignorant about the laws of rugby. Preston is usually pretty good, but didn't exactly cover himself in glory there. I do agree with his analysis of Cooper's game though - he was brilliant at the back getting out of situations where he was isolated, but was a bit off on attack.

The standard of rugby journalism in NZ is pretty awful considering it's our national game.
 
MajorlyRagerly

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
I actually don't see what the problem is. It's an analysis of the game from teh Crusaders perspective. It's for an NZ audience. It's not supposed to be balanced, it's supposed to be analysing the game from the Crusaders point of view. And that's what it does.

Like it or not, the refereeing in that game is well and truly open to criticism.
 
Tiger

Tiger

Alfred Walker (16)
Wait, so if someone intends to be biased he can't be criticised for being biased?

If only Dickinson had said he meant to be biased he'd be getting of scott-free!

I absolutely agree that the refereeing from that game is open to criticism. When that criticism is as one-eyed as that was, I think it's totally appropriate for people to say as much.
 
fatprop

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
I think many Kiwis would think it was reasonable, and other would think it was over the top.

It was designed to play to their market.

That ain't Australian watching re-posted clips on YouTube
 
MajorlyRagerly

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
Tiger said:
Wait, so if someone intends to be biased he can't be criticised for being biased?

If only Dickinson had said he meant to be biased he'd be getting of scott-free!

I absolutely agree that the refereeing from that game is open to criticism. When that criticism is as one-eyed as that was, I think it's totally appropriate for people to say as much.
Click to expand...

Err, that's not what I said! I just said that the analysed it for their audience. Their audience, the Crusaders fans were incensed about the referee calls - so they went over them. They were actually borderline objective about the last penalty.... Borderline.

Carter vs Cooper - they said sooo many times about moments of brilliance from QC (Quade Cooper). But the audience really wanted hear how Carter went - which they went over. I do agree, they could have showed some better coverage of QC (Quade Cooper), but once again - the audience only really cared about DC.

SBW, the most hyped player of the moment. Covered in detail about him having a quiet game & showed footage.

So yes it was biased, and yes it was a touch one eyed. But certainly no less than your average commentary of Martin, Kearns & Clarke.
 
Tiger

Tiger

Alfred Walker (16)
Look, I absolutely agree that Marto, Kearns & Clarke can be biased. And when they are I've got no problems for them being called on it.

I understand why that report only focussed on the good from the Crusaders and the bad from the Reds, but that doesn't mean people aren't entitled to criticise it, that's all I'm saying.
 
MajorlyRagerly

MajorlyRagerly

Trevor Allan (34)
Hey I'm not disagreeing. Just offering another perspective on the whole thing.

I feel it's my duty to keep you lot in check when a whole lot of flak comes our way without any balance!
 
Gagger

Gagger

Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Jay said:
If it's not a ruck, his entry is irrelevant.

If it was a ruck, and he was effectively being the halfback - which is what I think actually happened - he still has to come from an onside position before clearing the ball. Which he did.

If it was a ruck, he entered correctly but wasn't allowed to pick the ball up.

Regardless, his entry is not really in question unless people are mis-reading the rules or somehow not seeing what actually happens in the video.
Click to expand...

Jay - what's the IRB law book's definition of a "half back" at a ruck that allows him to stick his hands into the middle of the ruck?
 
J

Jay

Guest
Gagger said:
Jay - what's the IRB law book's definition of a "half back" at a ruck that allows him to stick his hands into the middle of the ruck?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I don't think there is one. The laws just refer to the ruck ending 'when the ball leaves the ruck'.
 
Crow

Crow

Jimmy Flynn (14)
Does blaming the ref surprise anyone at all? I think we're up to depression. Maybe a grudging acceptance by the end of the season.
Rugby stages of grief said:
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Blame
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
Click to expand...
2011-06-02.gif
 
Joe Mac

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
The article and the video from NZ have changed my view on this world cup. Before I wanted the Wallabies to win. Now I would be more enthused to see the AB's lose no matter who wins(except England).

That's pretty bad isn't it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top