Reds v Blues, Round 11 2013, Attack of the Attack?

[Sully]

You get your bye when your direct opponent in the conference face the Kings at home and they get their bye when you are facing the Crusaders in Christchurch. Does it still seems even?

Yes!

 

[gel]

The way Lee Grant explains it above (totalling points for losses) makes a lot of sense and using that method it is logical to disregard points for a bye.

Conversely the points system that super rugby uses (totalling points for wins) registers points for a bye because that is an opportunity lost for a win.

I find that on the whole the points awarded for a bye make sense when glancing at the table since it is reflective of wins (or opportunities for wins).

If any of you have read any of my posts you would see that I am a pretty negative person, so the concept of registering losses is something that appeals to me as more logical though.

 

[Sully]

If any of you have read any of my posts you would see that I am a pretty negative person, so the concept of registering losses is something that appeals to me as more logical though.

 

[Athilnaur]

The way Lee Grant explains it above (totalling points for losses) makes a lot of sense.

If any of you have read any of my posts you would see that I am a pretty negative person, so the concept of registering losses is something that appeals to me as more logical though.

So we could call it the Biggest Loser?

 

[Rassie]

Reds are the only team that have to play a game on their bye.

Did they get a bonus point against the Bye?

 

[tranquility]

I was going to reply to this but then I realised that Tranquility had already said what I was going to, almost word for word! What are the odds! ;-)


Man I wish I could communicate as eloquently as you. Nice one Tranquility!

Thanks very much mate!

I haven't taken the time to write a post seriously in a good while.

 

[ACT Crusader]

All right, I'll chime in.

Playing to the edge of the refs wits with regards to offside and the breakdown are part of the professional game. All sides do it.

To deliberately impede the endeavor of the other side, by repeatedly infringing against the rules of the game is still probably within the referees discretion to enforce.

However, if players or an entire team keep infringing in a manor that is purposeful to halt the momentum of the other-side in a manor that is against the fabric of the game, despite being penalised - I think you are then moving into the realms of cynical play. Or rather, if your instincts are to stop the other team playing rather than playing yourself, your actions are in fact cynical to the foundations of the game.

When Greg Chappell instructed Trevor Chappell to bowl the infamous underarm delivery at the MCG in 1981, he was stopping the contest by not allowing the other team the ability to 'play'. While technically legal at the time, his motives and actions for the delivery and outcome of the contest were cynical.

I believe with this logic applied the same conclusions can be drawn from how the Brumbies played last week.

But at the end of the day, we are merely talking about ethics, which is for all intents and purposes philosophy and semantics. It is the referees job to enforce the 'ethics and rules' of the game, and he attempted to do that, albeit with a distinct flavour of inexperience and I'm sure he would referee the match differently in hindsight.

The Brumbies aren't a dirty outfit, they just did what was necessary to keep themselves in the contest, which is the hallmark of a champion side. Jake White is one of the most street smart coaches in world rugby, and it is the very reason that he is a champion that drags success with him wherever he goes.

While it was not entirely ethical, the overlap between professional sport and ethics is rightfully or wrongfully non-existent.

Nice one tranquil. No need to bring up the underarm for this diehard NZC fan.....

Just a couple of thoughts, I would say every team collapses mauls, hold players down in the tackle/rucks, take space, and pull shenanigans at scrum time. I say that based on what I see. What I can't say with any definitive authority is when all these acts are done as just part of what happens or deliberate acts of cynicism.

In my view the Brumbies were holding on for dear life and the desperation stakes just went up a few notches. They were away from home in front of a hostile crowd, emotions were running high and the Reds seemed intent in not kicking the 3. Couple all those things and in my view that led to the Brumbies pushing those very same boundaries as one does when it comes to the offside line, the breakdown, the scrum etc.

But I recognise that rugby is an emotional game and whilst I didn't have the same emotional investment in the game as say a Reds or Brumbies fan, I did find myself saying "I hope they hold on"

 

[tranquility]

But I recognise that rugby is an emotional game and whilst I didn't have the same emotional investment in the game as say a Reds or Brumbies fan, I did find myself saying "I hope they hold on"

Absolutely.

That truly attritional, do what is required spirit is what makes rugby so tribal and so raw. Which is also what makes supporting the game so emotional. At all key moments of every game, it doesn't come down to technique or ability but truly on who wants it more.

A weaker side would have rolled over, but the Brumbies just rolled the sleeves up - and hats off to them, it was a massive psychological boost for them in the burgeoning super rivalry that is forming between the two sides.

A draw was absolutely fitting to the contest.

I am completely at peace with the result, and ready to not think about that game for a fair while.

Albeit it was the best game of rugby I have watched in recent memory.