RWC FINAL - New Zealand vs France

[Country Kid]

And I thought this was a rugby chat site, not the philosophers zone.

Rugby and philosophy are two sides of the same coin

 

[crangs81]

Should be cited, banned forever, and have his provisional knighthood stripped and shredded!
In all seriousness, probably won't get anything for it.

Nah, that was perfect clearing out technique focused completely on Dusiatoir. Parra was a victim of being in the wrong side of the tackle

 

[Inside Shoulder]

David Kirk has never been knighted

 

[Mojoman]

AB's definitely saved their worst performance for the Final. I had a huge sinking feeling in the second half and that dreaded word "choke" came to mind a few times. Weepu missed 8 points that were definitely kickable and then got yanked after he gifted the turnover leading to the French try. Good on France for bringing their "A" game an proving the media wrong. In the end all that matters is we won, not how we did it but that we won.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

David Kirk has never been knighted

He's one of us now. 3 Australians have held Bill aloft after captaining their team in the RWC Final.

 

[Set piece magic]

One thing to remember: THere is 1 winner and 19 losers in a Rugby World Cup. Let's not get too cut up about it. Theiry will be proud forever; man of the match in a world cup final is an incredible achievement. Unlucky to lose, but take nothing away from the All Blacks. They won fair and square.

All in all the final was around about 2576.4 times better than 2007

 

[Athilnaur]

An opinion is something one forms based on their knowledge, judgement, and personal experiences. You cant have an opinion if you ignore these things. Othewise it would be a fact, not an opinion.

Im of the thought that nothing is absolute, and thus opinions expressed are neither objective nor subjective. They are simply just 'opinion'.

The guy had an opinion about the game being rigged or suggested so. Others supported it... that means in my opinion and belief it is no longer subjective.

Eh?

 

[Athilnaur]

If you want to go on and suggest the opinion expressed by the person who started the post about the game being rigged, is subjective then you need to prove there is no evidence that would support his subjective opinion - i/e no evidence to support the game being rigged. On the other hand the poster needs to provide evidence to support his opinion that the game was rigged (introducing exhibit A - Joubert's performance) to ensure his opinion was not 'subjective'.

Personally... there is more evidence in front of me tonight to support the opinion the game was rigged. Thus in the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise (except perhaps common sense and not believing in conspiracies etc)...the opinion expressed is not subjective.

Eh?

 

[Athilnaur]

Actually its a public holiday tomorrow (today?).

Good stuff from the French. Not really surprised they put in a good effort, thought we looked a bit hopeless at times but the boys stood up at long last. Although the French had all the ball in the second half I thought our defence was pretty solid.

Can't comment on the ref yet because I was in a fanzone and was too busy cheering, thought he missed a few of our high tackles, but then I thought their try came from a kick from a guy who was never onside (could be wrong).

Good on the French though, really stuck it to us, it was just our day.

Well said mate.

 

[whatty]

So if the AB's lost that game would that have been a choke or would they have just been found out by a team that wanted to win.....mmmm

 

[Schadenfreude]

Are you implying they didn't choke?

 

[Athilnaur]

No mate, I think you need to brush up on what is subjective v constructive.

Put it this way - if I say 'Alien's exist' is that subjective because there is little to no concrete unchallenable proof to move it from subjective to construction (fact)? No. It's a personal opinion that many people will agree with and support and many won't. By having support and those who share that opinion it no longer is a subjective opinion. It is simply an opinion. To make it constructive I would need to 'prove' my opinion is a fact.

No one has suggested anything about 'irrational'. The opinion expressed was not subjective because like above, there were plenty of people who supported that opinion. Thus moving it from the realm of simply being a 'personally expressed' thought. To prove it is constructive - the poster would need to provide evidence to support it (Jouberts performance alone would not be enough I agree). So if it isn't constructive and it's not subjective - then it's simply 'opinion'.

Eh?

 

[nugget]

so what about the french replacing their on-fire half back, with a farkin debutant with 10 mins to go - WTF? I thought it was livremont having the last laugh at his side or something...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

so what about the french replacing their on-fire half back, with a farkin debutant with 10 mins to go - WTF? I thought it was livremont having the last laugh at his side or something...

but since they dont listen to him does he call the substitutions?

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Geez, this is conspiracy theory central.

 

[Athilnaur]

What a game. And what a hilarious game thread!

Skippy, no offence... I have a commerce degree, did philosophy and politics for non core subjects, spent far too much time talking to people smarter than me, but your posts left me saying...

Eh?

Aah well, grats kiwis, count yourselves bloody lucky, commiserations frogs, you absolutely earnt your place as no2 in the tournament and were within a wee pu's scrotum thickness of winning it. You played a far better game tonight than the wallabies did last week, hat off to you!

Lastly, Don, I am so rapt for you after the bloody disgraceful way your own country has treated you. You did your country proud son.

 

[ACT Crusader]

What a great test match to watch. Well done to both sides. Intense stuff. I'm obviously over the moon to win, and how it happened in retrospect is awesome also. With all the pressure that France were heaping on us, we came good and held on.

Both defences were awesome. Both teams had opportunities and had stretches when their attack looked very threatening (ABs 1st half, France 2nd half).

I actually thought both sides got away with lying on tackled players and then getting the "sneaky" hand in. Both teams were throwing their all into the physical exchanges.

There was very very little between the two teams, hell even the two replacement 1st 5s came on and played well.

8-7, amazing scoreline and both teams, particularly both captains looked physically and emotionally spent.

 

[Buckhard]

Mixed feelings after this final.

Great defence from the ABs but better team lost. If France landed the penalty from near halfway, then they looked good to win. At the time, I thought they should have kicked for the line - to keep te ABs on the back foot and deep in their teritory and had the 'gut' feel points would come.

Sadly I reckon the ref influenced the result by allowing the ABs an unhindered licence to slow/kill the Frech ball.

Tense contest - but feel a bit hollow about the result. Looking back, the French forwards will wonder how they feel asleep in the line out that led to the ABs try.

My opinion... the better team won, the all blacks had terrible (defensive bomb = dirty word as far as I'm concerned) tactical kicking but that was it.

As far as the ref influencing the result, every ref influences every result, as has been said before on here, Joubert allows the team with more players commited to the ruck more leeway, France would have known that coming in to the game.

Not trying to take anything away from the French here, they were incredible.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Buckhard - Your profile has you from Auckland. WTF are you doing in the f&*^ing chat room? Get out and celebrate with the rest of the Darkness. You earned it.

 

[whatty]

I just want to add, what a day for Beaver. Donald can know go into a Waikato Bar and order a Beer and probably not pay for it with pride. Good on ya mate.