Wallabies v All Blacks, Game I

[Scorz]

FOS, did I say it would be in any one team's favour? No...

 

[Scotty]

As I said on TSF, you guys are screaming about Baxter getting shafted - Do you blame woody for thinking "If this retard is going to carry on doing what he gets penalised for, I'm going to milk it for all it's worth!"

I'm not blaming Woody for anything, just like I am not blaming the ABs coming in from the side (or even front sometimes) of the ruck. I'm blaming Joubert for not picking it up.

Sorry, not backing down on this one. There is no way those decisions evened up for each team. NZ gets away with coming in from the side of the ruck while the wallabies are on attack, referee even gives them the scrum feed when they don't have go forward ball at the ruck, yet the wallabies get penalised for not rolling away, when they are clearly rolling away and nz at the same time are hanging onto the ball on the ground.

I'm not saying the referee definately affected the result, because there a lot of what ifs there, but he definately had an impact on how many points each team where able to score, and IMO the teams were pretty evenly matched so you can't say NZ deserved to win, or the Wallabies deserved to lose.

 

[fatprop]

Scorz,

I seriously doubt you'd have the same view if the shoe was on the other foot. If the kiwi commentators disagree with several decisions, you can guarantee the refereeing was dodgy. Why can't you admit it?

NZ has been on the end of dodgy refereeing decisions enough in the past to understand you feel ripped off. Ref's make mistakes. Some calls went against Aussie, some went against NZ.

But I don't think it was so significant as to change the result so much as some of you are claiming. If the ref had called the offsides and forward passes things would have been different to, after all.

If I were you, I'd be more interested in how a team with the stewardship of Mortlock, Smith, Giteau and to some extent Sharpe could have let a good lead go as they did. And how you ended up with a schoolkid covering 10-15. Poor leadership from veterans, poor management of the bench.

As I said on TSF, you guys are screaming about Baxter getting shafted - Do you blame woody for thinking "If this retard is going to carry on doing what he gets penalised for, I'm going to milk it for all it's worth!"

yep

 

[Scorz]

Well, that's your call. Agree to disagree, I think it was a fair result, the old saying is "The Ref was consistently inconsistent". I don't think he was as bad as you make out, I agreed with a mate at work who applied that saying yesterday.

 

[Scorz]

Scorz,

I seriously doubt you'd have the same view if the shoe was on the other foot. If the kiwi commentators disagree with several decisions, you can guarantee the refereeing was dodgy. Why can't you admit it?

NZ has been on the end of dodgy refereeing decisions enough in the past to understand you feel ripped off. Ref's make mistakes. Some calls went against Aussie, some went against NZ.

But I don't think it was so significant as to change the result so much as some of you are claiming. If the ref had called the offsides and forward passes things would have been different to, after all.

If I were you, I'd be more interested in how a team with the stewardship of Mortlock, Smith, Giteau and to some extent Sharpe could have let a good lead go as they did. And how you ended up with a schoolkid covering 10-15. Poor leadership from veterans, poor management of the bench.

As I said on TSF, you guys are screaming about Baxter getting shafted - Do you blame woody for thinking "If this retard is going to carry on doing what he gets penalised for, I'm going to milk it for all it's worth!"

yep

Why?

Edit: Or are you agreeing with me? I'm confused, it's been a long day.

 

[fatprop]

sorry I was agreeing, the whinging is just bull shit.

 

[Scorz]

sorry I was agreeing, the whinging is just bull shit.

Yeah sorry mate I just edited my post to ask that! :thumb

 

[Sully]

Maybe we should all go Saffer style when we don't like decisions and wear Armbands

 

[mark_s]

As I said on TSF, you guys are screaming about Baxter getting shafted - Do you blame woody for thinking "If this retard is going to carry on doing what he gets penalised for, I'm going to milk it for all it's worth!"

I am highly amused by the idea of Woodcock letting Baxter get the better of him in certain scrums on the chance that the ref would find fault with Al's bind. I played all my rugby in the front row and I have was never fortunate enough to met a front rower who would willingly let the opposition prop get a psychological edge over them to try and win a possible penalty (but then again I never player high levels of rugby either).

Some posters have pointed out the difficulties in the TH getting a legal bind when the opposing loose head is not stable on the engagement. From my POV, Joubert could have validly made calls against Baxter for illegal binds or against Woodcock for not keeping his feet in these cases. Both would have been valid rulings given what happened, but Joubert only saw it one way during this game.

Nevertheless, I do think its time to move on from this and I also think its important that this forum doesn't enourage the active denigration of the opinions of other teams supporters (which seems to be happening more and more elsehwere) so I rest my case and agree to disagree.

 

[fatprop]

As I said on TSF, you guys are screaming about Baxter getting shafted - Do you blame woody for thinking "If this retard is going to carry on doing what he gets penalised for, I'm going to milk it for all it's worth!"

I am highly amused by the idea of Woodcock letting Baxter get the better of him in certain scrums on the chance that the ref would find fault with Al's bind. I played all my rugby in the front row and I have was never fortunate enough to met a front rower who would willingly let the opposition prop get a psychological edge over them to try and win a possible penalty (but then again I never player high levels of rugby either).

Some posters have pointed out the difficulties in the TH getting a legal bind when the opposing loose head is not stable on the engagement. From my POV, Joubert could have validly made calls against Baxter for illegal binds or against Woodcock for not keeping his feet in these cases. Both would have been valid rulings given what happened, but Joubert only saw it one way during this game.

Nevertheless, I do think its time to move on from this and I also think its important that this forum doesn't enourage the active denigration of the opinions of other teams supporters (which seems to be happening more and more elsehwere) so I rest my case and agree to disagree.

nice piece on ruggmartix about THP play this week and the different approaches around the world (Noddy had 22 questions)

 

[Moses]

Yep, a really informative piece and Baxter is very gracious when questioned on Joubert, almost "Pontingesque".

The real THP stuff starts around 50 min mark

 

[PaarlBok]

You lot still not over it. Time to get yourself a CC to move on.

 

[the gambler]

You still not over commenting on it? Time to get over it yourself.

 

[fatprop]

You lot still not over it. Time to get yourself a CC to move on.

You just worry about your Springboks being spanked in Dublin

Springboks hearing to be held in Dublin

The South Africa Rugby Union has been summoned to a disciplinary hearing in Dublin next month following a protest by players and coaching staff in the third and final Test against the Lions.

Players and management, including head coach Peter de Villiers, wore white arm bands with the words ‘Justice 4 Bakkies’ written on them during the pre-match warm-up, and the players kept them on their shirts as the game kicked off.

The protest was in support of banned lock Bakkies Botha who had received a two-week ban for dangerous charging on Lions prop Adam Jones in the previous match and led to a misconduct charge from the IRB.

The matter will be heard by an Independent Disciplinary Committee on August 10th chaired by Retired Honourable Justice John Hansen (New Zealand) and comprising Judge Guillermo Tragant (Argentina) and former Australia captain John Eales.

I understand it will be 5 lashes each

 

[Scarfman]

PdeV is such fun, isn't he? Solves all your problems in a single google search.

I know the game. Technically, I'm very strong. When I said the All Blacks were cheaters in the first Test in Wellington, I picked up some of the technical stuff they did wrong in the scrums and how they played outside of the laws and how they used that to good effect. I also picked up that, instead of standing a metre apart in the line-outs, they stood a metre and a half apart so that we couldn't compete; and anything outside of any law is cheating

:lmao: Over to you, Paarl.

 

[Scorz]

As I said on TSF, you guys are screaming about Baxter getting shafted - Do you blame woody for thinking "If this retard is going to carry on doing what he gets penalised for, I'm going to milk it for all it's worth!"

I am highly amused by the idea of Woodcock letting Baxter get the better of him in certain scrums on the chance that the ref would find fault with Al's bind. I played all my rugby in the front row and I have was never fortunate enough to met a front rower who would willingly let the opposition prop get a psychological edge over them to try and win a possible penalty (but then again I never player high levels of rugby either).

Actually not what I said at all. Or what I implied.

Some posters have pointed out the difficulties in the TH getting a legal bind when the opposing loose head is not stable on the engagement. From my POV, Joubert could have validly made calls against Baxter for illegal binds or against Woodcock for not keeping his feet in these cases. Both would have been valid rulings given what happened, but Joubert only saw it one way during this game.

Except that Baxter committed the first offence, so all illegal actions afterwards become null and void. Which is simple stuff, you don't rule on a forward pass after the oppo knocks it on - you rule on the knock on, and the forward pass is null and void.

Nevertheless, I do think its time to move on from this and I also think its important that this forum doesn't enourage the active denigration of the opinions of other teams supporters (which seems to be happening more and more elsehwere) so I rest my case and agree to disagree.

Yes, we'll have to I'm afraid mate. Cheers!

 

[PaarlBok]

You lot still not over it. Time to get yourself a CC to move on.

You just worry about your Springboks being spanked in Dublin

Springboks hearing to be held in Dublin

The South Africa Rugby Union has been summoned to a disciplinary hearing in Dublin next month following a protest by players and coaching staff in the third and final Test against the Lions.

Players and management, including head coach Peter de Villiers, wore white arm bands with the words ‘Justice 4 Bakkies’ written on them during the pre-match warm-up, and the players kept them on their shirts as the game kicked off.

The protest was in support of banned lock Bakkies Botha who had received a two-week ban for dangerous charging on Lions prop Adam Jones in the previous match and led to a misconduct charge from the IRB.

The matter will be heard by an Independent Disciplinary Committee on August 10th chaired by Retired Honourable Justice John Hansen (New Zealand) and comprising Judge Guillermo Tragant (Argentina) and former Australia captain John Eales.

I understand it will be 5 lashes each

:lmao: I love this, use to get 6 for smoking in school.

 

[PaarlBok]

PdeV is such fun, isn't he? Solves all your problems in a single google search.

I know the game. Technically, I'm very strong. When I said the All Blacks were cheaters in the first Test in Wellington, I picked up some of the technical stuff they did wrong in the scrums and how they played outside of the laws and how they used that to good effect. I also picked up that, instead of standing a metre apart in the line-outs, they stood a metre and a half apart so that we couldn't compete; and anything outside of any law is cheating

:lmao: Over to you, Paarl.

Doc are you going off topic here. :lmao: