Some very tasty match ups thereSaturday's matches (all in Whangarei):
1500 NZDT Scotland v Australia
1730 USA v Japan
2000 France v England
Sunday (Waitakare):
1245 Italy v Canada
1515 Wales v NZ
1745 Fiji v SA
France vs England could easily be a preview of the final.Some very tasty match ups there
First 10mins:Glad that you get my point above, because "not called" is the entire premise of my argument i.e.
Let's see:
02:02 Black 1 off feet playing with the ball not called
(06:30 Ref tells Wallaroos they have to help BFs count at lineout)
07:06 Multiple BFs all with hands on the ground in front of last feet not called
07:14 Repeat the above
07:16 No arms tackle called
07:26 Not rolling - she landed wrong so "clearly trying to roll away" is irrelevant - called
09:01 Black 10 never onside at the tackle not called
09:10 Black 14 clearly playing it on the ground after the tackle not called - knock on
That's the first ten minutes.
So, like I said: things missed.
Probably lucky for the Wallaroos that the very obvious ruck infringements by Black 8 and then 7 at 14:58 were missed, otherwise the resulting play might have not resulted in their second try. Likewise the obvious hand in the ruck from Black 14 at 18:08 followed shortly by Black 12 just flopping around the ruck onto our halfback.
Zero from the ref, and then in a surprising turn of events awards Black 1 a turnover despite her hand clearly being on the deck past the pill at 20:52
The ref didn't determine the outcome by a long stretch - nobody here would say that except Shiggins - but there was enough obvious infringing in the first 10-15 minutes for a warning at the very least, if not a card.
People have already discussed the BFs getting multiple free swings in their red zone including a knock down. I thought that first 15 minutes was the perfect time to give a YC because it was one-way traffic and infringing was the only way they could stop the bleeding.
but like so many others here, you guys go on about the ref as if there is some kind of bias against Australian players.
What can I say mate, it's just that we all so nice everyone loves us?Don't be ridiculous.
We're suggesting there is a bias toward NZ players
And anyone else who's playing against an Australian team.Don't be ridiculous.
We're suggesting there is a bias toward NZ players
Please - don't pretend that the complaints against the ref don't happen when the Wallabies play SA or Eng. Shiggins is by far the worst but he's not alone....
What can I say mate, it's just that we all so nice everyone loves us?
Somebody's got to do it mate, so what can I say?Custodians of the game
I must admit I think if we look at this WC, it certainly is a great advert for women's game. Even grumpy old buggers like me are seeing the attraction of the game played by these women/wahine! First I think that it more like the game when it was really good, not dominated by big bash merhants, and seemingly suffocating defence. The players themselves seem to play with a real joy. Almost a different game, you know like rugby and not seemingly looking like league?
I heard a comment on tv that made me notice, look at the girls in the BF/Wall game as the anthems are played, looking up at crowd and unable to suppress the smiles etc at seeing such a big crowd there to watch them. I thinking by the time women's WC hits Aussie shores in 2029 it will be a pretty well followed tournament/sport and teams like Wallaroos will be full professional by then (not sure why Rugby Australia is waiting until 2025 to do it) and will make it even more even etc. I believe in NZ Wallaroos one of differences was fitness of NZ girls, that come with professionalism I think?
Yeah makes the idea of only 4 on the bench quite attractive.The style of play is so much more entertaining, it's like watching rugby from 2009 or so. That isn't mean as a criticism either, that's a good thing. The officiating, notwithstanding a few moments, also seems far less pedantic.
Most of the women players are varying levels of semi-professional or totally amateur. Makes you wonder if rugby is viable as a spectacle when the players are getting paid like crazy, are in perfect shape, do nothing but practice rugby and the team has as many coaches as players.
I don't even see the women or players of yesteryear as any less skilled, the modern pro male player just always plays the percentages to a T and the coaching is more intelligent in terms of tactics, particularly on defense.
Mate nothing wrong with saying it looks like rugby from 2009 or earlier, when we saw our best ruby late 90s until 2010 I reckon, skillwise etc.The style of play is so much more entertaining, it's like watching rugby from 2009 or so. That isn't mean as a criticism either, that's a good thing. The officiating, notwithstanding a few moments, also seems far less pedantic.
Most of the women players are varying levels of semi-professional or totally amateur. Makes you wonder if rugby is viable as a spectacle when the players are getting paid like crazy, are in perfect shape, do nothing but practice rugby and the team has as many coaches as players.
I don't even see the women or players of yesteryear as any less skilled, the modern pro male player just always plays the percentages to a T and the coaching is more intelligent in terms of tactics, particularly on defense.
9. Iliseva Batibasaga – New South Wales Waratahs
I read today that England have beaten the frogs the last 10 x times they have played!
The game might not be as close as we all think...
IMHO our ball has looked a bit slow in the Tests this year where she's started.
That kid Terita looks good doesn't she? I must admit to never having noticed her before in my very limited viewing of Wallaroos, but there a few not bad players amongst team.This is a good squad - I'd swap Parry and Chancellor, and get P. Duck into the game sooner than later..
Also - get that ball out to Bienne Terita every chance you get!!!