The Rugby Thread

I watched the Italy game, it looked like incredible atmosphere with 80,000 in the stadium. The Italians definitely should have been awarded a penalty try. (Well I wouldn't really know, I'm a back.)

I just read that South Africa lost to a club side. Again. They are really stumbling right now, maybe a quiet bet on the guidos to push them isn't a bad idea.

 

Yeah I think they should have got a penalty try.

But this highlights the need for clarity in the game. There are so many areas in which rugby's rules are confusing. How would you (anyone) change the rules?

For me, I like the Steve Hansen's idea of bringing back the rule that you can call a mark anywhere on the field, but I think maybe anywhere inside your own half might be better. I think rucking should be brought back into the game. I think the referee should call a time out at scrums and that the time should go back on when the ball leaves the scrum. Something needs to be done to sort scrums out, I have heard a suggestion that there should be a specialist scrum referee who comes on whenever there is a scrum, it's not the best idea but is interesting. I am undecided about whether I think penalties and drop goals should be worth only 2 points. Although I do think that if a drop goal or penalty is missed there should be a scrum from where the ball was kicked from (as happens in general play).

 

The penalty needs to be 3 points, rugby is a game where the ability to do negative acts can have a majorly detrimental affect on the game, there needs to be a just deterent. I absolutely agree however that drop goals should be treated exactly like any other situation where you kick the ball dead.

 

Here is a question for everyone that I have yet to hear a decent answer from: off a half arm penalty why do more teams not take the tap, fire it back into the pocket and take a drop goal attempt? I have never seen a team attempt this.

Imagine a half arm 22m out right in front. If the penalty was full arm nearly every team would take the shot at goal. So why off a half arm has no team ever taken a tap, thrown the ball back to the 30m and casually put off a drop goal? Thoughts?

 

But there is no reason for the drop goal to be worth 3. If it were 1 or 2, then it could be used to prevent a tie but wouldn't be worth it to go for them instead of attacking.

 

It's about time the Boks won a fucking match on tour. Jesus. 32-10 over the Italians in Udine. Not the best match - the Italians gave the Boks a hard time in the latter stages of the first half and the early stages of the second half. Fourie's try was great though, as was Habana's - Jacobs played well for once, too, though he was at fault for the Italian try.

 

Well, my first thought is that most teams probably expect a good chance at either (1) advancing the short arm penalty 10m through infringement from the defending team, or (2) actually scoring a try of good field position. In most competitions today teams get bonus points for tries, hence teams tend to go for them, unless the game is very tight. A second reason for not attempting this more (in my opinion) is that should you miss the drop goal you turn over possession in attacking territory and you would almost certainly be kicked back into your own half from the ensuing 22m drop-out.

I recall some games where the Bulls popped a droppy or two over using said technique. Generally, I think that people frown upon it as legal, but generally bad sportsmanship.

 

I'm glad that fucking tour is over. S.A. were AWFUL in the 2nd half. Andries Bekker is NOT of the same quality as Bakkies in the loose forward pack. John Smit showed again why he's a poor Hooker - he can't even fucking throw straight! The lineouts only improved once Bismarck Du Plessis came on. Bismarck may be a worse player than Smit in terms of skill, but at least he can throw straight. Danie Roussouw didn't have a great game at Number 8 - probably because it's not his natural position (he usually plays as a Flank for the Bulls). The Beast played his best game on the tour, though. Olivier was also awesome, and it was nice to see Jean De Villiers too.

Ireland played well but won through fouling the Boks (I'm looking at you O'Connell, and that number 11 - I can't think of his name). The refs were much more lenient on the Irish than the Boks - I can't say I'm surprised there. Most of the European refs seem to be very biased against the Southern Hemisphere teams.

The Irish fullback, Kearney, deserved his Man Of The Match award - he had a flawless performance.

 

The All Blacks played the best game of rugby that I have seen all year against the French. Five trys to none, making this the second successive tour of the northern hemisphere in which they have not conceded a try against an international side. The attitude of both teams really made this an enjoying game to watch, the counterattacking from both sides was brilliant to watch. Dan Carter cemented his place as the best number 10 in the game, and Sivivatu arguably took the title of best winger from Habana.

It seems that the dirty French replacement halfback eye gouged poor little Woodcock. The NZ sideline commentator was going nuts when it happened, but as it occurred when Smith was scoring a try there doesn't seem to be any video footage of it.

I thought that hooker was Smit's preferred position and that he moved to prop to accommodate Du Plessis. I guess Smit isn't going to drop himself though, the drawbacks of (effectively) being a player/coach.

 

I think New Zealand showed they are the form SH side, but they majorly benefited from France's best backrowers being out and a shaky halves combo.

Does anyone think that these internationals are showing that there is increasing parity in international Rugby? I think we are seeing the end of an era where powerhouse teams will run roughshod over everyone else.

 

I agree, but unfortunately I think the standard from the SANZAR teams has dropped. The NZ France game was an example of how well NZ can play, but they haven't played anywhere near that well all year. The Australians have a serious problem with depth, and that is showing. And the South Africans are probably suffering a little from fatigue after a season including a series against the Lions, as well as the problems with their coaching situation.

Add to that, Ireland and France playing the best rugby they have played in a while and the gap between the two hemispheres has closed considerably.

 

Poor little Woodcock? You NZ rugby fans are the most myopic in the world. Woodcock is a big boy and should be able to take care of himself. He should have been expecting that on the field, since the French are not a particularly clean side (eg. Chabal).

Smit is NOT a player/coach, he's the Captain. He doesn't get to play hooker AT ALL for the Sharks anymore, due to his lousy lineout throws. The Sharks and Boks have to "accomodate" Bismarck, since he can actually throw the ball straight at lineouts, something I think is actually important in a match, in terms of keeping possession.

You wrote that last post as if NZ was IRB Team Of The Year. Oh, wait - that was the Boks.

 

Serious question here: did you really think that I was calling a rugby player who is 6 feet tall and 120 kg heavy a poor little guy? I was being a facetious. Because a side is renowned for being dirty, when they eye gouge another play we should ignore it? If an All Black eye gouged a Springbok, I would accept that it was dirty piece of play and that the AB should be punished. Woodcock is apparently happy to let the matter go. Sure there have been dirty players from all countries but if a country's reputation as dirty does not excuse players from eye gouging. As an aside, Woodcock described it as a "facial", I guess I feel sorry for any woman he comes across.

Sorry for including this, I know it will make you mad, but I can't have an argument about eye gouging with a South African without showing this.

I know that he is not officially a player/coach, but even this SA newspaper refers to him as a player/coach at the bottom of this page. I agree with you, I think Du Plessis is a far better hooker. I also think that Smit isn't a very good prop, as evidenced by the poor Springbok scrum this year. And I think that he might not have a place in the team, if he wasn't such a great captain.

What part of my post implied that NZ was IRB Team of the Year? I said that NZ played, in my opinion, the best game of the year. A game that saw a return to running rugby and had five tries, more than most if not all other test matches between high ranking teams this year. SA deservedly won the Team of the Year. They beat the Lions, won the Tri-nations, and didn't lose a game to the All Blacks. But they lost to two English club sides as well as to Ireland and France. They had, by admission, a poor tour.

I'm not sure if you have tried, but I think your best bet is Setanta. I am not sure if you can download games from their site though.

 

Well, aren't NZ lucky that they got a ref for the match that likes running rugby. S.A. don't get that sort of luxury. My point about Woodcock, which you completely missed, was that these things happen in sport - usually, they're not intentional. I'm still not certain that Burger's eye gouge (I'll assume that's the video pincinelly posted, since I can't view them) was intentional. Still, he got his ban and that's the end of it.

If you mean the year 2009, then we all know that the best game of the year was when the Boks beat NZ in NZ in the Tri-Nations to win the tournament.

Yes, the Boks lost to two club sides. They were pretty close games that could have gone either way (especially the match against Saracens, who had several former Boks in the starting XV, most of whom have left S.A. for safer pastures and because they know they will not get picked for the national side because of quotas). Club sides have the luxury of picking the best players they can afford to pay - S.A. is hamstrung by a quota selection policy, enforced by SARU, which is why Adrian Jacobs keeps getting games when he should NOT be anywhere near the Bok side. To prove my point, he single-handedly fucked up the match against France and also fucked up numerous times against Australia in the Tri-Nations this past year. Mtawarira shouldn't be in the Bok side at the moment either - his form was great, up to the Tri-Nations, but he had a pretty poor Currie Cup and wasn't much good on this tour, with the exception of the last match against Ireland. I think all selections should be based on the current form of players and on their ability to link up play in training, but, sadly, picking on form will not happen for another twenty years in South Africa, and it sucks.

What post does Gavin Rich hold with SARU to say that Smit, FDP and Matfield are player-coaches? Oh, wait, he doesn't. He's a journalist making claims with little basis. Have a look at any recent team photo of the Bok squad and that will point out who the coaches are. To infer Smit has ANY role in selection of players is plain idiotic - that's up to the selection panel, with some input from the head coach and assistant coaches. He also states that the coaches "lack experience for this level" - which coaches specifically? Oh, he can't name any. Gary Gold has been head coach for Western Province in the Currie Cup and Dick Muir used to be head coach for The Sharks (both in Super 14 and Currie Cup) - I think top tier domestic experience is enough. It's also pretty difficult to bring in a head coach (or ANY coach) from another international setup - why would they want to leave their own international team? The only notable exception I can think of was Campese, who was unemployed at the time, when he came on as backline coach.

I think it's a good guess that Smit will call time on his international career and FDP will replace him as Captain - no player currently in S.A. rugby is more respected and well-liked, in addition to showing good tactical prowess and an ability to lead. It's really the mandate of the scrumhalf to lead the side anyway, as the link between the forwards and the backs. Another outside choice for Captain would be Juan Smith, who's been pretty influential for the Free State Cheetahs for many years, and is a very experienced international player. I believe he was out injured for this year's Currie Cup and missed the end of year Tour.

 

Well, aren't NZ lucky that they got a ref for the match that likes running rugby. S.A. don't get that sort of luxury. My point about Woodcock, which you completely missed, was that these things happen in sport - usually, they're not intentional. I'm still not certain that Burger's eye gouge (I'll assume that's the video pincinelly posted, since I can't view them) was intentional. Still, he got his ban and that's the end of it.

If you mean the year 2009, then we all know that the best game of the year was when the Boks beat NZ in NZ in the Tri-Nations to win the tournament.

Yes, the Boks lost to two club sides. They were pretty close games that could have gone either way (especially the match against Saracens, who had several former Boks in the starting XV, most of whom have left S.A. for safer pastures and because they know they will not get picked for the national side because of quotas). Club sides have the luxury of picking the best players they can afford to pay - S.A. is hamstrung by a quota selection policy, enforced by SARU, which is why Adrian Jacobs keeps getting games when he should NOT be anywhere near the Bok side. To prove my point, he single-handedly fucked up the match against France and also fucked up numerous times against Australia in the Tri-Nations this past year. Mtawarira shouldn't be in the Bok side at the moment either - his form was great, up to the Tri-Nations, but he had a pretty poor Currie Cup and wasn't much good on this tour, with the exception of the last match against Ireland. I think all selections should be based on the current form of players and on their ability to link up play in training, but, sadly, picking on form will not happen for another twenty years in South Africa, and it sucks.

What post does Gavin Rich hold with SARU to say that Smit, FDP and Matfield are player-coaches? Oh, wait, he doesn't. He's a journalist making claims with little basis. Have a look at any recent team photo of the Bok squad and that will point out who the coaches are. To infer Smit has ANY role in selection of players is plain idiotic - that's up to the selection panel, with some input from the head coach and assistant coaches. He also states that the coaches "lack experience for this level" - which coaches specifically? Oh, he can't name any. Gary Gold has been head coach for Western Province in the Currie Cup and Dick Muir used to be head coach for The Sharks (both in Super 14 and Currie Cup) - I think top tier domestic experience is enough. It's also pretty difficult to bring in a head coach (or ANY coach) from another international setup - why would they want to leave their own international team? The only notable exception I can think of was Campese, who was unemployed at the time, when he came on as backline coach.

I think it's a good guess that Smit will call time on his international career and FDP will replace him as Captain - no player currently in S.A. rugby is more respected and well-liked, in addition to showing good tactical prowess and an ability to lead. It's really the mandate of the scrumhalf to lead the side anyway, as the link between the forwards and the backs. Another outside choice for Captain would be Juan Smith, who's been pretty influential for the Free State Cheetahs for many years, and is a very experienced international player. I believe he was out injured for this year's Currie Cup and missed the end of year Tour.

Next time, for good commentary on S.A. rugby, look for stuff by Naas Botha, Owen Nkumane, Darren Scott and John Robbie - who, coincidentally, were all in the TV studio for the broadcast of the last match of the Tour. Also, look for articles by Andy Campostagno.

 

While the ref definitely influences the way the game is played, the players themselves have the biggest influence on the game. For the entire year, there has been an absence of running rugby in all teams at the international level. It is necessary for both teams to want to play an open style of rugby for it to work, rather than kicking the ball constantly and waiting for the opposition to make an error. France played, open attacking rugby, rather than trying to out-kick NZ. South Africa have been relying on kicking for the whole year. And when they tried to play some running rugby they got beaten by Australia.

Why do you assume that the eye gouging was unintentional. In your last post you were saying that "He should have been expecting that on the field, since the French are not a particularly clean side" but now you don't know if it was intentional. Putting your fingers in someone's eyes is easily avoidable and also pretty fucking despicable. That is why it carries such a heavy ban in rugby when compared with punching, high/late tackles, etc.

I think you and Peter De Villiers are alone on that one.

I said they had a poor tour. Do you think that winning 1 out of 5 games is a good tour? A better defense of the losses against club sides is that if SA had played their strongest team they would have won. Don't bitch that club teams can pick better than an international team. NZ, SA, and Aus all lose some of their best players to European clubs because of the amount of money that the Europeans can pay them.

I guess you hadn't heard this and it is something of a conspiracy theory. Some people think that Smit (aided by a group of other senior players) is the real coach and that De Villiers only has the official role as coach because he is black. Further evidence is that Jake White was replaced by De Villiers after winning the world cup. If this is the case, then there would be no reason that Smit would be labelled as a coach or selector in team photos, because he is the unofficial coach.

De Villiers has a lack of experience, he was an assistant coach at Currie Cup level and has coached some age grade rugby. Gary Gold is another who had not coached a super 14 side. That leaves Dick Muir as 1 out of 3 coaches that has coached a Super 14 team. You don't think that indicates inexperience?

 

Have you played before Durbanite? I've played six seasons, and have never heard of someone eye gouging someone accidentally. They are hardly "usually" not intentional, and tend to only happen when you are playing hated rivals (it hurts like hell in-case you were wondering). I'd argue that they are almost always intentional.

 

No, I haven't played rugby before. I've never been healthy enough to play much sport.

I'll now say what the rest of you want to hear. The refs are not biased against South Africa at all and are always very fair, and S.A. players deserve worse punishments than overseas players.

Either way, I won't be posting any more in this thread. I'm done.

 

This one has a bunch, but the NZ/France game isn't up yet. I usually go to rugbydump.com if you want highlights.