Discussion in 'Rugby World Cup 2015' started by TRF_heineken, Oct 12, 2015.
you know Dale Steyn wishes he bowled that ball underarm to Elliot
Yeah but we sent food parcels of Pavlova to South Africa to 'claim' Elliot.
I think it's unfair that we sent Andrew Merhtens food parcels during '95, being that he was actually born in South African. Bloody food poisoning I reckon
South Africa called, they want Irene Van Dyke back... They called us too, they want Kepler Wessels back
Fair enough, you can keep Cooper, Deans and we'll even give you Crowded House but we'll never give you Bondi
Back to the rugby old mate.
So who has custardy of Pavlova, New Zealand or Australia?
edit; Oh, I see what you did there.... :bravo:
If ever a thread got off topic, this is it!!
We are now down to discussions on the Aus semi and cricket!
Both of these topics have their own thread and you should just let this thread die a natural death!!!
I don't agree- this topic is sweet.
Deal. But you have to take back Russell Crowe.
You must be raven mad.
I guess all we can do is call the offenders out on it; tell them it's not acceptable etc ... I sure hope the bottle thrower was caught and received a ban from future games. Rugby is great in the sense that fans from opposing teams don't need to be physically separated (unlike Soccer in some countries), and, just as we should expect that we can attend matches without fear of physical harm, so too should we expect that Officials and Players to be able to partake in the game without any nasty consequences from the fans ... it's worth fighting for (figuratively speaking), by setting the example, and verbally explaining what's not acceptable.
To me, I think seeking some kind of vengeance on match officials, lacks a certain amount of maturity ... life is full of disappointments, we as adults are expected to cope, so how hard is it to get over the loss of a game that involved some officiating errors.
I woulnd't mind so much if you had the slightest hint of an argument here, but you don't:
And as for the whole Aus v Sco game, I'm over it. The abuse of Joubert from some idiots was wrong (though not quite what some are trying to present) and despite the wrong decision at the end I've no doubt it was made in good faith. I can accept that referee's make mistakes, though as I have already said, my issue with Joubert is his sprinting off the pitch at the end. I've already given my views on the game, and and the various (and often nonsense) arguments such as claims of racism or favouritism or the validity of tries scored, well I really can't be doing with it any more.
I think the argument was around why the referees did not go to the TMO and I agree with the abuse and arguments. To be honest it was all an absolute disgrace as far as Rugby is concerned, I have never seen a decision/outcome cause so much handbags and accusations/football mentality over a ref and his decision.
Get a grip man. I hardly think a few bitter keyboard warriers constitutes all Scots.
Six nations results and pre-tournement form have absolutely nothing to do with who 'deserves' a semi-final spot. The possibility of an underdog upsetting one of the big guns and going further in the tournement than expected is what makes this sport and competition more magical. Look at the positive reaction around the world when Japan upset the boks. Events like this generate such a feelgood factor and get more youngsters involved in the sport than would have otherwise been the case. A similar upset almost happened here in the QFs. Take that away and things become very predictable and less exciting.
- - - Updated - - -
You are right, no one has a divine right when it comes to a Rugby world cup. I will say that Australia were certainly the better team but they also gave away soft tries to keep Scotland in the game right until the end. I guess if you look at the game Scotland were riding their luck with interceptions and charge downs etc and eventually it ran out, but if Scotland had one you couldn't say they did not deserve it as Australia put themselves in those situations.
The jocks played out of their skins, the Aussies rested their two best players and it nearly backfired on them
Australia played with the half of their forces and hopefully still made 5/6 tries. The aggressiveness in defense was very different to that demonstrated against England or Wales.
Everyone said it was an easy match, Scotland fought for the honor of the NH and they were the local team, it was as if they were playing in Edinburgh, all the Englishmen supported them. Australia came relaxed and gave two easy tries through unforced errors that an Australia at 100% doesn't. Australia played its worst game and still managed to overtake his rival. They won't return to play in such a low level, it's a wake up call to the last weeks of competition.
Aussie will be a much tougher proposition tomorrow.
It was like the NZ games at the pool stage. Months before people knew the ABs would win all those games easily and wasn't a real challenge for them, then the ABs played without motivation. While Georgia, Tonga and Namibia entered motivated because for many would be his only test against the best team in the world. The same thing happened between Scotland and Australia. The difference is that Scotland is a better side than Tonga or Georgia and has a top class head coach like Vern Cotter.
So Australia played without motivation in a world cup quarter final? Seems reasonable.
Or could it be that there's a real shock at an Australia team who played a Scotland team that gifted them 5 tries, played with heart but poorly in execution at times, and they still relied on a refereeing mistake at the death to win it?
No, surely it must be down to the professionalism of the Australian players.
Separate names with a comma.