After watching the final...I think we need a change

Discussion in 'Rugby World Cup 2007' started by diehardkiwi07, Oct 21, 2007.

  1. I think change's need to be made so we dont see what we saw in the final today... Farr too much kicking its ruining the game. But hats go off to the bokke who ill bet will be on the **** now as you read this. S.A beat england at there own game that mixed with a touch of SH style made a recipe for the right ingredent which won them the game...

    "BUT" BIG Changes need to be made to the game to stop the game turning into Ariel ping pong. Its killing the game :(

    Your thoughts please???
     
  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. melon

    melon Guest

    Its not possible to change the way a team plays or the way a game is played out, if they do so within the rules.
     
  4. C A Iversen

    C A Iversen Guest

    The only way is a rule change which I believe is coming in next year. The defending team having to stand back 5m from the hind-most foot of a ruck.

    The extra time to construct an attack should enable running teams to stop this whole "let's be so off-side they have to kick" approach.

    About 50 minutes of the 81 minutes played were a farce because of how tight the defence was. I marvel at how few off-side penalties are given lately, are we to believe that all that play was really on-side? Also don't get me started with slowing the ball down!!!!
     
  5. Ripper

    Ripper Guest

    The new Stellensboch laws which are being used in the Super 14 next year also get rid of passing the ball pack into the 22 and punting it out on the full - now the only time you can kick it out on the full without having a lineout from the spot you kicked it can only occur is when your team get's the ball already inside the 22.
     


  6. This particular law I am looking forward to being implemented... it'll be great to see the players try to do something to move the ball in that quarter. Personally, I would like to see less kicking happen in games... it seems to be the fall-back tactic of so many teams, a tactic of fear rather than adventure. I just think that many kicks aren't good quality - a great roaming touchfinder, or a kick that puts the pressure on - they're great. But often it just seems like tennis.
     
  7. candybum

    candybum Guest

    i think teams want to play the final as a tight, defense orientated game as thats how they percieved the game to be. A test of discipline. What if they go into a finals game with a strategy of throwing the ball around? maybe its an elimination of the risks factor and the pressures of whats at stake?

    but with that said, england at times tried to play to a style that was different to the one that got them into the final, that equaled to some mistakes, i guess its an adaptation, teams automatically think that both will play tight and hence this kicking back and forth, pick and go style, i guess they wanted to exploit the boks in that aspect but it didn't work coz it was their style.

    What if one final, one team surprised the other by playing some expansive footy, will it stuff up the others defensive strategies? and will it result in a free flowing type of game?
     
  8. as i can see you are a fellow kiwi and we both, belive it or not have a case of "because we cant do it we dont like it"

    in the words of sir clive woodward:
    "what are you talking about? i find it exciting"
    or something to that extent



    This particular law I am looking forward to being implemented... it'll be great to see the players try to do something to move the ball in that quarter. Personally, I would like to see less kicking happen in games... it seems to be the fall-back tactic of so many teams, a tactic of fear rather than adventure. I just think that many kicks aren't good quality - a great roaming touchfinder, or a kick that puts the pressure on - they're great. But often it just seems like tennis.

    [/b][/quote]



    me too... sort of



    im looking foward to seeing how many kicks fall short of the 22 now.
     
  9. Its not that we cant do it, its about having to do it that im worried about. I'm fearful of us having to learn it, the style completely ruins the game in my view. The quicker they crack down on it the better the game will be for all. Remember back when they changed the ruling in the super 12 i think it was 1998 (off the top of head) They were mayjor changing to the ruling to suite the modern day style, saying the modern day game is going to be a FAST running game with alot of explosive running and high try scoring percentage...Thats exactly what we got 9 years on the game still needs minor adjustments here and there. We should learn from the NRL where they correct there ruling of the games as games go by
    (Common sense will tell you where it needs changing) . Not like the IRB where it has to go through a process of stages before being excepted..

    We need to change the ruling for the good of the game
     
  10. 36crazyfist

    36crazyfist Guest

    i remember as a kid playing rugby in primary school, it was against the rules to kick outside your 22. if i can remember correctly, the opposition was awarded a scrum when that happened. tried to install running rugby into players from an early age.

    bit i'd have to agree, they won't change the way they play. they will always go for the win, no matter how unattractive the game might be. <_<
     
  11. Crackdown

    Crackdown Guest

    SA played the NH style game last night and England were much more dynamic - I don't think anyone can honestly call it a "NH style" anymore. I think the rules are pretty good as they are except for passing back into the 22, if you start devaluing scrums, drop goals and kicks you'll end up with a watery version of rugby league.

    Taking of "ruining the game", how about you southern boys stop lying on the wrong side of rucks and slowing the ball down? Quick ball = faster game and more runs, easily fixed by letting players use the boot again. To be honest this whole north and south thing is bull, about time we moved on eh?
     
  12. ikvat

    ikvat Guest

    Before changing rules, it could be necessary to enforce the existing rules.
     
  13. Niue

    Niue Guest

    For me, the main reason why the game was played like it turned out was due to the amount of pressure on both sides.

    Look at how Argentina played in the 3rd/4th place game. They exhibited a freedom that they (more than likely) would have denied themselves in the final.
     
  14. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Quite frankly, my thoughts are you should stop consistantly acting such the bleating little bitch.
     
  15. Brodizzle

    Brodizzle Guest

    Firstly, England played the running style because the South Africans were more then equal to the way England have been playing except the difference between the teams was the skill levels, in playing Englands style of game South Africa were pretty skilled while England playing the running game just didn't have the spark that running teams need to have. (besides Tait's break) I think that if South Africa had the choice they would have been much more dynamic yet lately it seems Englands greatest skill has been dragging other teams down into thier style....

    Secondly, to do with the boldened text, are you kidding me? Why would the Southern hemisphere teams slow the ball down when thier natural game is a fast paced game....it's common sense...

    As for the changing in the points, look at the try for the USA player against Habana, the Japanese try via the length of the pitch.....so much more effort goes into these plays then a simple boot of the ball, and it should be rewarded as such.....
     
  16. Crackdown

    Crackdown Guest

    You're obviously a young 'un who doesn't understand the game then, I clearly see that went over your head. You lie on the wrong side of a ruck when you're defending to disrupt/slow the attacking team's ball down. Ask Ritchie Macaw, he's a master at it - as I heard someone put it before "all teams do it to one degree or another, it's just the matter of who makes themselves look more innocent while doing it, ie: trapped with arms waving in air".

    Your bigotry is another issue Brodrizzle and it's not just not worth commenting more on (re: north vs south, England style bashing, etc.).

    P.S. You would have thought if England "dragged SA down" into their style, the Saffies would still have made more runs and the like - who were the only team in the final to cross the try line again? You expect a tight, edgy game in a final - if you don't like it watch rugby league or something (and even then the finals are usually low-scoring affairs).
     
  17. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    still snikering at "arial ping pong".
     
  18. Klarkash-ton

    Klarkash-ton Guest

    now there's an idea!!!!!

    I'd love to be a young 'un.

    But I'm not. All teams accuse every opposing team of at least two things. Being offside and killing the ball. I remember after the Calcutta Cup in 1991 David Sole was told the English had accused Scotland of killing the ball. He laughed and said 'We did pick up a few of their tactics' (words to that effect).

    Ritchie Macaw? Yes he's a master of doing exactly what every flanker in the world does or tries to do; get to the ball first, stay on your feet and rip the ball away. The man who is there first usually get pulled down into the ruck by the opposing players when they arrive. The media and coaches try to influence the refs by saying certain players 'cheat', and idiots believe them.

    you just did comment on it, and showed your own 'bigotry' in the preceding paragraphs. In fact you made the sweeping generalisation which Brodizzle responded too.

    If you watched the match you would have known that neither team crossed the line. England came close, but so did South Africa a couple of times.
     
  19. fcukernaut

    fcukernaut Guest



    The reason England tried to play running rugby was because thier lineout was completely ineffective. To play an effective 10 man/kicking game you need to be able to control your own lineout. Without getting clean ball from the lineout you can't control possession. South Africa just forced their hand and England changed their style. And as you could see they were incapable of playing running rugby. SA weren't even playing a rush defence most of the night, they were just playing a simple drift defence.
     
  20. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    Drift defence isn't much use when the ball is constantly getting dropped on it's way through the hands though.
     


  21. The reason England tried to play running rugby was because thier lineout was completely ineffective. To play an effective 10 man/kicking game you need to be able to control your own lineout. Without getting clean ball from the lineout you can't control possession. South Africa just forced their hand and England changed their style. And as you could see they were incapable of playing running rugby. SA weren't even playing a rush defence most of the night, they were just playing a simple drift defence.

    [/b][/quote]



    South Africa dominated the lineout, so England changed their style. Agreed.



    The rest of that is quite frankly bonkers. South Africa played a drift defense because it is the best way to counter Wilkinson. Rush up on him and he'll simply use chips and inside balls to cut you open.



    As it was, South Africa forced England to ship the ball wider. While Tait had a good game (you'll note that when the Boks did try to blitz him, he slipped their tackles.) he doesn't have the weight to punch through a heavily built South African centre combination. Yet.



    A drift defense needs just as much timing, coordination and skill to utilise as a blitz defense. Did it work? Yes. Almost perfectly. Tactically the Boks were spot on. I don't understand the criticism.
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page