Clarkson: "Ruck off you nancy Aussies!"

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'> Here'sm not forgetting the new changes to the offside law which now make it illegal to make a tackle...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S54fHOLVulY&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S54fHOLVulY&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
[/b]

Hmmm. Once Burger received the ball, wasn't that the new offside line? Too complicated, but maybe that's a "hard cases make bad law" example.

Love the "arrrrrround" from the pundit.
[/b][/quote]

Yeah but in the spit second in which the offload was made, the situation had completely changed. There is no way on this earth that players or even officials are going to be able to adapt to such rapid changes in what is and is not offside!

Bad law. Period.

 

[KZNSharksFan]

<div class='quotemain'> Here'sm not forgetting the new changes to the offside law which now make it illegal to make a tackle...

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/S54fHOLVulY&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/S54fHOLVulY&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
[/b]

Hmmm. Once Burger received the ball, wasn't that the new offside line? Too complicated, but maybe that's a "hard cases make bad law" example.

Love the "arrrrrround" from the pundit.
[/b][/quote]

Thats Naas Botha

 

[shtove]

Legend - who I wouldn't recognise if he passed me in the street. The boycott deprived us of a lot of good SA rugby.

 

[redunderthebed]

The boycott deprived us of a lot of good SA rugby. [/b]

missing out on some good rugby players>>>>>>giving creedence to a vile regime and idea


I wholeheartedly support ELV's its made rugby faster and more attacking whilst not compromising the basics which make rugby great.

 

[Bullitt]

Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say.

 

[redunderthebed]

Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say. [/b]

As i said before if this was created by cambridge university not stellenbosch there wouldnt be a shout of protest by the NH nations.

I never said it did but it has made it more free flowing and attacking.I mean teams will still use negative tactics but there is less room for it.

 

[Steve-o]

Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say.
[/b]

How many S14 games have you watched?

If you have, in which round was it?

Most of the teams struggled in the beginning, but nowdays it seems like 2nd nature to most, if not all, the teams.

WAY less aimless kicking, it's basically the same as it was under the old rules now.

Heck! Sometimes I forget we're testing new rules

 

[Prestwick]

<div class='quotemain'>
The boycott deprived us of a lot of good SA rugby. [/b]

missing out on some good rugby players>>>>>>giving creedence to a vile regime and idea


[/b][/quote]

Just checking, but do you support calls to boycott nations like robert mugabe's zimbabwe, sudan or totalitarian china in sport?

 

[redunderthebed]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'>
The boycott deprived us of a lot of good SA rugby. [/b]

missing out on some good rugby players>>>>>>giving creedence to a vile regime and idea


[/b][/quote]

Just checking, but do you support calls to boycott nations like robert mugabe's zimbabwe, sudan or totalitarian china in sport? [/b][/quote]

China isnt totalitarian first thing first so no i dont in the slightest and what sudan is doing in darfur is totally wrong so yeah i would and Zimbabwe well Robert Mugabe is on borrowed time so i think the horse has left the gate on that one.

South Africa was a special case not only was it a bad regime the idea behind it all was totally vile and needed to be defeated.

<div class='quotemain'>
Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say.
[/b]

How many S14 games have you watched?

If you have, in which round was it?

Most of the teams struggled in the beginning, but nowdays it seems like 2nd nature to most, if not all, the teams.

WAY less aimless kicking, it's basically the same as it was under the old rules now.

Heck! Sometimes I forget we're testing new rules [/b][/quote]

Yes your right it hasnt brought massive change but its being noticeable.Now after 7 round its 2nd nature and everyone has gone on with it like professionals.

 

[Ripper]

Legend - who I wouldn't recognise if he passed me in the street. The boycott deprived us of a lot of good SA rugby. [/b]

Never stopped the All Blacks from touring. Even risked getting booted out of the Commonwealth and ruining the Olympics, now that's what you call a dedicated rival.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotemain'> Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say. [/b]

As i said before if this was created by cambridge university not stellenbosch there wouldnt be a shout of protest by the NH nations.

I never said it did but it has made it more free flowing and attacking.I mean teams will still use negative tactics but there is less room for it.
[/b][/quote]

Let's face facts, these rules were created to minimise the scrum and maul aspects of the game. Why? Because every time a Tri nation comes and plays England, Italy, Argentina or France they get merked at scrumtime. It's the one area of the game the Northern Hemisphere that we do so much better than in the south, what right have the Tri nations got to try and take that away from us?

Rugby is rugby is rugby, minor changes like they've had over the years, such as being able to call mark in the air, don't make too much difference. Big changes are unnecessary. If you want a game that's fast and flowing, watch basketball or something else. Union as it is comprises so many different aspects you can't just remove one because it doesn't look so good...

 

[Steve-o]

Genius, my ginger brother, please educate yourself!
FACT: On average, there are more scrums per game, and less lineouts (strong point of the Boks) with the ELV's in place.

And since when has Italy and France ever been better scrummagers than SA?

 

[nam97]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say. [/b]

As i said before if this was created by cambridge university not stellenbosch there wouldnt be a shout of protest by the NH nations.

I never said it did but it has made it more free flowing and attacking.I mean teams will still use negative tactics but there is less room for it.
[/b][/quote]

Let's face facts, these rules were created to minimise the scrum and maul aspects of the game. Why? Because every time a Tri nation comes and plays England, Italy, Argentina or France they get merked at scrumtime. It's the one area of the game the Northern Hemisphere that we do so much better than in the south, what right have the Tri nations got to try and take that away from us?

Rugby is rugby is rugby, minor changes like they've had over the years, such as being able to call mark in the air, don't make too much difference. Big changes are unnecessary. If you want a game that's fast and flowing, watch basketball or something else. Union as it is comprises so many different aspects you can't just remove one because it doesn't look so good...
[/b][/quote]

2 out of the 3 tri nations teams have better scrums than any scrum participating in the 6 nations. If anything, taking the "scrum away from you" will only benefit your cause.

 

[Maccaweeny]

The ELV's were proposed by the IRB, not SANZAR you ranga. A board was set up two years ago to try and deal with some of the deadlocks which have slowed down the modern game, incidentally the head of the ELV committee is a Scot, not an Aussie, South African, or a Kiwi.

Add to this that your logic is totally untenable, I fail to see your argument. See, thing is bro, out of all the world cups, there has been ONE which has been won by a team not in the tri-nations. That's why one of the criticisms of international rugby is that it's too predictable, because us conspirators in the south (who are incidentally **** at scrum time) still manage to dominate NH sides, making the WC less than an open-ended competition.

So, tell me this, why would the IRB want to make world rugby even more of a one-sided affair by weakening NH sides? What benefit is there in that?

 

[Ripper]

<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say. [/b]

As i said before if this was created by cambridge university not stellenbosch there wouldnt be a shout of protest by the NH nations.

I never said it did but it has made it more free flowing and attacking.I mean teams will still use negative tactics but there is less room for it.
[/b][/quote]

Let's face facts, these rules were created to minimise the scrum and maul aspects of the game. Why? Because every time a Tri nation comes and plays England, Italy, Argentina or France they get merked at scrumtime. It's the one area of the game the Northern Hemisphere that we do so much better than in the south, what right have the Tri nations got to try and take that away from us? [/b][/quote]

I disagree

Signed,
Mike Cron

Also liked this post on thesilverfern forum...

I understand that conspiracy theories run rampant, but does the "Australian plot" actually hold water?

My recollection of events is that IRB president Syd Millar recommended new amendments. Syd Millar was an Irish international and a British Lion. Sorry, not an Okker.

The IRB subsequently established the LPG (Laws Project Group). The IRB LPG chairman was Bill Nolan, the Scottish Council Member of the IRB. With me so far...? That's an Irishman and a Scot -- in agreement with one another -- and somehow the Irish and English, as your firsthand witness above attests, have their heels dug in that this is an Australian plot. O-kay, nobody said conspiracy theories had to make sense for them to gain momentum. Moving on...

The Vice-Chairman of the IRB LPG is Bill Beaumont. Bill's not an Okker, either. He's English, and another British Lion. Sorry whizzkids, but looking at this from the top down, it's hard to see the underpinnings of an Australian plot here.

The rest of the IRB LPG included Pierre Villepreux (France), Rod MacQueen (Australia), Ian McIntosh (South Africa), Richie Dixon (Scotland), and Paddy O'Brien (New Zealand).

On the balance of things, I'd say the initiative and development of these laws is international, and more from the side of NH unions than it is Sanzar, to say anything of appointing the blame solely on the ARU and the weakened Wallaby scrum.[/b]

 

[Prestwick]

China isnt totalitarian first thing first so no i dont in the slightest and what sudan is doing in darfur is totally wrong so yeah i would and Zimbabwe well Robert Mugabe is on borrowed time so i think the horse has left the gate on that one.

South Africa was a special case not only was it a bad regime the idea behind it all was totally vile and needed to be defeated. [/b]

I completely disagree that China is not totalitarian, however, thats for another debate/argument. As for Zimbabwe, I was just asking as there is a lobby of politicians/apologists in the UK, the so-called champagne socialists, who are usually too embarrased to speak out against Mugabe and his cabal as well as other African 'strongmen' because usually those leaders were the same guys they were parading around British University campuses like dancing monkies in the 1960s and 70s.

Thus, while they (quite rightly) backed the ban on international sport for South Africa, since the late 1990s, they've dithered on nations like Zimbabwe. England is a case in point in Cricket with the UK Government unwilling to take steps to protect England and the ECB from punishment for refusing to tour Zimbabwe. Absolutely shameful and smacks of double standards, even more so that its so late in the day now for such action.

 

[gingergenius]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> Really, so it's not created much more aimless passing leading to aimless kicking downfield?

Whatever you say. [/b]

As i said before if this was created by cambridge university not stellenbosch there wouldnt be a shout of protest by the NH nations.

I never said it did but it has made it more free flowing and attacking.I mean teams will still use negative tactics but there is less room for it.
[/b][/quote]

Let's face facts, these rules were created to minimise the scrum and maul aspects of the game. Why? Because every time a Tri nation comes and plays England, Italy, Argentina or France they get merked at scrumtime. It's the one area of the game the Northern Hemisphere that we do so much better than in the south, what right have the Tri nations got to try and take that away from us? [/b][/quote]

I disagree

Signed,
Mike Cron

Also liked this post on thesilverfern forum...

I understand that conspiracy theories run rampant, but does the "Australian plot" actually hold water?

My recollection of events is that IRB president Syd Millar recommended new amendments. Syd Millar was an Irish international and a British Lion. Sorry, not an Okker.

The IRB subsequently established the LPG (Laws Project Group). The IRB LPG chairman was Bill Nolan, the Scottish Council Member of the IRB. With me so far...? That's an Irishman and a Scot -- in agreement with one another -- and somehow the Irish and English, as your firsthand witness above attests, have their heels dug in that this is an Australian plot. O-kay, nobody said conspiracy theories had to make sense for them to gain momentum. Moving on...

The Vice-Chairman of the IRB LPG is Bill Beaumont. Bill's not an Okker, either. He's English, and another British Lion. Sorry whizzkids, but looking at this from the top down, it's hard to see the underpinnings of an Australian plot here.

The rest of the IRB LPG included Pierre Villepreux (France), Rod MacQueen (Australia), Ian McIntosh (South Africa), Richie Dixon (Scotland), and Paddy O’Brien (New Zealand).

On the balance of things, I'd say the initiative and development of these laws is international, and more from the side of NH unions than it is Sanzar, to say anything of appointing the blame solely on the ARU and the weakened Wallaby scrum.[/b]

[/b][/quote]

At the end of the day, the game as it is is perfectly OK. We've just witnessed the best world cup ever. At the top level in the Northern Hemisphere the games are high-intensity, physical and there are plenty of creative players out there. Why would you want to change it? To make the game more entertaining for spectators? Well, it's all good seeing high scoring games but a lot of the fun in rugby comes from the tight games. Fair enough it might be more exciting to see Australia's backline moving, but in a tight knockout game it's awesome seeing a team chokehold a game with a powerful scrum and a good fly half.

Why change?

 

[redunderthebed]

<div class='quotemain'>China isnt totalitarian first thing first so no i dont in the slightest and what sudan is doing in darfur is totally wrong so yeah i would and Zimbabwe well Robert Mugabe is on borrowed time so i think the horse has left the gate on that one.

South Africa was a special case not only was it a bad regime the idea behind it all was totally vile and needed to be defeated. [/b]

however, thats for another debate/argument. As for Zimbabwe, I was just asking as there is a lobby of politicians/apologists in the UK, the so-called champagne socialists, who are usually too embarrased to speak out against Mugabe and his cabal as well as other African 'strongmen' because usually those leaders were the same guys they were parading around British University campuses like dancing monkies in the 1960s and 70s.


[/b][/quote]



I think that mugabe was a good guy once upon a time who helped free zimbabwe from a racist regime and british colonialism.Now he is a despot who doesnt give a f**k about the people and will try to screw them over to keep power at every step. (although he might be gone since he lost the parliamentary elections if the opposition put there differences aside).

 

[Ripper]

<div class='quotemain'>China isnt totalitarian first thing first so no i dont in the slightest and what sudan is doing in darfur is totally wrong so yeah i would and Zimbabwe well Robert Mugabe is on borrowed time so i think the horse has left the gate on that one.

South Africa was a special case not only was it a bad regime the idea behind it all was totally vile and needed to be defeated. [/b]

I completely disagree that China is not totalitarian, however, thats for another debate/argument. As for Zimbabwe, I was just asking as there is a lobby of politicians/apologists in the UK, the so-called champagne socialists, who are usually too embarrased to speak out against Mugabe and his cabal as well as other African 'strongmen' because usually those leaders were the same guys they were parading around British University campuses like dancing monkies in the 1960s and 70s.

Thus, while they (quite rightly) backed the ban on international sport for South Africa, since the late 1990s, they've dithered on nations like Zimbabwe. England is a case in point in Cricket with the UK Government unwilling to take steps to protect England and the ECB from punishment for refusing to tour Zimbabwe. Absolutely shameful and smacks of double standards, even more so that its so late in the day now for such action.
[/b][/quote]

Sounds like the Green Party in NZ and anyone who mentions their love affair with Pol Pot.

 

[redunderthebed]

<div class='quotemain'> <div class='quotemain'>China isnt totalitarian first thing first so no i dont in the slightest and what sudan is doing in darfur is totally wrong so yeah i would and Zimbabwe well Robert Mugabe is on borrowed time so i think the horse has left the gate on that one.

South Africa was a special case not only was it a bad regime the idea behind it all was totally vile and needed to be defeated. [/b]

I completely disagree that China is not totalitarian, however, thats for another debate/argument. As for Zimbabwe, I was just asking as there is a lobby of politicians/apologists in the UK, the so-called champagne socialists, who are usually too embarrased to speak out against Mugabe and his cabal as well as other African 'strongmen' because usually those leaders were the same guys they were parading around British University campuses like dancing monkies in the 1960s and 70s.

Thus, while they (quite rightly) backed the ban on international sport for South Africa, since the late 1990s, they've dithered on nations like Zimbabwe. England is a case in point in Cricket with the UK Government unwilling to take steps to protect England and the ECB from punishment for refusing to tour Zimbabwe. Absolutely shameful and smacks of double standards, even more so that its so late in the day now for such action.
[/b][/quote]

Sounds like the Green Party in NZ and anyone who mentions their love affair with Pol Pot.
[/b][/quote]



:blink: WTF? even before all the s**t went down he was completely batshit.