• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

New Zealand Vs Australia

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (C A Iversen @ Jul 20 2009, 09:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Jul 20 2009, 08:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can't just go out and do what McCaw does, he's a finely tuned athletic machine like most professional players, I play Number 7 on occasions, and my team is **** so I usually have no support and get smashed for 80 mins while trying to steal the ball and turn it over, Schalk didn't get nickname wreckingball without a chain for no reason.....[/b]

I'd rather be George Smith, Palu or Phil Waugh (modelling career and all) than Schalk.
[/b][/quote]

I will give you Smith, very marginal between Phil and Schalk(go for Schalk extra line option) but Palu come on bud.
 
i've scrolled back a little ways in this thread - guess no one else was bothered by some of the decoy backline running?

believe oz had one passage that had a wall of 5 men with a monster miss pass sent behind them.
i'm tired of this tactic as i think it's negative rugby. technically they're not obstructing any defenders, but they're willfully in front of the ball (offside), and it's lazy when compared to a well executed miss pass with viable receivers running great lines.

anyone else have any thoughts on this?
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (captainamerica @ Jul 20 2009, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
i've scrolled back a little ways in this thread - guess no one else was bothered by some of the decoy backline running?

believe oz had one passage that had a wall of 5 men with a monster miss pass sent behind them.
i'm tired of this tactic as i think it's negative rugby. technically they're not obstructing any defenders, but they're willfully in front of the ball (offside), and it's lazy when compared to a well executed miss pass with viable receivers running great lines.

anyone else have any thoughts on this?[/b]

I did notice that. They tried it at least 4 times in the match and it worked wellish on one occasion but it does look a bit lacking in imagination and a waste of possible targets when they skip so many players.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (captainamerica @ Jul 21 2009, 04:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
i've scrolled back a little ways in this thread - guess no one else was bothered by some of the decoy backline running?

believe oz had one passage that had a wall of 5 men with a monster miss pass sent behind them.
i'm tired of this tactic as i think it's negative rugby. technically they're not obstructing any defenders, but they're willfully in front of the ball (offside), and it's lazy when compared to a well executed miss pass with viable receivers running great lines.

anyone else have any thoughts on this?[/b]


I'm happy enough with that. Those players were not obstructing anyone, although if you wanted to be pedantic, you could argue that they were in front of the passer/ball and affecting play by limiting options. I'd ping them if they prevented a potential intercept.

On the two occasions that their decoy runners did obstruct, Joubert penalised them.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 07:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (captainamerica @ Jul 21 2009, 04:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
i've scrolled back a little ways in this thread - guess no one else was bothered by some of the decoy backline running?

believe oz had one passage that had a wall of 5 men with a monster miss pass sent behind them.
i'm tired of this tactic as i think it's negative rugby. technically they're not obstructing any defenders, but they're willfully in front of the ball (offside), and it's lazy when compared to a well executed miss pass with viable receivers running great lines.

anyone else have any thoughts on this?[/b]


I'm happy enough with that. Those players were not obstructing anyone, although if you wanted to be pedantic, you could argue that they were in front of the passer/ball and affecting play by limiting options. I'd ping them if they prevented a potential intercept.

On the two occasions that their decoy runners did obstruct, Joubert penalised them.
[/b][/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm not going into legalities or claiming anything was done wrong here), but wasn't Robbie Deans coming up with a lot of plays that ran decoys in front of the ball back when he was with the Crusaders? Just seems like he's going down the same kind of road here, albeit more legally.

For me it seems to be allowable, but one of those innovations that the game would be better without.
 
Well there are two types of decoy running plays;

The first type is where a player dummies a pass to one or more fake receivers in order to take the focus off the player who will actually receive the pass. Any Kiwi old enough to have seen the Going brothers work their magic in the North Auckland provincial team will recognise this as what used to be called a dummy-scissors movement. This type of deception is ALWAYS done behind the ball/advantage line, with the object being to create a gap for the ball carrier to run through.

The second type is the one where front runners are used merely distract the opposing defensive line, not necessarily to fool them into thinking they are going to receive the ball. This is the one that the Aussies have been doing for some time. It is always done in front of the ball, and sometimes in front of the advantage line, and it is risky. If a pass is dropped, all those players in the wall are offside, so suddenly, they can find themselves outnumbered at the ball.

In the second example, you could argue that all the players in front of the pass are in fact offside;

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Law 11 Offside and Onside in General Play

DEFINITIONS
.......
In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.

Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalized if they take part in the game.

In general play, a player can be put onside either by an action of a team-mate or by an action of an opponent. However, the offside player cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.[/b]

So all those players in front of the ball have to go back behind the player in their own team who last played the ball.

Now it could be argued that by actively trying to deceive the opposition, they are in fact taking part in the game, i.e. their actions are having an effect or impact on what it happening.
 
maybe the bore blacks can take a leaf out of the wallabies book and try something new rather than kicking up and unders for no apparent reason. hey we're boring, lets just kick the ball in the air because we've got nothing else. seriously, henry has turned the all blacks into the bore black... boring just like he is.
 
Donald only looked good because we won had lost it'll be different. After watching the game many times over his game was very average. Heaps of his kicks went straight up and he got charged down which could of easily lead to a 17-3 lead to the Wallabies. He was just lucky someone was tackling Berrick Barnes when he passed the ball to George Smiths head.

Standout player for me was Jerome Kaino who made alot of very important tackles and charged Matt Giteau's kick and caught the ball before it even touched the ground. All around he was excellent offensive and defensive.

Alot of people are blaming Andrew Hore for our bad lineouts but like Ted said in the post match it also takes 2 lifters and a receiver to get the ball so it can't all fall on him.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 21 2009, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
maybe the bore blacks can take a leaf out of the wallabies book and try something new rather than kicking up and unders for no apparent reason. hey we're boring, lets just kick the ball in the air because we've got nothing else. seriously, henry has turned the all blacks into the bore black... boring just like he is.[/b]

:rolleyes: How I wish there was an "ignore" button on this forum
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 21 2009, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
maybe the bore blacks can take a leaf out of the wallabies book and try something new rather than kicking up and unders for no apparent reason. hey we're boring, lets just kick the ball in the air because we've got nothing else. seriously, henry has turned the all blacks into the bore black... boring just like he is.[/b]

:rolleyes: How I wish there was an "ignore" button on this forum
[/b][/quote]

Go easy on him, first of all the Aussies didn't win in Auckland by 60, then the ******* English ROBBED them of the second Ashes test. It's been a bad weekend for Aussie sport, it's clear to see that frustrations and emotions are running high...
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jul 21 2009, 12:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 21 2009, 01:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 21 2009, 11:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
maybe the bore blacks can take a leaf out of the wallabies book and try something new rather than kicking up and unders for no apparent reason. hey we're boring, lets just kick the ball in the air because we've got nothing else. seriously, henry has turned the all blacks into the bore black... boring just like he is.[/b]

:rolleyes: How I wish there was an "ignore" button on this forum
[/b][/quote]

Go easy on him, first of all the Aussies didn't win in Auckland by 60, then the ******* English ROBBED them of the second Ashes test. It's been a bad weekend for Aussie sport, it's clear to see that frustrations and emotions are running high...
[/b][/quote]

Which has sapped any rationality and reason away. The aussie supporters (not all, but quite a lot really) thought they had those two matches of right. I'm happy to say that being over confident hasn't paid off for once.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Woldog @ Jul 21 2009, 12:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Berrick Barnes kicking it every time makes us the Wallabores.[/b]

Still he can be a hell of a dynamic runner when he does spot a gap. Great try from him.
 
I reckon Barnes is awesome when I first saw him in the Rugby World Cup I thought it was Stephen Larkham. He plays like him and is very skillful and I like the way he runs it's sort of an illusion you think he's going slow but than you look at the players trying to chase and they're burning their bum cracks.
 
look to be honest, it's got nothing to with what's happened recently, especially not with the cricket. speaking purely about rugby, I have been becoming a lot more jaded over the last 5 years and some of my comments on here are out of pure frustration. rule changes and negative styles of play aren't good for the game as a whole.

you might want to ignore me, but at least i'll give you a different point of view to what you read in the dominion or the dicussions you'll have with your kiwi mates.

i payed $90 for my ticket to the bledisloe this year, i'm just hoping i get my money's worth. if i wanted to see a lot of kicking, i'd go watch AFL. I can watch 2 games of AFL for $90 so it's not such a bad deal.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (smartcooky @ Jul 19 2009, 04:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jul 19 2009, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yes, I definitely saw one ruck in the first half when McCaw picked up the ball as if he were the Aus scrumhalf. Result? Penalty NZ![/b]

Yes, and whats more, if its the occasion I am thinking of, the referee was absolutely right. That's because McCaw was the tackler. The peculiarity about the tackled ball Law is that the tackler (and ONLY the tackler) does NOT have to go through the gate. He must release the player, stand up and then he is allowed to play the ball from any direction.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Law 15.4
© The tackler must get up before playing the ball and then may play the ball from any direction.[/b]

Another thing to keep in mind is the new Law ruling (2009 Ruling 4) with regard to the first player to the breakdown, whether he a player arriving or the tackler getting to his feet. Once that player gets his hands on the ball he does NOT have to let go when a ruck forms. He is effectively allowed to continue to try to pick up the ball.

In the case you are referring to, McCaw made the tackle, got to his feet and grabbed the ball. A ruck was then formed, and McCaw ended up legitimately on the Wallaby side of the ruck; legitimately because Ruling 4 says he is allowed to to that. The penalty was against the tackled Wallaby player, for not releasing the ball
[/b][/quote]

He was not the tackler. The tackler was Nonu. McCaw came flying from an angle on the side of the ruck (penalty), the went off his feet (penalty) in the ruck. That's 2 ruck offenses in 2 seconds.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 21 2009, 01:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
look to be honest, it's got nothing to with what's happened recently, especially not with the cricket. speaking purely about rugby, I have been becoming a lot more jaded over the last 5 years and some of my comments on here are out of pure frustration. rule changes and negative styles of play aren't good for the game as a whole.

you might want to ignore me, but at least i'll give you a different point of view to what you read in the dominion or the dicussions you'll have with your kiwi mates.

i payed $90 for my ticket to the bledisloe this year, i'm just hoping i get my money's worth. if i wanted to see a lot of kicking, i'd go watch AFL. I can watch 2 games of AFL for $90 so it's not such a bad deal.[/b]

Whatever you paid to go to the bledisloe, it's a different game in the AFL and you obviously weren't talking about an international game. I'm not too worried about Australians coming on here to have an intelligent discussion, it's the mindless digs about cheating and feelings that you were hard done by thats the stuff of the sandpit.

AK47 comes on and gives his Australian point of view and he doesn't resort to gutter tactics like calling people cheats. He's the kind of poster who makes me occasionally see things from the Australian point of view and maybe agree on the odd point. Sometimes we just disagree, but at least it's some sense being talked. It's not all boring, handshaking and patting each other on the back. You can have an intelligent debate without having to label your opposition in really negative ways. It's the modern style of arguing and all that leads to is *****ing and fighting.

There used to be an even better (in my opinion) Australian poster, called Sanzar. He was an Admin and a bloody legend. He'd be able to argue an issue using his common sense, which is how I like to do it too.

Honestly, whats with reaching for superlatives all the time?

"He is the worst player for the last million years"
"(Insert player name here) is a f**cking cheating ******"
"This ref should be reffing under 8's"
"He kicked the ball 50 times each half"
"He was offside 9 times and the ref never picked it up"

It's the childish language of the internet to overstate everything. Blow up a point to make it much larger and it just shows the poor education of those who over-indulge in it. I'm not saying you can't say something exaggerative once in a while, but if you do it all the time it makes you look fairly dumb.

Where's the shame in applauding your opposition? I know I do it. After the french beat us I was gutted, but realised what a fine team they are capable of being. I know the australians are capable of beating us regularly too.

So, how about balanced and incisive, clever and well thought out posts instead of something about as well orchestrated as throwing a stone though someones window and running off laughing, only to be caught up with and say "It was only a joke man".
 
fair enough, i'll try to be more logical and less emotional in future.

i guess sometimes it's hard over the net to tell the difference between a dig and a joke.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (InsaneAsylum @ Jul 21 2009, 02:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
fair enough, i'll try to be more logical and less emotional in future.

i guess sometimes it's hard over the net to tell the difference between a dig and a joke.[/b]

Well yeah it can be, and I appreciate you taking that this way. I'm sure your not a bad guy, but if your jokes were scattered in amongst more logical comments then it'd make them work a lot better. they just seem relentless as it stands. I'd never say that you couldn't have a few jokes, just a few more logical comments would go down well. I know your defineitly capable of it. Just as capable as Australia is of winning a game against us. :)

By the way, your not the only culprit, and it's not just aussies. It can be kiwi's or anyone.
 

Latest posts

Top