P
Prestwick
Guest
It'll make the heads of a few luvvies explode in England and South Africa let me tell you that!
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
It'll make the heads of a few luvvies explode in England and South Africa let me tell you that!
K
Klarkash-ton
Guest
No, it wasn't the first World Cup Final with no try. The other one was in 1995 - you know, the only one which featured two SH sides.
[/b][/quote]
well, SA had a try that looked perfectly good to me ruled out (in 1995 I mean).
F
feicarsinn
Guest
some would make the smae arguement about england and it really went down to the wire (see poll by me)
D
diehardkiwi07
Guest
Your f##*ing kidding me mate :lol2tn: ... Remember this time last week??
who were the one's giving kiwis aresholes :lol: :lol:
K
Klarkash-ton
Guest
No, it's quite the opposite.
A penalty try is awarded if a try was CERTAIN to have been scored if the infringment had not have been made. It is very rare that the ref can be that for certain. In this example there were other defenders in the area (one tackled Cueto for example) which would have been a factor. A rule of thumb is if advantage is being played and a try is NOT scored then a penalty try is unlikely. I can't think of any exceptions, but I'm sure there would be some
At least Rolland had the presence of mind to come back for the penalty. I can give you plenty of examples where the ref hasn't gone back.
B
Bullitt
Guest
Your f##*ing kidding me mate :lol2tn: ... Remember this time last week??
who were the one's giving kiwis aresholes :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Like everything else you post, that made absoloutely no sense. Now hush up little boy before you choke on something.
S
SaintsFan_Webby
Guest
While not the greatest match ever in terms of spectacle, what made this event spectacular was the party atmosphere from everyone, both English and South African. I spoke to and shook the hand of many South Africans in London, as I believe they were the most consistently excellent side of the tournament. However, as English supporters we sung just as hard in defeat as in victory. Can't fault the passion of the team, just didn't quite have the cutting edge in the end. Except Matthew Tait, who I thought had a cracking game.
Was adament that Cueto had scored at the time, but having seen a couple of replays when sober I'm so sure. What really killed us were the inconsistant decisions on crossing. Might not have swung the match our way, but the frustration was palpable.
Congratulations to the Boks. The vast majority I met were hugely humble and modest in defeat.
Kiwis - you have a hell of a lot to live up to as hosts in 2011.
Was adament that Cueto had scored at the time, but having seen a couple of replays when sober I'm so sure. What really killed us were the inconsistant decisions on crossing. Might not have swung the match our way, but the frustration was palpable.
Congratulations to the Boks. The vast majority I met were hugely humble and modest in defeat.
Kiwis - you have a hell of a lot to live up to as hosts in 2011.
K
Klarkash-ton
Guest
And we all know what happens when England are 2 points down in the last 10 minutes, eh?
[/b][/quote]
sheesh, you guys need to learn some basic math. Rolland brought them back for the penalty after the failed advantage. Wilkinson slotted it for three points, England only missed out on 2 points . The conversion would have been much harder and no certainty, but even if he had made it, it's still a 4 point difference, not 7.
to summarise for the brains trust: 15-8, or 15-10. Drop goal not the answer here.
K
Klarkash-ton
Guest
Ooops, almost forgot, WELL DONE South Africa!
E
esoj
Guest
I think someone had one too many after a certain result didn't go their way.
I would say 99% of people posting in here have congratulated SA on the win and england for making it to the final. the ones making all the fuss are shock horror the english fans.
S
sanzar
Guest
I'm an Aussie and I got up at 5am to watch the thing...
But anyway, to the match: In all honesty this really reminded me of the final of 2003 in a lot of ways because pretty much no-one in Australia expected the wallabies to make the final. But somehow we were there, and despite being a lesser team probably than both the ABs and England, the wallabies passion and grit managed to beat NZ and force England to fight to the absolute death. This years final felt very much the same. It wasn't a classic in the same category as the 2003 final, but it was similar in that the Boks were clearly a superior team to an England that wasn't even expected to make the final. But on pure grit and determinatination alone they were there and they made the boks fight pretty hard for their crown.
No it wasn't a classic, but it was still tense enthralling rugby.
Congratulations SA!
R
Ripper
Guest
Your f##*ing kidding me mate :lol2tn: ... Remember this time last week??
who were the one's giving kiwis aresholes :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
Like everything else you post, that made absoloutely no sense. Now hush up little boy before you choke on something. [/b][/quote]
Way to prove his point...
and lolz at Jonny "Miss a Drop Goal with time ticking down and numbers out wide" Wilkinson.
M
melon
Guest
Hmmm well I as a "convict asshole" (thank you for that one Teh Mite), wholeheartedly applaud England for getting to the final against all odds and am ecstatic for South Africa for their win.
Now lets take a look at all this talk about southerners (in particular Australians and Kiwis) apparently giving it to the English. This is null and void as soon as an Englishman starts being a sore loser (*cough* Teh Mite *cough*), jumps the gun and takes it out on all of us down here before we even say anything (although most of us haven't said a bad thing about England losing). I suppose maybe because we knew they were going to lose? Nonetheless, hardly any of "us" are bagging England.
If this is how one of the three supposed managers of this wonderful site goes on, then its an absolute disgrace. If a normal member went on like that they'd be warned or even banned straight away.
Now lets take a look at all this talk about southerners (in particular Australians and Kiwis) apparently giving it to the English. This is null and void as soon as an Englishman starts being a sore loser (*cough* Teh Mite *cough*), jumps the gun and takes it out on all of us down here before we even say anything (although most of us haven't said a bad thing about England losing). I suppose maybe because we knew they were going to lose? Nonetheless, hardly any of "us" are bagging England.
If this is how one of the three supposed managers of this wonderful site goes on, then its an absolute disgrace. If a normal member went on like that they'd be warned or even banned straight away.
S
stormmaster1
Guest
I'm an Aussie and I got up at 5am to watch the thing...
But anyway, to the match: In all honesty this really reminded me of the final of 2003 in a lot of ways because pretty much no-one in Australia expected the wallabies to make the final. But somehow we were there, and despite being a lesser team probably than both the ABs and England, the wallabies passion and grit managed to beat NZ and force England to fight to the absolute death. This years final felt very much the same. It wasn't a classic in the same category as the 2003 final, but it was similar in that the Boks were clearly a superior team to an England that wasn't even expected to make the final. But on pure grit and determinatination alone they were there and they made the boks fight pretty hard for their crown.
No it wasn't a classic, but it was still tense enthralling rugby.
Congratulations SA! [/b][/quote]
Pretty true. I remember in 2003 the lineout was a great contest: lots of stolen/contested ball from both sides but SA really got England at the lineout on saturday. Well done matfield and co. As an England fan the only disappointment (other than the result) was than we made it easy for SA. So much of their points were from needless penalties and it really cost us. SA didn't have to work as hard for their points, but they did work tirelessly and efficiently in defence. Particularly the front 5 and Fourie (i think) who was on the line and rushed in on whichever White shirt passed to Cueto before the not-quite-a-try-but-so-close. A few mistakes less and SA would have had to play more, rather than kick and wait for errors/stolen line-outs. I think SA had enough in the armoury to score more had it been closer, i just wish we hadn't made it easy for them. That all said i can't fault the English effort in the final or any match since the SA pool game. Well done South Africa, deserving champions, condolances to the English squad, but i hope they take some of that grit and passion and fight as hard in the 6N.
B
Bullitt
Guest
Please point out where exactly in my post I was a sore loser, and have at any point discredited SA for their achievement, I'll let you have that.
Here, read it again;
So if you insist on bleating, (strangely enough you're bleating about my remak you'd all be bleating :blink: ) as is the only thing I pre-emptively made a STFU remark to the same people who will inevitably take a cheep dig at England as we're always fair game (yet anyone else takes offense if we give it back) as they have been doing for the whole tournament so far, at least have a point and don't post bullshit about what I have and havn't been saying. Pillock.
A
Aeros
Guest
And we all know what happens when England are 2 points down in the last 10 minutes, eh?
[/b][/quote]
sheesh, you guys need to learn some basic math. Rolland brought them back for the penalty after the failed advantage. Wilkinson slotted it for three points, England only missed out on 2 points . The conversion would have been much harder and no certainty, but even if he had made it, it's still a 4 point difference, not 7.
to summarise for the brains trust: 15-8, or 15-10. Drop goal not the answer here.
[/b][/quote]
You're correct, of course, I forgot about the penalty. Wilko probably would've slotted that conversion, though.
S
stormmaster1
Guest
And we all know what happens when England are 2 points down in the last 10 minutes, eh?
[/b][/quote]
sheesh, you guys need to learn some basic math. Rolland brought them back for the penalty after the failed advantage. Wilkinson slotted it for three points, England only missed out on 2 points . The conversion would have been much harder and no certainty, but even if he had made it, it's still a 4 point difference, not 7.
to summarise for the brains trust: 15-8, or 15-10. Drop goal not the answer here.
[/b][/quote]
You're correct, of course, I forgot about the penalty. Wilko probably would've slotted that conversion, though.
[/b][/quote]
Changing England's score by 2-4 points is rather pointless as a try would have changed the match. SA were in control before and after the non-try. Had it been scored and converted then England leading 45 minutes in is a different ball game. SA would have had to attack more probably and England would have had much more confidence and momentum. Who knows what would have happened. But sport is full of so many what ifs.
A
Aeros
Guest
True, but look what happened to Argentina after they scored their try. SA went on all-out attack and destroyed them. But yes - I hate what-if's myself. What's done is done and all that. It's the same as saying "If SA fielded a third-rate team and England fielded 2 players, the match would have been different".
At the moment I'm just sitting here hoping the IRB will tell SARFU "Get rid of the proposed quota system or else".
At the moment I'm just sitting here hoping the IRB will tell SARFU "Get rid of the proposed quota system or else".
P
Prestwick
Guest
Sorry. I've been getting lots of complaints from non English folk about the total lack of arrogance, cursing and shaking of fists in a frustrated manner in only a way that a true (evil) Englishman can.
Well to fill the quota:
CURSE YOU SOUTH AFRICANS! *SHAKES FIST*!
Well to fill the quota:
CURSE YOU SOUTH AFRICANS! *SHAKES FIST*!
A
Aeros
Guest
Aww we love you too Prestwick *tears*
