Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

Forums › Sports › Geekzone Rugby (Union) Discussion Thread

1 | ... | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | ... | 640

2843 posts

Uber Geek

#1413366 25-Oct-2015 09:47

Funny, I was just saying the same thing! 30 plays 15. Or 30 + ref plays 15?

It would have been a travesty if the team that dominated territory and scored two tries was beaten by six penalties.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413394 25-Oct-2015 09:52

linw: Funny, I was just saying the same thing! 30 plays 15. Or 30 + ref plays 15?

It would have been a travesty if the team that dominated territory and scored two tries was beaten by six penalties.

Penalty count was 13 to 6, we won by less than one penalty. Thats toss a coin stuff. Two tries to none, and won by 2, ouch.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29712 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413396 25-Oct-2015 09:58

linw: Funny, I was just saying the same thing! 30 plays 15. Or 30 + ref plays 15?

It would have been a travesty if the team that dominated territory and scored two tries was beaten by six penalties.

So the world should have no problems with Australia beating Scotland, really.

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413407 25-Oct-2015 10:26

Geez

Excerpt from Stuff article on Habana "Springboks wing Bryan Habana didn't have his best game against the All Blacks, incurring costly penalties for South Africa."

This tells me that their game was not about rugger it was about penalties. And a few commentator references to milking penalties. Legal cheating??

Richie elbows a guy, may get outed from the final. How? He ran past the guy, he didn't plant him with his elbow, he ran past him and his elbow caught him. And the guy got up and went about his business. In this case , the SA guy who got blood binned should have had the guy that did that, banned for 3 month? Whats going on here?

Handle9

11241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413409 25-Oct-2015 10:37

I find some of this some what bemusing. The aim of each teams game plan is to give you the best chance to win, not to score the most tries or hold the ball the most. South Africa went in with a plan to force penalties and slow the game down as it gave them the best chance to win. When Carter took the drop goal early on in the second half it filled me with a lot more confidence as it showed they were focused on winning, not playing attractive rugby.

Similarly the All Blacks wanted to play a territory game and turn around the big SA pack. One of the most pleasing thing about this all blacks side is that they just want to win, they don't buy into the BS about expressing themselves or any of that clap trap. If they think that going wide gives them a better chance of winning they do that, if they think that kicking gives them a better chance they kick.

If they play Australia next week I think they will kick a fair bit to negate Pocock and also because the All Black line out is dominant. Whitelock, and particularly Kieran Reid, are winning at least 20% of the throws they contest.

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413412 25-Oct-2015 10:50

I get that. Its about the win, thats fine with me. We intended to play a low try scoring game in order to keep them off our half. And we snuck in two ties, one of which was marginal in terms of the pass to Barrett. Thats all good, but if you play that game, then you cannot gift 18 penalty points to SA. Glad the forward pass to Barrett wasnt whistled. Glad DC got his first drop goal in forever. Two tries to nil in a game that both teams played to be defensive, and we just got home, but IMO for the wrong reasons. Two tries in a intentionally played low scoring game is huge, but all they did was offset our gifting points. Thats a toss a coin game IMO.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413422 25-Oct-2015 11:08

tdgeek: I get that. Its about the win, thats fine with me. We intended to play a low try scoring game in order to keep them off our half. And we snuck in two ties, one of which was marginal in terms of the pass to Barrett. Thats all good, but if you play that game, then you cannot gift 18 penalty points to SA. Glad the forward pass to Barrett wasnt whistled. Glad DC got his first drop goal in forever. Two tries to nil in a game that both teams played to be defensive, and we just got home, but IMO for the wrong reasons. Two tries in a intentionally played low scoring game is huge, but all they did was offset our gifting points. Thats a toss a coin game IMO.

Forward pass? It wasn't even close to looking like it could have been a forward pass to any sane rugby fan.

OK, perhaps if you are one of those simpletons who ignores physics and thinks a pass is forward if anytime the receiver catches it in front of where it left the passers hands as defined by a static line on the field, but surely ardent fans of the game understand how it works better than that?

Here is the pass in question https://youtu.be/lorIlSSg6cA?t=55

Look at how deep Barrett is. Look how it comes out of the hands. I seriously had to wonder if there was another Barrett try you might be thinking of.

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413424 25-Oct-2015 11:09

Wow that was a tight game. I didn't sleep well last night waiting. I don't recall being this tense for a while.

I am not sure what the SB's thought they were playing for, but it obviously wasn't tries. They didn't even look likely. To my mind it would have been a travesty for the SB's to win.

I think they are looking at McCaw for an elbow to a SB player. I have had a look at it, I can't see anything there. If he gets cited I predict a 1 week ban at most, and I suspect they will suspend it for his outstanding record. If not I believe a strong appeal will be launched. If he missed this final I think I would lose a lot of my faith in the Rugby Gods.

You could call Richie many things, but a dirty player isn't one of them.

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413426 25-Oct-2015 11:16

blair003:
tdgeek: I get that. Its about the win, thats fine with me. We intended to play a low try scoring game in order to keep them off our half. And we snuck in two ties, one of which was marginal in terms of the pass to Barrett. Thats all good, but if you play that game, then you cannot gift 18 penalty points to SA. Glad the forward pass to Barrett wasnt whistled. Glad DC got his first drop goal in forever. Two tries to nil in a game that both teams played to be defensive, and we just got home, but IMO for the wrong reasons. Two tries in a intentionally played low scoring game is huge, but all they did was offset our gifting points. Thats a toss a coin game IMO.

Forward pass? It wasn't even close to looking like it could have been a forward pass to any sane rugby fan.

OK, perhaps if you are one of those simpletons who ignores physics and thinks a pass is forward if anytime the receiver catches it in front of where it left the passers hands as defined by a static line on the field, but surely ardent fans of the game understand how it works better than that?

Here is the pass in question https://youtu.be/lorIlSSg6cA?t=55

Look at how deep Barrett is. Look how it comes out of the hands. I seriously had to wonder if there was another Barrett try you might be thinking of.

Tks for that, I'll pass the simpleton comment to the other poster here and to the commentator who mentioned it

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413427 25-Oct-2015 11:19

tdgeek:
blair003:
tdgeek: I get that. Its about the win, thats fine with me. We intended to play a low try scoring game in order to keep them off our half. And we snuck in two ties, one of which was marginal in terms of the pass to Barrett. Thats all good, but if you play that game, then you cannot gift 18 penalty points to SA. Glad the forward pass to Barrett wasnt whistled. Glad DC got his first drop goal in forever. Two tries to nil in a game that both teams played to be defensive, and we just got home, but IMO for the wrong reasons. Two tries in a intentionally played low scoring game is huge, but all they did was offset our gifting points. Thats a toss a coin game IMO.

Forward pass? It wasn't even close to looking like it could have been a forward pass to any sane rugby fan.

OK, perhaps if you are one of those simpletons who ignores physics and thinks a pass is forward if anytime the receiver catches it in front of where it left the passers hands as defined by a static line on the field, but surely ardent fans of the game understand how it works better than that?

Here is the pass in question https://youtu.be/lorIlSSg6cA?t=55

Look at how deep Barrett is. Look how it comes out of the hands. I seriously had to wonder if there was another Barrett try you might be thinking of.

Tks for that, I'll pass the simpleton comment to the other poster here and to the commentator who mentioned it

Thanks - the more people we can get up to speed on what constitutes a forward pass, the better.

There is an explanation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgMlDy2jP9s

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413429 25-Oct-2015 11:21

networkn: Wow that was a tight game. I didn't sleep well last night waiting. I don't recall being this tense for a while.

I am not sure what the SB's thought they were playing for, but it obviously wasn't tries. They didn't even look likely. To my mind it would have been a travesty for the SB's to win.

I think they are looking at McCaw for an elbow to a SB player. I have had a look at it, I can't see anything there. If he gets cited I predict a 1 week ban at most, and I suspect they will suspend it for his outstanding record. If not I believe a strong appeal will be launched. If he missed this final I think I would lose a lot of my faith in the Rugby Gods.

You could call Richie many things, but a dirty player isn't one of them.

I'd say SA wasn't wanting tries for themselves or the AB's, to play that dour up the middle boring game and milk penalties. That they did well.

The elbow shouldn't be seen as anything. Who is saying he might be cited? Or is it just a journo? Im not sure any official has said anything, they have 48 hours to if they wanted to, I bet they don't. He ran past and clipped him, he got up and went on as normal. News filler sensation???

Handle9

11241 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413431 25-Oct-2015 11:29

It's the sort of thing that happens in world cups. The trivial becomes the crucial. To a certain extent it's just paper talk but if I'm Michael Cheika I'd be making sure it's in all the papers I can to create a distraction.

blair003

557 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1413432 25-Oct-2015 11:30

tdgeek:
networkn: Wow that was a tight game. I didn't sleep well last night waiting. I don't recall being this tense for a while.

I am not sure what the SB's thought they were playing for, but it obviously wasn't tries. They didn't even look likely. To my mind it would have been a travesty for the SB's to win.

I think they are looking at McCaw for an elbow to a SB player. I have had a look at it, I can't see anything there. If he gets cited I predict a 1 week ban at most, and I suspect they will suspend it for his outstanding record. If not I believe a strong appeal will be launched. If he missed this final I think I would lose a lot of my faith in the Rugby Gods.

You could call Richie many things, but a dirty player isn't one of them.

I'd say SA wasn't wanting tries for themselves or the AB's, to play that dour up the middle boring game and milk penalties. That they did well.

The elbow shouldn't be seen as anything. Who is saying he might be cited? Or is it just a journo? Im not sure any official has said anything, they have 48 hours to if they wanted to, I bet they don't. He ran past and clipped him, he got up and went on as normal. News filler sensation???

Just journo's from what I have seen - its clickbait/sensation like you say.

If they cite that they would be citing dozens of incidents in each game.

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413437 25-Oct-2015 11:42

blair003:
tdgeek:
networkn: Wow that was a tight game. I didn't sleep well last night waiting. I don't recall being this tense for a while.

I am not sure what the SB's thought they were playing for, but it obviously wasn't tries. They didn't even look likely. To my mind it would have been a travesty for the SB's to win.

I think they are looking at McCaw for an elbow to a SB player. I have had a look at it, I can't see anything there. If he gets cited I predict a 1 week ban at most, and I suspect they will suspend it for his outstanding record. If not I believe a strong appeal will be launched. If he missed this final I think I would lose a lot of my faith in the Rugby Gods.

You could call Richie many things, but a dirty player isn't one of them.

I'd say SA wasn't wanting tries for themselves or the AB's, to play that dour up the middle boring game and milk penalties. That they did well.

The elbow shouldn't be seen as anything. Who is saying he might be cited? Or is it just a journo? Im not sure any official has said anything, they have 48 hours to if they wanted to, I bet they don't. He ran past and clipped him, he got up and went on as normal. News filler sensation???

Just journo's from what I have seen - its clickbait/sensation like you say.

If they cite that they would be citing dozens of incidents in each game.

Agee.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29712 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1413457 25-Oct-2015 12:21

tdgeek: I get that. Its about the win, thats fine with me. We intended to play a low try scoring game in order to keep them off our half. And we snuck in two ties, one of which was marginal in terms of the pass to Barrett. Thats all good, but if you play that game, then you cannot gift 18 penalty points to SA. Glad the forward pass to Barrett wasnt whistled. Glad DC got his first drop goal in forever. Two tries to nil in a game that both teams played to be defensive, and we just got home, but IMO for the wrong reasons. Two tries in a intentionally played low scoring game is huge, but all they did was offset our gifting points. Thats a toss a coin game IMO.

Nobody has a game plan to score as few tries as possible lol.

The way i read it they want to pin the Boks in their corner and challenge them into mistakes and play a territory game And attack them from inside their 22. We got tries doing that.

The alternative is grind metre by metre by metre slowly into the 22. Did you see how good their tackling and turn over ability was?

So i rate them 8/10 on their execution of game plan. Yeah the other 2/10 gave away lots of penalties but that's the way it is. If you are suggesting a crap match then this must be your first RWC.

1 | ... | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | ... | 640