England v Australia
-
Jake White might look a good option, but do Australia have the players to play "Jake Ball", especially with only a year to learn it?
-
@mariner4life said in England v Australia:
Jake White might look a good option, but do Australia have the players to play "Jake Ball", especially with only a year to learn it?
What's to learn?
I'm sure someone else pointed out recently Chieka's resume is pretty good. I'd suggest the real issue isn't him, it's his assistants who have showed nothing regarding competency at SR level and the hopeless structures from the ARU down. Which results in the cattle he has to work with.
As the Tahs showed, merely winning isn't enough - they have to be entertaining.
-
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
@mariner4life said in England v Australia:
Jake White might look a good option, but do Australia have the players to play "Jake Ball", especially with only a year to learn it?
What's to learn?
I'm sure someone else pointed out recently Chieka's resume is pretty good. I'd suggest the real issue isn't him, it's his assistants who have showed nothing regarding competency at SR level and the hopeless structures from the ARU down. Which results in the cattle he has to work with.
As the Tahs showed, merely winning isn't enough - they have to be entertaining.
a halfback and a 10 that can kick is a good start. Can't see either in Australia at the moment.
-
@paekakboyz What defence?
-
@paekakboyz I haven't watched it again but I thought he looked like he was steaming when walking off. Kept stopping and looking back?
-
@nepia said in England v Australia:
@paekakboyz said in England v Australia:
Rodda barely dropped his shoulder so that was a extra layer of bullshit from the ref.
WTF? Is that an actual excuse being trotted out? Some one needs to point me to where in the laws that excuses a no arms tackle (called a shoulder charge when SBW does it). There's no way that should have got Farrell 'off the hook".
Peyper said it to Hooper. Caught on his mic.
Edit
Peyper to Hooper
"I thought your ball carrier also dropped the shoulder"So fucking what Peyper?
-
Are now surmising there is some kind of Peyper-gate, where Eddie's team is being favoured (shock emoje) ahead of the WC?
-
@canefan said in England v Australia:
To be fair a quick read of the article mentions Stuart Barnes and Sir Clive both went on record to say Owen was damn lucky. Not quite as strong as the 'All Blacks shamelessly cynical' narrative
Jesus Christ. That's like a broken clock being right 4 times a day
-
@mn5 said in England v Australia:
@canefan said in England v Australia:
To be fair a quick read of the article mentions Stuart Barnes and Sir Clive both went on record to say Owen was damn lucky. Not quite as strong as the 'All Blacks shamelessly cynical' narrative
Jesus Christ. That's like a broken clock being right 4 times a day
Still be twice. Those two in the same room for long enough would have their cycles in sync.
-
-
The little clip made me notice something in the SA tackle that made things even more obviously a penalty. Shoulder Boy actually points the point of his shoulder directly at the ball carrier before going in. At that moment you can dismiss all feeble attempts to wrap as afterthoughts.
I find Gardners 'excuse/explanation' quite bizarre. It has nothing to do with using both arms to wrap, it is whether the impacting shoulder was connected to a wrapping arm. Judge it on the reason shoulder charges aren't permitted - the safety aspect of a shoulder point impact.
-
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
-
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly. -
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
-
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
-
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
Again, it is the inconsistency that grates. Some decisions get commented on, others are treated like a state secret. It appears from the outside that it all depends on who your mates are.
I doubt anyone wants a post game post mortem but there are ways by which they can convey that they aim for perfection but accept that errors will happen.
WR could learn a lot from the big US sports. NFL has quick clear decisions that everyone accepts and moves on. Each week they release an Officiating Video to the media to explain big calls.
NBA also put up post game video reviews.
Rugby TV commentary teams could also learn a lot from the US guys who don't spent half their time winding up the audience with claims of poor decisions or 50/50 calls. They let the viewer do all that themselves without adding a form of confirmation or (Justin Marshall) adding their own interpretation of the laws into the mix.
The game has been pro for over 20 years but doesn't act like it sometimes. -
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@crucial said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
It all comes down to the process and the expectations that WR keep changing on these guys. I have some sympathy for AG as the refs still don't seem to be making decisions based on the same evidence everyone at home sees.
We don't like it when the TMO makes the decision, we don't like it if the ref makes a call without the TMO input and we don't like it when the ref ignores the TMO.
It is up to WR to stop fiddling with the process all the time but come up with a clear understandable way of reviewing decisions. Cricket managed to do it in a shorter period and now even if the decision is slightly debateable you know the process has been followed properly.This. Plus the refs never know when someone at World Rugby is going to publicly criticise their performance and tell everyone the ref got a crucial call wrong.
Certainly World Rugby is run by incompetent amateurs.
@mikethesnow said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
Same. If a player can fool a ref because the ref doesn't know the laws, I kinda think they shouldn't be promoted.
-
@mikethesnow said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
I didn't know you were on the board of World Rugby Mike? It normally takes more than just a taste for gin.
-
@catogrande said in England v Australia:
@mikethesnow said in England v Australia:
@antipodean said in England v Australia:
Sad reflection on World Rugby when Gardner is considered the best referee.
By whom?
Certainly not me.
I didn't know you were on the board of World Rugby Mike? It normally takes more than just a taste for gin.
