ABs v Scotland
-
@gunner said in ABs v Scotland:
Oh and where were the endless replays and yc for the Scot who deliberately batted the ball out towards the end of the first half?
So did anyone else notice this, or was I seeing things? Surprised there has been no chat about it on here.
To me the guy clearly and deliberately batted the ball into touch.
There wasn't even one replay at the time, so maybe the hometown producer saw it too and didn't want any attention drawn to it?
-
@gunner said in ABs v Scotland:
@gunner said in ABs v Scotland:
Oh and where were the endless replays and yc for the Scot who deliberately batted the ball out towards the end of the first half?
So did anyone else notice this, or was I seeing things? Surprised there has been no chat about it on here.
To me the guy clearly and deliberately batted the ball into touch.
There wasn't even one replay at the time, so maybe the hometown producer saw it too and didn't want any attention drawn to it?
Yes I noticed it and wondered if it would be spotted - but Justin didn't mention it and therefore it didn't happen.
-
-
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
-
@taniwharugby Yep there are a number of these types of things. At the end of the day Crockett should have the experience to know there is a chance he could get pinged if he takes out the halfback, the intelligent choice would have been to just leave the 9 alone. You will often see players look to the ref before challenging a ball that comes out the back of a ruck even though it is legal.
-
@mick-gold-coast-qld said in ABs v Scotland:
Rolled gold rubbish, talisker, you are making it up.
The term is as old as "Pom" and maybe older, it has been around as long as "Kiwi" and "Mick" (for Catholics) and "Frog".
Do keep updating your records, though, on raaaacist, hurty terminology. It must be a fascinating obsession to be sure, it will keep you indoors and at a good distance from normal society.I've been wondering whether or not to bother replying, but it was niggling at me, so I'll give it a go.
The antiquity of an epithet doesn't make it valid, there are some very old words that are now illegal and using them in a place of work would get you sacked. So I refute that point completely.
Second, it's not about being over sensitive or being a "snowflake", it's about being a grown man in the 21st century and acting like it.
Words carry all sorts of baggage with them, it's not for those punching down to "mansplain" to someone that they shouldn't take offence at a lazy slur.I don't know if you are aware of a newspaper called the Daily Mail, but it's basically a daily newsletter for the Anglo-centric, borderline racist, homophobic culturally stunted wingnuts who hark back to some mythical time from the 1950s where everything was better (I won't go too far into this, but it's a myth, that time never existed).
Anyway, that paper is often found waling about political correctness and why can't I be an ignorant fuckwit any more?
Any defence of stereotypes and slurs can be found in places like the Daily Mail, it's 70 years out of date.I'll conclude by saying that we in Scotland have our own problems regarding bigotry between two sections of the community, but we don't have an epithet for English people (don't let anyone tell you Sassenach is an insult, no one has used that for decades and it means Saxon, there are variants of the same word in Welsh, Irish, Cornish and Breton).
The dismissive one-word put down works one way, that's why I and most Scots reject it. There might have been one or some, but I don't know of any Scot who would refer to "us Jocks", that alone should be enough to act like an adult and accept it as a thing of the past. -
@hydro11 I don't think Read is a patch on the captain McCaw became.
I was impressed with Sam Whitelock this year.
-
@talisker to be fair, what is deemed racist / offensive in modern, overtly PC, lets take offense to anything we can, Britain does differ somewhat to what is deemed acceptable in New Zealand / Australia.
Poms, Paki's are 2 things I regularly used in NZ which I found were not deemed offensive at all in NZ, which had different meanings over here. I've not heard that Jock was in that category, and if so, then I'll be sure to not use it in conversation here.
But lets be clear, that this place is rather light heartened, and shouldn't really be taken seriously. I mean, have you read some of the points of view and thoughts .... ?
-
Well well, good on the Scots for taking it to us. And boy, did they take it to us. Reality is that we played as well as we could, and we struggled to get into the game. They just wouldn't let us, they were smart, fast, intense and only the final execution let them down. We took more of our chances than they did, and hence we won. I also think that the measure of a game in inches these days, is very accurate ... if Taylors pass had gone to hand, and not been intercepted, it would have been game over, shut the gate and probably ended a 25-15 sort of scoreline ... not indicative of the game, but typical of the way we have toured up north recently.
I must say though, we look absolutely buggered and ready for a break. It's been a huge season. IF you think back to the Lions test 1, that's 5 months ago, and it's been intense rugby ever since. It's been Lions, Lions, Lions, super rugby finals, 6 games of RC (including round the world travel), another game vs ozz, fly around the world, baaabaas, france, france, scotland ... - thats a lot to take, and I think the guys are done. There's a huge window for the Welsh this weekend if our execution isn't spot on - and I've no reason to think it will be honestly. Read looks poked - lots of talk about his form, but blimey, read the above and you an see why!!
Another interesting stat ... 4 games played up north so far, 4 wins, and 4 MOTM Going to the opposition team. A sign of blinkered NH commentary, a sign of the AB's being a sum of their parts > players, or a sign of the (begrudgingly high) pedestal the AB's are put on that anybody who plays decent against is immediately MOTM?
probably a combo of all 4, but and interesting stat, none the less.
-
@antipodean Big challenge for Read definitely, although with getting away with shit like that he's showing promise, many years to go yet, Read's good but not quite the best cheat ever.
-
@taniwharugby said in ABs v Scotland:
@hydro11 looked more like he was swatting a fly, so that mitigates him hitting the ball.
As I said elsewhere, Crockett being pinged for playing the 9 without the ball was wrong, regardless of what the 9 is allowed to do, his hands were on the ball so therefore not played without the ball.
This is an area they need to clear up, touching it and taking your hands away seems to be quite a popular thing in the NH at moment.
Technically he doesn't have the ball unless it leaves the turf. Annoys me a lot as many 9s are taking the piss with their new found freedom. Crockett had to go, that was blatant
-
@talisker I take on board your reply to Mick's post and respect same. Though I would argue that the term Jock is, the same as Paddy, Taffy not used as an insult, certainly less so than say Frog or Yank. Neither is the rhyming slang variants such as Sweaty or Septic. However I can appreciate that the perception could easily be different dependant upon whether you are on the receiving end or not. However the example that I would cite comes from probably the biggest melting pot in UK society, the armed forces. Here, where you get guys from all over the British Isles being flung in together, casual nicknames based on where you are from or what your surname is are virtually de rigeur and not an insult.
But as you find the term offensive, I will not call you by that term and I will endeavour not to use it in threads you are commenting on. Not trying to be a prick here, just showing respect.
-
@kiwipie Yeah that was MvJ's sentiment, I was incensed but even though his hands were on it he didn't pick it up. And I quote
"Yes, bit of a tough one because the halfback perhaps could have played the ball the first time but fumbled on someone's boot as he went to pick it up. But it is not like he dummied or anything. Crockett is a penalty magnet.
Any competent referee would penalise that.
The halfback gets the benefit of the doubt there, remembering the referee doesn't have slow motion replays. With those things (ditto clear releases etc) then the approach is "if I'd have to watch in slow motion to see if what you did might actually be OK, then it's not OK."
I reckon Crockett would have been fine if the other Scotsman's boot wasn't there.
edit emebed wont star at 38:39 for some reason... -
@bovidae said in ABs v Scotland:
@stargazer said in ABs v Scotland:
Scotland in. WTF Why didn't Rieko tackle?
Rieko was a passenger in the last 10 mins as he seemed to be favouring his right arm.
I've had that injury. Couldn't even brush my hair. No wonder he wasn't tackling.
-
@hydro11 said in ABs v Scotland:
Have people seen the Read incident? Seriously what an idiot. He should have gone to the bin as well. You need a lot better from a captain in those circumstances.
Ref was an idiot: the Scotties scored then. A microsecond of further advantage ...
Also Barrett was not off side at that scrum.
-
I don't want to be a dick about this either, and this will be my last on the subject, the term itself is irritating rather than offensive, I'm speaking for myself, there are others who feel more strongly than I do.
What is offensive is to be told to suck it up.
