Wallabies v France 3
-
-
@toddy said in Wallabies v France 3:
How did the Welsh react to Warburton's red card during 2011? I know Warburton has a whinge about it in his autobiography.
no no no, the Welsh are far too intelligent for that
you just confused the accent.
-
Ah yeah, you're right that fans and media are one-eyed and biased the whole world over. Didn't mean to imply this was an exclusively Aussie trait. But I reckon that the lack of balance and intelligence in the TV coverage is worse here than other places I've seen. And combined with the fact that people, generally, don't have as in depth knowledge - which is understandable since union is not the major sport here - makes the problem bigger and self-perpetuating.
I'll admit that Welsh fans are as rabid and one-eyed as anyone. But take Sam Warburton's red card in the 2011 RWC semifinal - that could have been a yellow on another day, and I'm very confident we would have won if it was. Most Welsh fans will, through gritted teeth, admit that a red was reasonable if a little unlucky. Because the TV didn't rant and rave about was an appalling injustice it was and how it was the death of rugby. I reckon if that happened to the Wallabies they'd still be talking about taking it to CAS in Lausanne.
-
-
@toddy
Ha, I didn't see this until after I posted above.My short answer is "better than the Aussies would have". Given that it was the (joint) biggest game in the history of Welsh rugby, and it was a bit of an unlucky call, I'd say they / we took it pretty well. I haven't read Warbs' book, but elsewhere he's been been very magnanimous and has said he had no complaints with the ref's decision.
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
Ah yeah, you're right that fans and media are one-eyed and biased the whole world over. Didn't mean to imply this was an exclusively Aussie trait. But I reckon that the lack of balance and intelligence in the TV coverage is worse here than other places I've seen.
I think it's gotten much better since Phil Kearns has left the commentary box.
He was genuinely obsessed with refereeing injustice, and would harp on the whole game about missed decisions, or wrong decisions.
Since his departure I find the instances of 'they've been offside all day' has gone way down.
-
@barbarian I'm 100% with you on that one, it was always hard going watching a match with him on the mic
-
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
@barbarian I'm 100% with you on that one, it was always hard going watching a match with him on the mic
He became a parody of himself in the end.
In the early days it was almost revolutionary, and I think it really resonated with fans who were used to the dry Gordon Bray types who would never dare question a decision. The All Blacks really ARE offside all day! I knew it!
But then it grew to become his whole schtick, and he never saw how much it detracted from the coverage. It just ended up sounding bitter, especially when he was wrong just as much as he was right.
-
I don't actually mind a biased commentator too much, as long as it's balanced by the rest of the team. If Kearns was being Kearns, but someone else had the balls to call him out when he was talking shite it might be OK. But when the whole team just agrees on everything all the time, it's a bit much. Especially when they're objectively wrong.
-
The NZ coverage is diabolical as well as you'd note reading the AB game threads. The comms, who don't even seem to have a basic understanding of the laws, are constantly bitching about them and disagreeing with the ref decisions etc. It's really tiresome to listen to - rugby is a dynamic, fluid game that is an absolute spectacle to watch if you take it for what it is and don't constantly sweat the small stuff. It's nearly impossible to ref - the best refs like Owen's aren't the best because they apply the law to the letter, they are the best because they have a great, undefinable, "feel" for the game and allow it to flow.
I do wish comms and the media would stop bitching about micro decisions and spend more time celebrating the game and the insane skill levels and commitment of the players on display.
-
@crucial said in Wallabies v France 3:
@mikethesnow said in Wallabies v France 3:
@cgrant said in Wallabies v France 3:
While this was a B or C rated French team, the same could nearly apply to the Wallabies.
They were missing JOC and Jordan Petaia, but also Kurtley Beale, Isaac Rodda, R. Arnold, Will Skelton, Samu Kerevi, just to name a few.I think 15 v 14 was the bigger takeaway
The missing player was a winger. Easy to adjust defensively for that loss and although it may remove some attacking options and firepower, again it's not super difficult unless all plays were 'get the ball to that guy'.
Harder work and more concentration required for sure and kudos to them for dealing with it well.
Certainly dealt with it better than the ABs did in Perth when they just played without a lock for 10 minutes then swapped a loosie for a lock. Would have made much more sense to ditch a wing and played with 8 forwards.
You are selling the Wallabies WAY short there. Any team can sub their wing off to cover other positions if they lose a player, but they rarely do as it's hard to score points without your number 1 attacking threat. Winning a test match, a decider at that where the other team is 100% determined to get the W, with 14 men for 75 minutes is nothing short of remarkable. Hyperbolic words like "heroic" actually apply in this case.
-
@no-quarter said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial said in Wallabies v France 3:
@mikethesnow said in Wallabies v France 3:
@cgrant said in Wallabies v France 3:
While this was a B or C rated French team, the same could nearly apply to the Wallabies.
They were missing JOC and Jordan Petaia, but also Kurtley Beale, Isaac Rodda, R. Arnold, Will Skelton, Samu Kerevi, just to name a few.I think 15 v 14 was the bigger takeaway
The missing player was a winger. Easy to adjust defensively for that loss and although it may remove some attacking options and firepower, again it's not super difficult unless all plays were 'get the ball to that guy'.
Harder work and more concentration required for sure and kudos to them for dealing with it well.
Certainly dealt with it better than the ABs did in Perth when they just played without a lock for 10 minutes then swapped a loosie for a lock. Would have made much more sense to ditch a wing and played with 8 forwards.
You are selling the Wallabies WAY short there. Any team can sub their wing off to cover other positions if they lose a player, but they rarely do as it's hard to score points without your number 1 attacking threat. Winning a test match, a decider at that where the other team is 100% determined to get the W, with 14 men for 75 minutes is nothing short of remarkable. Hyperbolic words like "heroic" actually apply in this case.
“Gold is tried by fire, brave men by big forwards” – Seneca
“It doesn’t take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle without a winger.” – Norman Schwarzkopf
"Those who say that we’re in a time when there are no heroes, they just don’t know where to look on the sports channel.” – Ronald Reagan -
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
I don't actually mind a biased commentator too much, as long as it's balanced by the rest of the team. If Kearns was being Kearns, but someone else had the balls to call him out when he was talking shite it might be OK. But when the whole team just agrees on everything all the time, it's a bit much. Especially when they're objectively wrong.
Applies to the modern Aussie cricket commentary as well, unfortunately. Maybe it's deliberate - they know local viewers are their audience, but the one eyed hyperbole and thrash wanking gets a bit much at times.
What annoys me more is the selective replaying of 'incidents' on the field. That shit is just plain wrong
-
@nzzp
Agree. It's also very short term thinking.Rugby is complex. But is it too complex? That depends on the knowledge level of the audience. As a commentator, you could put in a bit of effort to explain what's happening, and over the course of a few years the audience's understanding - and therefore appreciation - of the game will build.
Or you can go the Fox Sport clickbait outrage route, and just complain that the game is too complex and every ref is incompetent and your team just got shafted. You'll probably get some good short term engagement. But over time, people will get sick of the game and turn off.
-
I think commentators are a reflection of the knowledge in their general community. It comes as no surprise to find that commentators are wrong, biased and driven by perceived grievance. Even among people I know who love rugby their knowledge of the laws and their application is poor. The general public are ignorant beyond belief.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v France 3:
I think commentators are a reflection of the knowledge in their general community. It comes as no surprise to find that commentators are wrong, biased and driven by perceived grievance. Even among people I know who love rugby their knowledge of the laws and their application is poor. The general public are ignorant beyond belief.
You sound like a right snob.
-
@frank said in Wallabies v France 3:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v France 3:
I think commentators are a reflection of the knowledge in their general community. It comes as no surprise to find that commentators are wrong, biased and driven by perceived grievance. Even among people I know who love rugby their knowledge of the laws and their application is poor. The general public are ignorant beyond belief.
You sound like a right snob.
I don't have to be a snob to generally know wtf I'm talking about.
-
@frank said in Wallabies v France 3:
@antipodean said in Wallabies v France 3:
I think commentators are a reflection of the knowledge in their general community. It comes as no surprise to find that commentators are wrong, biased and driven by perceived grievance. Even among people I know who love rugby their knowledge of the laws and their application is poor. The general public are ignorant beyond belief.
You sound like a right snob.
It’s the fern way. We’re better than everyone else.
-
@antipodean said in Wallabies v France 3:
I think commentators are a reflection of the knowledge in their general community. It comes as no surprise to find that commentators are wrong, biased and driven by perceived grievance. Even among people I know who love rugby their knowledge of the laws and their application is poor. The general public are ignorant beyond belief.
Sure, but sooooo many people just repeat what they've heard from the commentators who they (rightly, but falsely) think would be informed and of sound opinion.
As has been said, I don't think it's the sole domain of Aussies though, the NZ coms (especially Nisbo and Marshall) are particularly poor in this aspect, but I find the NH comms (apart from idiot Welsh sideline punters) aren't nearly as bad - I typically only watch test rugby there though.
Nisbo and Marshall have got so bad I'm tempted to just skip buying rugbypass for the rest of the year and look for "alternatives". Not interested in paying sky to keep on such a poor commentary pair.
-
@nzzp Shane Warne takes 'the tears of Kearns' commentary style to the next level. Bloke is an absolute legend of the game but man he is a terrible commentator.
Fascinated to learn that 'the head visibly moving backwards from the contact point' can constitute an illegal tackle and a red card. I would have thought his happens every other tackle.
If that is the case it seems MK is staring down a lengthy ban which is a major blow for us. I still think even if he smacked him straight in the head there is mitigation. They are both bent very low. But relying on mitigation is a serious roll of the dice given how inconsistent reffing is at the moment.
