OT - Rugby World Cup

[Growltigger]

Right, some teams have now got through to the quarter finals. Who do we think is going to win the World Cup.

And by the way, for you Americans and other aliens out there, rugby is a very interesting and exciting contact sport and is played by gentlemen with odd shaped balls

[oleg]

New Zealand.

[Unknown_Enemy]

Final : Rage collective will crush United Floras.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
And by the way, for you Americans and other aliens out there, rugby is a very interesting and exciting contact sport and is played by gentlemen with odd shaped balls <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You might be surprised to know that there is a rather active amateur rugby community here in the DC area. You see lots of cars with bumper stickers that read "Give Blood - Play Rugby". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[gravey101]

England.

[oleg]

Originally posted by gravey101:
England. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fat chance. I'll bet on Frogies in semis. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[minipol]

Dunno who's going to win but i'm rooting for New Zealand. Gotta love that Maori Battle dance.
Go All Blacks!

[oleg]

Originally posted by minipol:
... i'm rooting for New Zealand. Gotta love that Maori Battle dance.
Go All Blacks! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Samoa has a good one too. I pitty England and other Nothern nations who has no classy show ups !

[Baron Grazic]

Reigning Champs, Home Team advantage, and my biased opinion - it has got to be the Ozzies. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Canada!

despite not even knowing if we're in.

[pathfinder]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
Right, some teams have now got through to the quarter finals. Who do we think is going to win the World Cup.

And by the way, for you Americans and other aliens out there, rugby is a very interesting and exciting contact sport and is played by gentlemen with odd shaped balls <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, a few of us Americans do have an idea...played #8 for several local US Army teams back when I had a working pair. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Baron Grazic]

Hi Narf - Canada is in, but are yet to win a match, with their Last match tomorrow night against Tonga.

Wales defeated Canada - 41-10
New Zealand defeated Canada - 68-6
Italy defeated Canada 19-14

[narf poit chez BOOM]

well, despite my having about the same interest in sports as i do in bungee jumping, i have to say 'that sucks'.

[Joachim]

If Johnny gets is kicking back right then England are still the Favs, as much as I hate saying that as an Aussie.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Originally posted by Growltigger:
And by the way, for you Americans and other aliens out there, rugby is a very interesting and exciting contact sport and is played by gentlemen with odd shaped balls <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">You might be surprised to know that there is a rather active amateur rugby community here in the DC area. You see lots of cars with bumper stickers that read "Give Blood - Play Rugby". http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">OH Ya, Rugby is alive and well in DC. Now there is a sport for the young and manly. For us old guys, it’s more of a trial by contact.

[Growltigger]

Yippee, good responses and interesting to see a non-partisan impartial Australian.

My personal view is that New Zealand have to be the favourites, unless Australia shake themselves down sufficiently and provided that England sort themselves out. If the English can, and if Mr Wilkinson's right foot can regain its magic touch, then we, I mean, England should be the favourites.

Still, it means this World Cup is damn finger-nail-chewing-seat-of-the-pants-stuff!!

And as for the hakas, did anyone see the All Black/Tongan game. The sight of 30 large Polynesians doing their hakas at each other is frankly enough to really make the bowels loosen.

Anyone ever wonder why these South Sea Islanders, used to palm trees and sun-kissed beaches, love getting it on in a game more associated with damp northern skies, mud and rain??

And Narf, the Canadians are yet to win a game, but they are tough lads who are getting better and better and better. Give it a few more years and maybe an Antipodean coach and your boys will be contenders with the best of them. After all, see how the Italians have come on since they joined the 6 Nations

[narf poit chez BOOM]

what's antipodean? i couldn't find it in the dictionary.

[Alneyan]

Either a resident of the poles or something diametrically opposed. I believe it would be an Aussie or a Kiwi in this specific case.

Hmm, not sure who will win, but as long as France is defeated. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Perhaps even France - England, with the victory of the latter. Then the comments in France about this defeat could be interesting. *Smirks*

[ October 28, 2003, 16:42: Message edited by: Alneyan ]

[Growltigger]

Narf, Alneyan is partially right, "Antipodean" is what us English call any Australian or New Zealander, ie anyone who lives on the arse end of the planet the other side of England http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

The French are a funny old side, when they are good, they will beat anyone on their day, but like England, they often seem unable to get it together. A France/England match is always a good excuse for a bit of "Rule Brittania" etc.

Watching the World Cup, you have to give credit to the outsider teams such as Georgia, Uruguay, Japan, Canada, USA and the like. They dont half not give up fighting. A few more years and the World Cup 2007 could well be a really excellent display of hard matched rugby.

The next exciting match will be South Africa/Samoa. Watch this space for some anti-South African sentiments

[oleg]

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
well, despite my having about the same interest in sports as i do in bungee jumping, i have to say 'that sucks'. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Canada beat Tonga 24:7 !

[Growltigger]

Alneyan, would I be right in saying that you are of the French persuasion?

You were partially right because you didn't extend antipodean to include people from the f-arse side of the planet, but being French (if you are), I would not expect you to understand all "ros beouf" nuances.

I hope things do work out that England meet the French in the World Cup, it will just be like Agincourt, Poitiers and Crecy all over again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Alneyan]

I believe it would be an Aussie or a Kiwi in this specific case. <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Sorry, I have to quote myself, I know, it is so pretentious... If you don't like these nicknames, then replace Aussie by Australian and Kiwi by New-Zealander. I still fail to see the difference between our two Posts then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Now, the question is, what country(ies) is(are) at the antipodes of Canada? *Smirks*

I do hope France loses against England, as the comments after such a result are really entertaining. Like Last year, during the World Cup, but that's another story.

Incidentally, in France, the battle is called "Azincourt", while according to the inhabitants of Albion, it is "Agincourt". (You aren't alone to write "Agincourt", the Britannica is spelling this way as well, among other sources) However, both cities exist, which is quite a problem. Even when it comes to locating a battle, it seems like France and England cannot reach an agreement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ October 29, 2003, 13:27: Message edited by: Alneyan ]

[Growltigger]

what countries are the antipodes of Canada? I dunno, I suspect a large patch of ocean probably (somewhere wet and smelling of fish and guano?).

If the French and the English cannot agree where something is, the best answer is to have another battle!!

Aussie, Kiwi, New Zealander, Australian, all the same to me, but we will also use the phrase "Antipodean" to describe anyone else from the nearby vicinity eg Fijians, Tongans etc

[gravey101]

I believe the French also have a different name for Waterloo do they not? I also vaguely recall reading somewhere that they are convinced they won... :-)

[Growltigger]

Gravey101, wouldn't surprise me one bit for our Gallic chums to assume that Waterloo was actually just an adjunct to Charlerois and Ligny where they beat the British and the Prussians just before getting royally cucumbered at Waterloo!

Keep in mind that the modern French still dont think even Caesar conquered them, they believe Asterix is the truth and that all of Gaul may well have been conquered, but a small village of indomitable gauls still held out against the invader, mainly through the use of magic potion!!

[Alneyan]

Agincourt is in the east of France, not too far from Alsace, while Azincourt is closer to Calais. I would believe the latter is the most likely then. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Waterloo is known as Waterloo in France, everything is fine here. And it would be hard to dissemble this defeat into a major victory. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Growltigger]

Yeah, but what about Asterix then!?? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Alneyan]

I have never heard of someone believing Asterix is true, the explanation is easy enough: do you believe a French would have helped another English? No, that's impossible, France would have attacked England along with Caesar then! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Still, Asterix helps England to repel a roman offensive. Why would a French do that is an open question. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by gravey101:
I believe the French also have a different name for Waterloo do they not? I also vaguely recall reading somewhere that they are convinced they won... :-) <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Wrong and wrong.

[Growltigger]

Because Asterix knew that we had captured Maurice Chevalier and Sacha Distel and were threatening to give them back to you if you did not help us!!

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Alneyan:
I have never heard of someone believing Asterix is true, the explanation is easy enough: do you believe a French would have helped another English? No, that's impossible, France would have attacked England along with Caesar then! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Still, Asterix helps England to repel a roman offensive. Why would a French do that is an open question. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Silly question.
Of course only an english cannot understand that if Asterix had not stopped the roman invasion, then there would have had no glory left for Guillaume Le Batard in his conquest of UK.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Alneyan]

*Cough* You do know I am French UE, don't you? *Cough* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But your explanation would require the use of Temporal devices in order to know William the Conqueror would conquer England eleven centuries later.

Therefore, France must master the field of Temporal Studies, at least to a certain extent. Either that, or France would hate to see another country conquering England, as this is their privilege. (Or rather, *attempting* to do so that is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Your own hypothetis Growltigger also implies the use of some Temporal device, comforting one of the possibilities. Then you may want to ask why France did not use its Temporal knowledge during other battles, for such an asset would have meant victory. It was, obviously, to keep this secret... erh secret. *Grumbles, that explanation is really lame. But it will have to do*

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Alneyan:
*Cough* You do know I am French UE, don't you? *Cough* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But your explanation would require the use of Temporal devices in order to know William the Conqueror would conquer England eleven centuries later.

Therefore, France must master the field of Temporal Studies, at least to a certain extent. Either that, or France would hate to see another country conquering England, as this is their privilege. (Or rather, *attempting* to do so that is. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif )

Your own hypothetis Growltigger also implies the use of some Temporal device, comforting one of the possibilities. Then you may want to ask why France did not use its Temporal knowledge during other battles, for such an asset would have meant victory. It was, obviously, to keep this secret... erh secret. *Grumbles, that explanation is really lame. But it will have to do* <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">It is absolutely obvious that the temporal device was lost by Panoramix on his death. For ignoring such evidence, you deserve to be English. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Alneyan]

Really? I would rather be English if you ask me, but sadly you cannot choose your mother country. (Unlike in RPGs, but I digress)

Could you please explain how someone able to travel through time would die? I mean, if he was getting old, he could simply shift back to his childhood and then travel forth in time to another period. And if someone killed him, he could prevent the birth of that given individual. Therefore, a being able to travel through time cannot die, if he is clever enough. *Hint hint* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ October 29, 2003, 15:24: Message edited by: Alneyan ]

[Growltigger]

And I believe we are also looking at cross-culturals differences in the Asterix comics as well!?

Panoramix? who is he? I think us WASPS call him Getafix!

As to William, well, being Norman, he wasn't really French was he, more like Norse I think, and as us English say, the Normans may have beaten the Saxons on Senlac Hill, but it was the French (Brettonian) wing that routed!!!

Before I go home, I should throw in the true-Anglo dig that only by using some form of temporal device would allow the French to beat the English http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

and by the way, you can keep Maurice Chevalier and Sacha Distel, provided we get to keep Beatrice Dahl, Sophie Marceau, Leatitia Casta, Catherine Deneuve (in her younger days) and Tabitha Cash

[Unknown_Enemy]

Originally posted by Alneyan:
Really? I would rather be English if you ask me, but sadly you cannot choose your mother country. (Unlike in RPGs, but I digress)

Could you please explain how someone able to travel through time would die? I mean, if he was getting old, he could simply shift back to his childhood and then travel forth in time to another period. And if someone killed him, he could prevent the birth of that given individual. Therefore, a being able to travel through time cannot die, if he is clever enough. *Hint hint* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, maybe Panoramix was the Time Traveller, except that he solved the temporel paradox.

[Alneyan]

Well, it seems logical the names are different in the case of Asterix. It makes much more sense than changing the location of a battle. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif (Agincourt wasn't probably in France in those days)

Erh, UE, do you know all these people that are held captive in Albion? I don't know one or two of these. But at any rate, I, in the name of the French Republic, must regretfully decline your proposition, as we strongly believe your two current hostages love England. *Thinks* And while they are busy toying with their hostages, we will try to invade England once again, as it is the first step of my plan.

Erh, I seem to recall we were speaking of rugby, weren't we? Hopefully, England will play against France, the former being victorious. (How to make friends with about 60 million people in a few seconds)

[Alneyan]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
Narf, Alneyan is partially right, "Antipodean" is what us English call any Australian or New Zealander, ie anyone who lives on the arse end of the planet the other side of England http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Out of idle curiosity, why was I only "partially" right? I said basically the same thing, well, except for the designation of these inhabitants. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I gather you cannot say a French is perfectly right without feeling various physical discomforts. (Nausea, vertigo, migraine perhaps) Am I right? *Smirks before running away, just in case* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Growltigger]

Alneyan, turning back to the rugby, I think it is quite possible that England will play France, and I hope that it will be a good match.

Both of those teams can, on their day, beat anyone in the World so I am looking forward to a damn fine game matching Gallic flair against English discipline and power.

As to the French invading England, I come from Canterbury, and am well used to being invaded on a regular basis every summer by screaming hordes of French school children!

[minipol]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
I hope things do work out that England meet the French in the World Cup, it will just be like Agincourt, Poitiers and Crecy all over again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ouch trying to pick a fight with the frogs? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Luckily we Belgians do not play rugby at professional level so we are safe in this thread http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Baron Grazic]

Well it is going to be a huge long-weekend for sports in Melbourne this weekend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

First we have Derby Day at the Races, with other horse racing events following each day until the climax on Tuesday.

At the MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground) the Australian and Irish National Football teams go head-to-head in the 'Internation Rules Series', which is a mix of AFL Football & Irish football

At "The Dome" we have the Rugby World Cup, where Australia is playing the Irish, and I beleive both teams will get into the finials win or loose.

And to finish off the long weekend on Tuesday, we have the "Race that stops the Nation"! The famous "Melbourne Cup" horse race, in which an Irish horse is also suppose to run.

The Irish Pubs are going to make a years profit from this one weekend. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[ October 30, 2003, 21:49: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

[minipol]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
Gravey101, wouldn't surprise me one bit for our Gallic chums to assume that Waterloo was actually just an adjunct to Charlerois and Ligny where they beat the British and the Prussians just before getting royally cucumbered at Waterloo!

Keep in mind that the modern French still dont think even Caesar conquered them, they believe Asterix is the truth and that all of Gaul may well have been conquered, but a small village of indomitable gauls still held out against the invader, mainly through the use of magic potion!! <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hey hey hey! The Belgians (rather the tribes living in the part that is now Belgium) where the Last to stand up to Caesar while the other Gauls tribes where already conquered.
Caesar described our ancestors as "the bravest among the Gaul".
Quote: "Belgae Gallorum Fortissimi"

We might not know how to play rugby but there. lalalalala http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ October 30, 2003, 12:02: Message edited by: minipol ]

[Growltigger]

Baron, to be sure they will, to be sure.

Hmmmm, let me think about this. I am not sure what sport Belgians are actually good at. Their football team is, well, OK. THey have a couple of tennis players who do, well, OK, but do you know, I cannot think of one sport where the Belgians excel, except the one done near Leige where you have to guess at what time a cow in a paddock is going to releive itself (I kid you not).

Maybe if they introduce international mussel eating they would be in with a chance

[oleg]

Did you guys watch NZ-Wales game ? It was definetly the best game so far on this WC !

[Joachim]

Yep, NZ Wales was a great game. Equal to Samoa England in terms of sheer entertainment. Perhaps the easy way to balance the teams a bit more is to cut game time to 60 minutes instead of 80. I note that the lessor teams can compete till about then but then the superior training (ie money and time) of the core nations comes into its own.

[Growltigger]

Joachim, that is not a bad idea.

My personal view is that the game time should be left at 80 minutes, as it over the longer period that the core nations show their mettle.

Wales did incredibly well, good effort from them but being English, I am satisfied that they lost as it means we face them next Sunday, and I would rather that than the All Blacks any time!

To assuage Welsh pride and to mirror their excellent performance though, I wish the Kiwis had onl won by 1 point, or that the match was drawn. We would then still be facing Wales, but the mighty All Blacks would have been further unsettled!

[Alneyan]

England made it along with France, as planned. Next sunday the match will be England-France, and obviously England will won that one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Growltigger]

Alneyan, we dont know that England will win.

On our current performance, the French will take us apart and rightly so.

I hear that the Australian bookies are making France the favourites to win that match.

We will see what we will see. Sunday here we come.

Come on the Brits!!!! Boo to the French types

[Alneyan]

Obviously, England will win. They merely played quite poorly so that France thinks England are no match. They will see they were overconfident soon enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif I wish it will be so.

Do you realize what will happen if France were to win? I mean, England defeated by France! I cannot quite imagine that. (I agree, I was quite worried by the match Last week to say the least. *Grumbles*)

[oleg]

**** ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif How couls All Blacks play so badly ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif This weekend is ruined, who cares who will win tomorow, the only beatiful team is out already. Black day for rugby. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Baron Grazic]

G'Day Oleg,
I am waiting to see how happy you will be when the Ozzies beat the English team in the finial. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Alneyan]

Originally posted by Baron Grazic:
G'Day Oleg,
I am waiting to see how happy you will be when the Ozzies beat the English team in the finial. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We will see, I have yet to decipher the tides of time to see what is the result of this match. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif The result is not as obvious as in the case of England - France. *Smirks* A close victory for England, that is my own bet. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[oleg]

Originally posted by Growltigger:
Englandddd Engalllaannd Enggaaallaanndddd

Sings (with hand gestures) "Swing Loooooooooo, sweet charrrrriootttttttt, cummin' 4-2 carry me hoooommmmmmeee"

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Patriotic issue aside, I don't understand your exitment http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/confused.gif This English team is a sham. They play football, not rugby. No courage and no ability to carry the ball over the the line. For what I care, England lost 1:3 to Wales in quaters and 0:1 to France. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif If England beat Wallabies in the same fasion, I'll give up on Rugby Union and watch American Football. At least they flash that part of the human body. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

[Baron Grazic]

Oleg hit the nail on the head on what people are saying over here. Why even attempt for a 'try' when you can just kick the ball and win the match?

I'll stick with my AFL if that is the case.

[Growltigger]

Englandddd Engalllaannd Enggaaallaanndddd

Sings (with hand gestures) "Swing Loooooooooo, sweet charrrrriootttttttt, cummin' 4-2 carry me hoooommmmmmeee"

Yippee, Les Bleus are now Les Cocks and are on their way home due to the English ability to play tactical rugby in a monsoon. I bet Michalak feels a mighty bit narked at the moment.

Seriously, good game and good to see the English simple cummin at'cha and grinding the French down.

But as for Mr Dominici, cheating rascal trying to hit Billy Whizz like that - not simple the done thing you know.

As for the Aussie/Kiwi bash, the Aussies upped their game when they needed to, came on like a freight train and on that performance, would have taken out ANY team in the competition. The kiwis couldn't get into it, but hey ho, the Kiwi/French game on Thursday will be a corker, as both teams have pride to play for.

As to the final, dunno. The Wallabies looked awesome, but they took a lot of injuries to get that victory. I hear the bookies are currently making England 7/4 favourites to win.

I think we will win, it will be close and a visciously physical game, but at the end of the day, English experience and defensive solidness will win the day.

[Growltigger]

Oleg and Baron Grazic, you play the game whatever that game will be.

The French game is not a case in point, as if you have ever played rugby union, you will know that you cant play a running game in a monsoon. You gott a play for the kicking game and that is what the boys did.

As for the kicking of Mr Wilkinson, it is an asset we have, and that is what we have used in some desparate matches.

Why is no one criticising the French given that is what exactly Michalak has been doing all tournament?? even more so than Mr Wilkinson!!

As for the passing game, that has been developing, but the English have faced some unexpectedly strong defences so have had to resort to other matters to break through.

Anything else is sour grapes?

I will not even comment on what I think of the Australian media's impartial reporting on the world cup. Read the French media, they are full of praise for England throughout the competition, even Eddie Jones has been saying how well England have been playing in their respective games.

We will wait and see what happens on Saturday.

[Growltigger]

Oleg and Baron Grazic,

A few facts to enlighten you. I was reading the paper this morning and an interesting fact came out, following on from the Australian media's repeated denounciation of English rugby for being boring because of our reliance on kicking, and that we score too few tries.

The article was interesting, the author had undertaken research at the Last two year's data, and the result was that England have scored more tries per game on average than Australia, and a higher percentage of English points have been as a result of tries.

Hmmm, may be the Aussie media should just shut up!

[oleg]

Sure, the one and the only objective is to win the game. Nobody argues with it. But may be we should consider some changes to the rules to make game more exciting ? I have nothing against drop-goals, it is a pleuforia of penalties I don't like. Scoring points should be something more challenging than kikick the ball after some minor infringement in the scrum !! Why not move the scrum 5 yards forward, something akin to American football rules ? Or award more free kicks ? It is just a profanity of the game when all the scoring is due to referee desisions and not by teams. Just MHO.

[Growltigger]

I dont disagree with you Oleg but I think penalty decisions like moving the scrum forward 5 yards will favour those teams with powerful scrums.

My personal view is that you need the penalty kick in order to incentivise teams not to foul, but what you should do, IMHO, is make tries worth a lot more than 5 points, maybe 8 or 9 points and conVersion worth 3.

Tries then become paramount, and you would need an awful lot of infringements to make it match.

I think drop goals should be worth 4 points as having played the game for years, I know how damn hard they are to do, when the opposing team is doing its best to slam you down. Kicking straight under that sort of pressure is TOUGH with a capital OUCH

[oleg]

Well, but decreasing the penalty or increasing try score will have exactly the opposite effect - bigger insentive to foul to stop the try ! But if the foul will NOT remove the possiblity of try but make it even more likely, that may work. That why I like the idea of moving the ball.

[Growltigger]

Oleg, that is actually not a bad idea. If you say that within the 22 line, any penalty gives the attacking side the option of the penalty or a scrum 5 yards forward from where the penalty occurred, then you probably would find more teams going for the try and the bigger points.

Nice idea, has anyone got Clive Woodward's email address?

[oleg]

What a game !!!!
I eat my words about England being boring. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
In fact been adventurios almost cost a title ! 3 points up, 3 minutes to go, why not keep the ball and kill the time ? By no, Johny does for glory http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
It turns up well in the end though http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

[gravey101]

yes, it was a good game. England let the Aussies back in in the second half through mistakes rather than poor play in general. I still can;t work out what that penalty was for at the end of normal time...

[oleg]

I am even more puzzled why referee took the ball out the hand of Wallabies just before that ! Sure, the guy was down but Jessus Christ !!! how could anyone think this way - "I was pushed to the ground and instead of pushing up I must play dead and release the ball" That ruling was against the very human nature and as such should promote SOME change in the rules. If I was Aussie, I would justifiably complain of Referee bias. It might be right according to rules but IMHO a blow to the very concept of sport.

All being said, England was far better team. Just MHO again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[Baron Grazic]

Originally posted by oleg:
I am even more puzzled why referee took the ball out the hand of Wallabies just before that ! Sure, the guy was down but Jessus Christ !!! how could anyone think this way - "I was pushed to the ground and instead of pushing up I must play dead and release the ball" That ruling was against the very human nature and as such should promote SOME change in the rules. If I was Aussie, I would justifiably complain of Referee bias. It might be right according to rules but IMHO a blow to the very concept of sport.

All being said, England was far better team. Just MHO again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've gotta agree with Oleg, that call was very strange.
Full credit goes to the English on the result, who, not counting the first 5 minutes of play, played better rugby most of the match.

For those people who missed the suspencefully match, this is how I saw the end game.

A minute before Full Time, with Australia 3 points down, a 'so-so' umpire call looses Australia the ball just short of the Goal line.
Australia steals the ball back and with about 30 seconds to go, kicks a Goal to tie the match.

OverTime sees the ball go from one-end of the field to the other, with England in the lead again.
A minute and a half before the end of OverTime, Australia kicks another Goal to tie the match.

With only 30 seconds to go, England gets the ball down their end of the field, the entire Australian team know the ball will be passed to Jonny Wilkinson, the English 'kicker'.
The ball pops out of the scum, and an English player (Oleg will supply a name), starts running forward with the ball, with half the Australian team already running towards Jonny Wilkinson, away from the ball.
After looking like the English could score a try, he is just taken down, after gaining 10-odd metres.
The scum forms, the Australians know, the English know, the crowd knows that Jonny will get the ball this time.
The ball pops out, its passed to Jonny, the Australian team bears down on him, he kicks a drop goal, the whistle blows and England has won the match by 3 points.

A very nice ending. Personally I would have liked it to hit the post but still a fitting end to the Rugby World Cup hosted by Australia. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[gravey101]

>I've gotta agree with Oleg, that call was very strange.

I don't think it was stange, but I think it was marginal. The rule states that if you are tackled to the ground you must release the ball. Whether or not you (or the referee) or Oleg thinks it is a 'good' rule or not is irrelevant. That's the way it is. The referee adjuged that the player was tackled to the ground and called the penalty. Could have gone either way as the guy certainly sustained some momentum through the tackle, but I don't believe it was a strange call.

>A minute before Full Time, with Australia 3 points down, a 'so-so' umpire call looses Australia the ball just short of the Goal line.
Australia steals the ball back and with about 30 seconds to go, kicks a Goal to tie the match.

I think you competely overlook a much more so-so umpiring call which actually gave the Australians the penalty for what looks to me like both teams collapsing the scrum. The English commentators could not work out what the penalty was for, and nor can I. This was a HUGE call and nearly cost England the game. To me it looked like petulance from the ref as he was heard a few seconds r(rigthly I might add) admonishing an England player for trying to tell him how call a decision. I have watched the incident a couple of times and I still have no idea what the infringment was supposed to be. Unlike his decisoins earlier in the game he made no effort to explain what the call was.

[ November 24, 2003, 03:40: Message edited by: gravey101 ]

[Baron Grazic]

It wasn't much of a tackle, if he could get up and continue running forward.

I'll agree that I don't know what that call was about either, but then again, I don't know all the rules. From what the Ozzie commentators said he was warned and 2 seconds later did the same thing in the scrum again, whatever that was.
In the end, it was an exciting game and it came right down to the wire...

[ November 24, 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: Baron Grazic ]

[Growltigger]

Great match - the Australians played fast and hard rugby and played against our weak spots. The Aussie try was beautiful, and showed our tactical error at placing 5'8'' Jason Robinson against their 6' plus backs

My personal view was that the Aussies were playing with 16 men in extra time, including that damn referee!!

My take on "that" penalty decision is as follows:

1 the England forwards were far too strong for the Aussie pack (bringing on their 3rd and 4th choice props) and it looked to me that the stronger pack were being penalised when the Aussies were raising up and breaking the scrum. This is a schoolboy error and England should have been awarded free kicks/penalties

2 Martin Johnson had been badgering the ref to penalise the Aussie number 3, who in particular, was breaking up the scrum

3 the ref took umbrage at this (rightly so in my opinion, players should not "influence" the ref) and at the next break in the scrum, awared the penalty to England, although it was the Aussie number 1 who broke it.

4 Elton Flatley proves he is the class act he is by equalising.

5 England play to their strengths (to quote Gregan, if you have the best fly-half, you use him), played for position, powered forward and got the ball to Jonny who did what he does best, and have practised countless times.

6 In summary, poor referreeing still led to the result.

Australia deserved their chances for playing hard against us, that being said, I am pleased to the Aussie media are now silenced as we scored the same number of tries as Australia, and they kicked as much as we did. Poetic justice (especially following that voodoo doll incident!!) that Mr Wilkinson delivers the coup de grace.

Great match. Great for World Rugby, great for everybody